Militant atheism has become a religion

[DonViejo]

This was originally posted in the GD forum but, our wonderful hosts decided:

Locking...

The exemption for discussions of Religion in GD has expired. Please consider reposting in the Religion Group.

One Host suggested that the new Interfaith Group might also be a good place for this thread.

You can read 100 comments about this OP, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022563297#post101


Prominent non-believers have become as dogmatic as those they deride -- and become rich on the lecture circuit

BY FRANS DE WAAL

Excerpted from "The Bobobo and the Atheist"

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. — Jonathan Swift

One quiet Sunday morning, I stroll down the driveway of my home in Stone Mountain, Georgia, to pick up the newspaper. As I arrive at the bottom—we live on a hill—a Cadillac drives up the street and stops right before me. A big man in a suit steps out, sticking out his hand. A firm handshake follows, during which I hear him proclaim in a booming, almost happy voice, “I’m looking for lost souls!” Apart from perhaps being overly trusting, I am rather slow and had no idea what he was talking about. I turned around to look behind me, thinking that perhaps he had lost his dog, then corrected myself and mumbled something like, “I’m not very religious.”

This was of course a lie, because I am not religious at all. The man, a pastor, was taken aback, probably more by my accent than by my answer. He must have realized that converting a European to his brand of religion was going to be a challenge, so he walked back to his car, but not without handing me a business card in case I’d change my mind. A day that had begun so promisingly now left me feeling like I might go straight to hell.

I was raised Catholic. Not just a little bit Catholic, like my wife, Catherine. When she was young, many Catholics in France already barely went to church, except for the big three: baptism, marriage, and funeral. And only the middle one was by choice. By contrast, in the southern Netherlands—known as “below the rivers”—Catholicism was important during my youth. It defined us, setting us apart from the above-the-rivers Protestants. Every Sunday morning, we went to church in our best clothes, we received catechism at school, we sang, prayed, and confessed, and a vicar or bishop was present at every official occasion to dispense holy water (which we children happily imitated at home with a toilet brush). We were Catholic through and through.

But I am not anymore. In my interactions with religious and nonreligious people alike, I now draw a sharp line, based not on what exactly they believe but on their level of dogmatism. I consider dogmatism a far greater threat than religion per se. I am particularly curious why anyone would drop religion while retaining the blinkers sometimes associated with it. Why are the “neo-atheists” of today so obsessed with God’s nonexistence that they go on media rampages, wear T-shirts proclaiming their absence of belief, or call for a militant atheism? What does atheism have to offer that’s worth fighting for?

As one philosopher put it, being a militant atheist is like “sleeping furiously.”

full article
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/militant_atheism_has_become_a_religion/

[amuse bouche]

1. "What does atheism have to offer that’s worth fighting for? "

Reality for starters

So many making life decisions based on a promise of an after life reward or punishment?

No thanks

[backscatter712]

7. What are atheists fighting for? Freedom.

Freedom.

To borrow from my post in the now-locked GD thread:

"What does atheism have to offer that’s worth fighting for?"

Freedom.

As others have mentioned, religion is a racket that has been widely used by power elites to scare and control people. What is the value that religions promote almost universally? Submission. You're making yourself a slave to an imaginary deity, which gives license to those who claim to speak for that deity to exert coercive authority over you. Why do that to yourself?

All I'm suggesting is that by questioning those beliefs, you're opening the door to a kind of liberty that religion can never offer.

With no imagined afterlife with a blissful heaven and a torturous hell, no angry man in the sky watching your every move ready to smite you when you do something to piss him off, people can't use that to lead you around by the nose. You make your own decisions. You use your own empathy and your own mind to make ethical and moral decisions. The laws you follow are the laws made by humans, which are mutable by political process and other human endeavors if they're wrong.

You get the freedom to question, the freedom from mind control, the freedom to live this life rather than fruitlessly hold out for a non-existent afterlife.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

19. I have to disagree with you

Religion is not a "racket" used to enslave others. Rather, the religious quest is a journey towards honesty and freedom. The point of such an assertion is not that every honest and free person is religious. It is rather that religion offers an interpretation of how honesty and freedom can occur.

