Militant Atheism

[leibowde84]

"For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism." Karl Marx

No one is 'blaming' atheism in general for communism, they are saying that it was an essential part of traditional communism and therefore inseparable from traditional communism, in the specific case of traditional communism.

Do you agree that atheism was a fundamental part of traditional communism, and that because atheism was a fundamental part of traditional communism then this justified violence against religious people and institutions?

Atheism can be a philosophical position, and philosophical positions can be used to justify further action. Agree?

If not, why?

Atheism is an essential part of communism, as it is an important tool for it. But, atheism is in no way connected with communism. It doesn't go both ways. That's my point.

Theism has been used many times as a justification for violence. Far more so than atheism, in actuality. So I fail to see any significance.

 

[outhouse]

Theism has been used many times as a justification for violence. Far more so than atheism, in actuality. So I fail to see any significance.

The significance is in that desperate theist are often looking for any chance to justify their faith by pointing out any negative aspect of those with different opinions of said faith.


This is another ad nauseam attack on atheism using desperate and erroneous examples that apply more directly to philosophy behind economics and political control. By some with little understanding of their own theism let alone taking pot shots at atheism they don't have the first clue about.

 

[Augustus]

Atheism is an essential part of communism, as it is an important tool for it. But, atheism is in no way connected with communism. It doesn't go both ways. That's my point.

Theism has been used many times as a justification for violence. Far more so than atheism, in actuality. So I fail to see any significance.

Atheism is both 'an essential part of' and 'in no way connected to' communism?

Everyone knows most atheists aren't communists, the point is that the philosophical position of atheism can be used to support violence. Just as the philosophical position of theism can be used to support violence.

The simple doctrine of theism, belief that at least one god exists, is rarely if ever used to support violence. What is used to support violence is additional religious beliefs that draw their foundation from basic theism. Christianity, Islam, whatever.

The same may be true for atheism. It is not simple atheism, a rejection of theism, that causes violence, but additional beliefs that draw their foundation from atheism.

Theism makes some things possible.

Atheism makes some things possible.

And atheism was an essential part of communism, and communism killed how many millions of people last century?

The significance is in that desperate theist are often looking for any chance to justify their faith by pointing out any negative aspect of those with different opinions of said faith.


This is another ad nauseam attack on atheism using desperate and erroneous examples that apply more directly to philosophy behind economics and political control. By some with little understanding of their own theism let alone taking pot shots at atheism they don't have the first clue about.

Seeing as the people disagreeing with you are atheists, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Are we the atheist equivalent of 'self-hating Jews' perhaps?

But then again, you do deny that there was any link between atheism and communism which says a lot about how much value you place on evidence. It was just about 'political control', not atheism, even though religion was seen as the false foundation underpinning political control. But, we'll ignore this and re-define atheism in a way that turns it into a non-position, so atheism plays no part because atheism is 'nothing'.

If Marx said "For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.", he didn't mean it. It was a metaphor, just like Adam and Eve. Or perhaps it wasn't atheism, because atheism is not a position.

The people who 'don't have a clue' about atheism, seem to accept certain nuances around this philosophical position that the 'learned' deny exist, and seem to think that no amount of evidence is acceptable if it disagrees with their assumptions.

Then we generally get accused of being theists, or straw manned by claiming we adopt positions that we have clearly and emphatically stated that we do not hold.

 

[leibowde84]

Atheism is both 'an essential part of' and 'in no way connected to' communism?

Everyone knows most atheists aren't communists, the point is that the philosophical position of atheism can be used to support violence. Just as the philosophical position of theism can be used to support violence.

The simple doctrine of theism, belief that at least one god exists, is rarely if ever used to support violence. What is used to support violence is additional religious beliefs that draw their foundation from basic theism. Christianity, Islam, whatever.

The same may be true for atheism. It is not simple atheism, a rejection of theism, that causes violence, but additional beliefs that draw their foundation from atheism.

Theism makes some things possible.

Atheism makes some things possible.

And atheism was an essential part of communism, and communism killed how many millions of people last century?



Seeing as the people disagreeing with you are atheists, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Are we the atheist equivalent of 'self-hating Jews' perhaps?

But then again, you do deny that there was any link between atheism and communism which says a lot about how much value you place on evidence. It was just about 'political control', not atheism, even though religion was seen as the false foundation underpinning political control. But, we'll ignore this and re-define atheism in a way that turns it into a non-position, so atheism plays no part because atheism is 'nothing'.