I believe that human experience of honesty and freedom furnishes us with the most accurate basis available for speaking of God. I am not suggesting, as John Dewey appears to, that we merely call our highest ideals God. I believe that our highest activities, such as honesty and freedom, is our participation in a divine life the shows itself throughout the universe. For many, this image of the world is alien, falsifying, and impossible to maintain. I am not going to defend it here; I am just going to call attention to it. For those who think that God’s presence in humanity is identical with our honesty, self-criticism, and taking up of responsibility, there is a certain simplicity in the problem of existence. To maximize honesty and freedom is to live more thoroughly in God, and to have God in oneself. To be faithful to the drive to raise questions and faithful to self-determination is to be faithful to God. To obey God is not to obey taboos, ordinances, or doctrines, but to obey conscience. On the other hand, conscience is tutored by the experiences of argument, challenge, directive, warning, law, failure, success -- by hard encounter with all those things that cannot be wished away. To be dishonest or unfree is to turn away from God, to sin against the light. It is not so much rebellion as self-mutilation. As it is difficult to be honest and free, so it is difficult to know when one is being faithful to God and when one's purported honesty is not merely a sophisticated betrayal. We work out our salvation in fear and trembling. It is miraculous that it is done at all. There is a Jewish tradition that there are only thirty-six righteous people in the world at any one time.

Not only is the religious quest a quest for honesty and freedom; it is also the most radical drive of the person. The word "religious" must be understood in a context broader than the context of historical institutions: Denominations, sects, Churches. The religious view is the central orientation by which we symbolize our sense of direction, our relationships with others, and our search for meaning. Such an orientation is not merely philosophical, for it is rich in symbolic content. It is acted out in rituals, institutions, and expressions that are more like the framework of inquiry or language than they are like questions within the framework. The word “religious” makes many people uncomfortable; they feel that its use somehow traps them into enforced relations with an unwanted God. The point is that whether or not there is a God, all of us work out our own personal symbols of relation, meaning, and ends. These ultimate symbols are subject to analysis, comparison, and criticism. A principal topic in theology is these symbols.

[marions ghost]

24. This point I take

"The point is that whether or not there is a God, all of us work out our own personal symbols of relation, meaning, and ends. These ultimate symbols are subject to analysis, comparison, and criticism. A principal topic in theology is these symbols."

We all live by symbols that give meaning to life. I see it in the abstract sense like you state here. The debate about what God is (or Isn't, or what he or she or it looks like or eats for breakfast) bores me. We all know that organized religion's achilles heel is what SOME of its practitioners get up to. ("Jesus protect me from your followers&quot

It's all about methods for living positively through focus on personally affirming principles. Where it goes wrong is in insisting anything about this life should be "one size fits all."

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

30. Why didn't you say

"We all know that organized religion's achilles heel is what SOME of its practitioners get up to" in your first post? I must say that I have read more than one atheist who claims that the sole reason there is any sort of religion is for "power elites to scare and control people". If that were the case, then it would have died millennia ago. Has religion been used in that way? Unfortunately, that is undeniable. But to say that is the only or even the main use for religion is also untrue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. This seems a good time to point out that was marions ghost's 1st post in this thread

They're not who you were talking to in #7 (or #1).

[marions ghost]

35. thanks

I thought i was having a mental blip...

[marions ghost]

34. what first post are you referring to?

and...what is your point?

--PS I am not an atheist, nor affiliated with an organized religion. Humanist hybrid cultural sociologist--without a problem with either atheists or religious followers--& understand the needs of both. If that helps. But not getting your point. Explain if you like.

[AlbertCat]

71. "We all know that organized religion's achilles heel is what SOME of its practitioners get up to"

That's not religion's "Achilles heel".

magical thinking is.

[backscatter712]

37. Is God an anthropomorphic deity with superpowers, or is he a metaphor?

The way I'm reading your post, it seems that you use God as a metaphor for your conscience - you're being Godly when you're acting decently towards other people, and you're being ungodly when you're being nasty to people.

That's cool - I use metaphor all the time - for diplomatic purposes, I sometimes use the metaphor of God being the universe, invoke Carl Sagan, and transform from an atheist to a Spinozan, so I can have a civilized conversation with people who get triggered by the word "atheist."

But it seems possible to me (though you'd have to confirm my hypothesis) that neither of us literally believe in the anthropomorphic man in the sky with superpowers who's obsessed with our day-to-day behavior. I suppose I could interpret that by saying that we're both atheists.

The problem is that there are a lot of people who do believe in the man in the sky with superpowers, and who give authority to the people who claim to speak for the superhero, and thus end up getting manipulated, often in destructive ways. To them, I say challenge your beliefs - the only thing you have to lose is your chains!

[Skittles]

251. honesty and freedom?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

252. Yes, honesty and freedom

You simply either do not see it or do not want to see it. Your loss.

[Skittles]

261. um...........no

religion is not required for honesty and freedom; quite the contrary

[Brainstormy]

201. Thank you, backscatter

I get so sick of these constant attempts to equate atheism with religion. It's a zealotry as irrational as religion itself.

But you left out the part about wasting my tax dollars, denigrating science and degrading public education. I'd like a little more freedom there, too.

[patrice]

235. Wouldn't freedom consist in the ability to be both rational and/or spiritual?

I have to register my objection here to the word "religious", which, to me, refers to the institutionalized and organized forms of awareness that is not rational.

NOT entirely happy with the word "spiritual" either, but given limitations inherent to the nature of what is referred to as "proof", as in "scientific proof", more accurately referred to as "rational evidence" or "empirical support", it is necessary to have some label that points to what science cannot/does not do. The better known such label is "spiritual".

I think it is that institutionalization that kills what those other truths may be, because it kills those spiritual perceptual abilities the same way that certain assumptions about the nature of "proof" kills rational perceptual abilities, sketched here in an application of the same scientific traits to software engineering. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/nov05/marasco/

[backscatter712]

244. What is "spiritual" anyways?

That word kicks my inner skeptic into high gear.

It's a word without a concrete definition. It's a word that most assume delves into the religious, supernatural, or mystical. It's a word that derives from spirit, or soul, as if it is separable from body and mind, and I don't buy into that frame. Mind/body/spirit? For me, it's mind and body. There's the meat, or body, or hardware, and then, there's the mind, or "software", or the information state that's maintained in that information processing organ in our heads.

What is spirit? To me, it's a woo-woo word. I am a naturalist. I do not believe in the supernatural.

[patrice]

248. Personally, I think people are referring to emergent properties of physical things, when they use

that word "spiritual". That's one of the reasons I don't like it for the purpose of referring to whatever it is that rationalism/science can't do (which isn't the same thing as that which rationalism/science doesn't do, as I said earlier, because science might actually be capable of doing what it doesn't do, it just hasn't got around to it yet).

Some people talk about "intuitive knowing", which I like a little better than "spiritual", but I'm getting a little dizzy with references to things that can't be known. It seems like the same problem of having to conceptualize/define something, in this case a "God", and then test the universe for it. You never know if you have the definition wrong or the test is wrong, so you unavoidably end up looking for something that you don't think exists in the first place. It'd be best just not to have anything to say about it, one way or the other.

[Starboard Tack]

58. One person's reality is another person's illusion

Why would you fight to impose your sense of reality on another? Only the insecure feel the need to convince others to share the same belief system.

[skepticscott]

59. Martin Luther King believed

that blacks should have the same rights as whites. And gee...he tried to convince other people of it, and to impose it on the whole country. Was he insecure? Are the people who believe that there should be marriage equality and who try to convince lawmakers and judges to share that belief insecure too? Are the many, many people on this site who think that the rich should be taxed to help the poor, and who advocate strongly for that also insecure?