If Marx said "For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.", he didn't mean it. It was a metaphor, just like Adam and Eve. Or perhaps it wasn't atheism, because atheism is not a position.

The people who 'don't have a clue' about atheism, seem to accept certain nuances around this philosophical position that the 'learned' deny exist, and seem to think that no amount of evidence is acceptable if it disagrees with their assumptions.

Then we generally get accused of being theists, or straw manned by claiming we adopt positions that we have clearly and emphatically stated that we do not hold.

All of this should lead to the conclusion that neither atheism nor theism are to blame, but, instead, bad actors who use these things as weapons illegitimately. That is why I find fault with making any connection with atheism other than it merely being used as a tool to further political goals.

 

[outhouse]

Seeing as the people disagreeing with you are atheists

Substantiate that claim with examples.

 

[leibowde84]

Atheism is both 'an essential part of' and 'in no way connected to' communism?

Everyone knows most atheists aren't communists, the point is that the philosophical position of atheism can be used to support violence. Just as the philosophical position of theism can be used to support violence.

The simple doctrine of theism, belief that at least one god exists, is rarely if ever used to support violence. What is used to support violence is additional religious beliefs that draw their foundation from basic theism. Christianity, Islam, whatever.

The same may be true for atheism. It is not simple atheism, a rejection of theism, that causes violence, but additional beliefs that draw their foundation from atheism.

Theism makes some things possible.

Atheism makes some things possible.

And atheism was an essential part of communism, and communism killed how many millions of people last century?



Seeing as the people disagreeing with you are atheists, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Are we the atheist equivalent of 'self-hating Jews' perhaps?

But then again, you do deny that there was any link between atheism and communism which says a lot about how much value you place on evidence. It was just about 'political control', not atheism, even though religion was seen as the false foundation underpinning political control. But, we'll ignore this and re-define atheism in a way that turns it into a non-position, so atheism plays no part because atheism is 'nothing'.

If Marx said "For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.", he didn't mean it. It was a metaphor, just like Adam and Eve. Or perhaps it wasn't atheism, because atheism is not a position.

The people who 'don't have a clue' about atheism, seem to accept certain nuances around this philosophical position that the 'learned' deny exist, and seem to think that no amount of evidence is acceptable if it disagrees with their assumptions.

Then we generally get accused of being theists, or straw manned by claiming we adopt positions that we have clearly and emphatically stated that we do not hold.

Atheism was used as a tool for control. The Communists saw religious adherence as a threat to their absolute power. Thus, they made it illegal (more or less). This doesn't say anything about atheism other than the coincidence that atheism doesn't recognize any religion.

 

[ether-ore]

Someone has murder in their heart

Someone needs to learn how to use the quote feature properly brother.[/QUOTE]
That was all that warranted referencing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not everybody moves along the chain, atheism does not necessarily lead to anything else, but it can.

Anti-theists point to religious extremists for the harms of religion even though religious beliefs don't necessarily lead to extremism?

Religion, as a philosophical position, might lead to extremism. Atheism, as a philosophical position, might lead to extremism.

Baloney.

How does the absence of faith lead someone to do anything?

How could the actual philosophies common in the "new atheist" movement - freethought, humanism, and skepticism - lead to extremism.

... and is an "extremist" freethinking humanist skeptic really a bad thing? "I'm adamant that you base your views on reason and evidence, while I also inflexibly demand that your value as a person be defended and your freedom to make up your own mind be protected! Watch out! I won't blow up airplanes, but I'll present you with compelling arguments that you're free to disregard! Hide your children!"

 

[outhouse]

That was all that warranted referencing.

Yes.

You did not understand what or why I posted the reply I did. Had you understood, you would have found no reason to make such erroneous reply.

 

[Laika]

My point is that everything stated here speaks to Communism, not atheism. And no one is forcing you to stay silent on Communism. We are commenting on you erroneously blaming atheism for communism.

Leibowde, I'm saying this because out of all the people on RF who say atheism is "lack of belief", I respect you and think that you are probably one of the few who can see just how wrong it is to run away from uncomfortable truths. I find the behaviour of many atheists on this subject utterly cowardly and to me, it reflects the impoverishment of their convictions and their argument. and I'm saying that as an atheist.

Communism was atheist. Communism killed perhaps 100 million people. Is that not sufficient grounds to take the possibility that atheism might have less than agreeable consequences seriously?