It seems the only insecurity here belongs to those whose position is too weak to withstand critical examination and who would rather just put their fingers in their ears than deal with that.

[Starboard Tack]

60. MLK believed a lot of things.

On the subjects of civil rights, equality and tolerance, I agree with him 100%. Regarding his religious beliefs, we differ. However, I respect his right to believe in a deity. Spiritual belief is not about having a strong or weak position, nor should it be subject to critical examination by anyone other than the believer.
The critical examination of the beliefs of others serves no useful purpose and I find those who engage in it to be somewhat disingenuous. A proselytizing atheist is every bit as obnoxious as a bible thumping Xian fundamentalist.

Bottom line. No man should be judged for his beliefs, but by his actions.

[skepticscott]

62. Nice job of backpedaling

But none of it addresses the noted bankruptcy of your claim "Only the insecure feel the need to convince others to share the same belief system." The "actions" of many people on this site are intended to get others to change their beliefs. Are those people insecure? Yes or no? Are proselytizing liberals and progressives obnoxious too? Are "proselytizing" evolutionary scientists as obnoxious as "proselytizing creationists, or does actual truth and reality enter into your calculations?

[Starboard Tack]

63. When it comes to personal religious beliefs, those who feel the need to convert others are insecure.

Expressed political ideas are entirely different and are up for grabs, but displaying intolerance toward someone solely because of their personal faith is no better than the bigotry of those who judge others based on their sexual orientation or their ethnicity.
Some liberals and progressives can be extremely obnoxious, as we all witness from time to time here on DU.

I believe in tolerance of others' beliefs. That does not mean I cannot discuss them. I have friends of all faiths and of no faith. We often talk about our personal beliefs, or lack thereof, and we do it without resorting to personal attacks and ridicule.

"Are "proselytizing" evolutionary scientists as obnoxious as "proselytizing creationists, or does actual truth and reality enter into your calculations?"

They can be. Especially those who think that science and creation must be mutually exclusive. There are many evolutionary scientists who are also people of faith and don't find the idea of creation to be incompatible with evolution. Most people believe that some entity created the universe, though I doubt more than a handful take the book of Genesis literally. Personally, I don't believe in creation at all. But the idea of infinite evolution is not easy for most to get their heads around. So I don't proselytize about it. And in the end, it's only the conclusion I came to and nothing more. I figure I have as much chance of being right as anyone else.

[AlbertCat]

72. One person's reality is another person's illusion

What does that bumpersticker platitude mean? (nothing....word salad)

Reality is real. period.
Illusions are not real.

[Starboard Tack]

88. Reality is that not everyone shares your world view. Deal with it, Albert.

Last edited Wed Apr 3, 2013, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

[AlbertCat]

89. What does "shates" mean?

And the reality is that those who ignore reality will get bitten in the ass by it sooner or later.

Deal with that, Tack.

[Starboard Tack]

90. Typo. Shares.

Never ignore your own reality. That's my motto. If the reality of others doesn't impinge on mine, then I have no issue with them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

104. No, that is false. Reality is real.

I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong and the people who disagree with me are right.

But either I am wrong, or they are wrong, or we are both wrong, we do not just have "different truths". Reality is objective and consistent.

[Starboard Tack]

113. "Reality is objective and consistent." - Really?

I think not, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Your statement proves the opposite, which is that reality is totally subjective and fluid. Reality is a concept, which depends on perception and perspective. Fact is, we all have different "truths". If you haven't seen it, let me recommend the excellent movie "Rashomon" by Akira Kurosawa.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

114. You can't use your own confusion as evidence against objectivity!

The world exist. Two plus two really is four, whether or not we feel the need to discuss it.

Rashomon is an interesting film, but the lesson to learn from it is about the unreliability of witnesses, not about the lack of an objective reality to witness to.