Atheism led to Anti-theism. And it was ugly. Atheism doesn't have a monopoly on reason. it is not self-righteous and they got it wrong. If your an atheist and you have the courage of your convictions, why is it so hard to admit that? What do you really lose other than pride? Is not the truth more important?

Just this once, the Theists have got it right. And the Communist is agreeing with them. The "lack of belief" crowd is wrong and there's no shame in saying "I wish it wasn't the case but....". But I just cannot take you or anyone else seriously when they arguing that religious people don't have proof for X, Y and Z, if the one time they have something substantive with which to criticise atheism with, it's just dismissed out of hand because of the technically.

What is all this "lack of belief" for if it is not to arrive at the truth?

Atheism was used as a tool for control. The Communists saw religious adherence as a threat to their absolute power. Thus, they made it illegal (more or less). This doesn't say anything about atheism other than the coincidence that atheism doesn't recognize any religion.

"Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion."

(Lenin, The attitude of the worker's party to religion, 1909).

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

 

[leibowde84]

Leibowde, I'm saying this because out of all the people on RF who say atheism is "lack of belief", I respect you and think that you are probably one of the few who can see just how wrong it is to run away from uncomfortable truths. I find the behaviour of many atheists on this subject utterly cowardly and to me, it reflects the impoverishment of their convictions and their argument. and I'm saying that as an atheist.

Communism was atheist. Communism killed perhaps 100 million people. Is that not sufficient grounds to take the possibility that atheism might have less than agreeable consequences seriously?

Atheism led to Anti-theism. And it was ugly. Atheism doesn't have a monopoly on reason. it is not self-righteous and they got it wrong. If your an atheist and you have the courage of your convictions, why is it so hard to admit that? What do you really lose other than pride? Is not the truth more important?

Just this once, the Theists have got it right. And the Communist is agreeing with them. The "lack of belief" crowd is wrong and there's no shame in saying "I wish it wasn't the case but....". But I just cannot take you or anyone else seriously when they arguing that religious people don't have proof for X, Y and Z, if the one time they have something substantive with which to criticise atheism with, it's just dismissed out of hand because of the technically.

What is all this "lack of belief" for if it is not to arrive at the truth?



"Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion."

(Lenin, The attitude of the worker's party to religion, 1909).

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

But, in all honesty, atheism does not speak to materialism necessarily.

 

[Laika]

But, in all honesty, atheism does not speak to materialism necessarily.

Not all atheists are materialists. But some atheists were materialists.

Can we really use a definition to hide from it and what they did with those beliefs?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Leibowde, I'm saying this because out of all the people on RF who say atheism is "lack of belief", I respect you and think that you are probably one of the few who can see just how wrong it is to run away from uncomfortable truths. I find the behaviour of many atheists on this subject utterly cowardly and to me, it reflects the impoverishment of their convictions and their argument. and I'm saying that as an atheist.

Communism was atheist. Communism killed perhaps 100 million people. Is that not sufficient grounds to take the possibility that atheism might have less than agreeable consequences seriously?

- The temperance movement argued against drinking alcohol and for drinking non-alcoholic drinks instead.
- At Jonestown, they forced people to drink poisoned Kool-Aid at gunpoint.
- Poisoned Kool-Aid doesn't contain alcohol, so it's a non-alcoholic drink.
- Therefore, the Jonestown massacre was an example of the violence of the temperance movement.

Similar reasoning to your argument, IMO.

 

[leibowde84]

Not all atheists are materialists. But some atheists were materialists.

Can we really use a definition to hide from it and what they did with those beliefs?

Materialism, imho, leads to communism far more than atheism. And, all materialists (at least to the best of my knowledge) are atheists. So, why wouldn't you point to materialism rather than atheism for the endeavor? Especially since many atheists are not materialists (it doesn't work both ways, iow).

 

[Laika]

Materialism, imho, leads to communism far more than atheism. And, all materialists (at least to the best of my knowledge) are atheists. So, why wouldn't you point to materialism rather than atheism for the endeavor? Especially since many atheists are not materialists (it doesn't work both ways, iow).

Because this is probably a very accurate measure of an atheists intellectual honesty and sincerity. I'm not saying all atheists are communists, but the fact that one particuarly form of atheism was used in this sense raises a hell of alot of questions. Theists have been asking these questions for a while now and all that seems to happen are denials. if an atheist is sincere about wanting to find out the answers to these kind of issues, about whether god exists, what is and isn't ethical without religion, then it would make sense to have at least some background knowledge and awareness of communism as a major atheist movement and experiment to live without religion. I admit it's hard, but If I want the right to say "well, you got it wrong", I have a responsibility to admit when I get it wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To say there is 'no connection' between atheism and communism is like saying there is no connection between communist philosophy and communism.

There isn't such a link. Karl Marx did not invent communism. And while Marxism is a materialist philosophy, Marxism is only one type of communism. Actually, early Christian communities were communist.
At the root of the philosophy, communism promotes communal ownership of economic resources and the means of production and distribution. Any more than that and you start to get into the different communist philosophies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because this is probably a very accurate measure of an atheists intellectual honesty and sincerity. I'm not saying all atheists are communists, but the fact that one particuarly form of atheism was used in this sense raises a hell of alot of questions.

It makes no more sense to talk about "forms of atheism" than it does to talk about "forms of non-smoking". Some non-smokers use the time and money they would've spent smoking to volunteer; others use it to commit crime. The one "form of non-smoker" has nothing to do with the other.

While I am an atheist (and a non-smoker), I think it's more useful to concentrate on the things I do believe and accept instead of one particular thing I don't.

... Especially because atheism isn't any sort of foundation for me. My rejection of the theistic claims I've been confronted with is BECAUSE of my skepticism and freethought, not the other way around. I'm not a humanist because I reject organized religion; I reject organized religion (most of it, anyway) because I'm a humanist.

Do I have to worry that my lack of religious faith - which is informed by freethought, skepticism, and humanism - will lead me to reject freethought, skepticism, and humanism? No: if that were to happen, I'd be pulling the rug out from under any reason I'd have to be confident in my positions on gods and religions in the first place.

 

[Nakosis]

I have seven years researching and adhereing to this ideology and I can promise you, that you are mistaken.

Is there anything I could do which would give sufficient proof to demonstrate to you this is not the case (edit: and that atheism and anti-theism were inter-changable)?

I thought this was all last century. I don't really see American Atheist as much of a threat if all they are going to do is use the legal system to get crosses removed and carry signs that say kill Jesus.

It didn't seem fair to bring up Marx, but I wonder if Marxism is not the epitome of atheism. Isn't it implied by Atheism that religion is harmful? If so, isn't reasonable to take step to prevent that harm?

It maybe just a matter of degree how far is an individual willing to go to prevent what they see as harmful.

 

[Laika]

It makes no more sense to talk about "forms of atheism" than it does to talk about "forms of non-smoking". Some non-smokers use the time and money they would've spent smoking to volunteer; others use it to commit crime. The one "form of non-smoker" has nothing to do with the other.

While I am an atheist (and a non-smoker), I think it's more useful to concentrate on the things I do believe and accept instead of one particular thing I don't.

... Especially because atheism isn't any sort of foundation for me. My rejection of the theistic claims I've been confronted with is BECAUSE of my skepticism and freethought, not the other way around. I'm not a humanist because I reject organized religion; I reject organized religion (most of it, anyway) because I'm a humanist.

Do I have to worry that my lack of religious faith - which is informed by freethought, skepticism, and humanism - will lead me to reject freethought, skepticism, and humanism? No: if that were to happen, I'd be pulling the rug out from under any reason I'd have to be confident in my positions on gods and religions in the first place.

If we as atheists are going to spend most of our time debating people's most deeply held beliefs and criticising them, eventually- it ours turn. Communism is atheism's problem. it's that simple. atheism doesn't come in a single shape or size and yeah and it isn't an automatic relationship between communism and atheism. there are alot of ways to become an atheist. But communism is still atheist and it was used to justify some really aweful things. Stalin was an atheist. Mao was an athiest. Pol Pot was an atheist.

If we want to blame religion for a load of stuff they did, theists get the right to do it to us to. if we want to criticise religious people for having beliefs that don't measure up to the facts, they get to do it to us as well. Skepticism and Free Thought work both ways. We get to be sceptical of them, and they do of us. We question they're faith, and so why shouldn't we question our reason? it's not a reflection on us when we get it wrong. But it is a reflection on us when we prefer to ignore the truth.

After 13 pages, the freethinkers are still in denial. Good luck with your scepticism.

 

[outhouse]

Stalin was an atheist

He was also a born and raised theist.