[Starboard Tack]

116. I'm not trying to disprove objectivity, only it's relevance to the perception of reality.

Saying that the world exists means nothing. It exists differently for every living thing that perceives it. The question is "how does it exist?" The answer to that is constantly changing, as is all truth. Truth/reality is not a static thing. The moment you realize something exists, it has already become something different. Confusion is an integral part of reality. He who thinks he has the answers is often the one who lives in an illusory state, but that state is still his reality.
I think you need to revisit Rashomon. You may find it more enlightening in terms of subjective reality testing, rather than a commentary on witness reliability.
2+2 does not always equal 4. Again, it is about context, perspective and perception.

[patrice]

234. "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

The basis of atheistic thinking, empirical rationalism, and all logic and faculties referred to as reason, all of the processes to which those labels (reason, logic, rational, etc.) refer are the product of who/what we are. Our sensory and perceptual apparati are physical filters which are stimulated by the phenomenological universe and produce, amongst other things, empirical rationalism, logic, and reason. We know that those properties are encoded into "reality" and that's why we who are also a product of reality can extract them, but just as facts like light we can't see, wave-lengths of sounds we can't hear, some number of dimensions beyond the 3, 4 if you count time, that we can process (what is that 9? or 11? dimensions "total"?), not to mention this http://htwins.net/scale2/ suggest that there is very likely more to "reality" than our rather impressive minds can recognize. And, though it has nothing to say about that which is beyond it's own disciplines, science itself does not deny the predicate in my sentence just previous to this one. That other stuff is a null set to science, indeterminate, NOT 0.

Now, of course, none of that means that non-rationalists can just go off and say whatever they want about a more WHOLE reality, as they apparently have done waaaaaaay too much. And I personally think more religious language misses the mark horribly by excluding rational theology, though I do not hold science to the same standard, because the nature of science would not permit saying anything one way or another, not yes, not no, about that which cannot be rationally recognized.

I'm a little like Albert Einstein. I think what religion usually refers to as God is a mistake or an outright lie. I have trouble referring to their definition of god, because a definition of something that would be God is an oxymoron. But neither do I pretend that rationalism is that God that I deny knowledge of, especially since rationalism itself makes no such claim.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. This would be better suited to the interfaith group.

Since the assertion is that atheism is just another religion, all the religious atheists can group hug with the rest of the faithful over their new-found interfaith compatibility.

[gcomeau]

5. If by "better suited"...

...you mean shielded from some of the massive levels of criticism it rightly deserves, then perhaps.

(I am not a big fan of the SOP of that new group. Also I half suspect that was intended to be sarcastic but I'm making the observation anyway.)

[MADem]

105. No, not really--the Interfaith SOP doesn't marry well with topics that involve challenges to belief

systems (even if the belief system is one of no belief). It's a "play nice" group and this topic is one that, by its very nature, invites robust challenge at a minimum, and the usual assortment of put-downs and snark at the far end of the spectrum.

[cleanhippie]

109. It's not a "play nice" group, it's a "generally agree with me or leave" group.

[MADem]

110. It's a "follow the SOP group" but you have been told that already.

Making fun of people or their beliefs with words like "absurd" is "not on" in Interfaith. It just isn't. That's the "play nice" part.

It's not a clone of the Religion Group, that welcomes that kind of cage match attitude, so it is a better fit for those "You're wrong--I'm right" battles.

Just as religious people should stay out of the A/A group if they're there to call the views of those members "absurd," so too should A/Aers give wide berth to Interfaith if they are intent on disagreement about belief systems.

The Religion group is the place for that kind of thing. The others are safe havens.

No need to pee on every tree, now.

[cleanhippie]

111. I made fun of no one. When ideas are not open to scrutiny and criticism and left to stand or fall

on its merits, we have failed to promote civil and rational conversation.

I welcome anyone who thinks my ideas are absurd to posit why they think that and support that position. That IS discussion.
Too bad you and others don't. You want an "agree with me or leave" group. Congrats. You got it.

[MADem]

112. Read the SOP, and then read your post where you opined about the

"absurd claims of believers." You most certainly did "make fun" of believers, by calling their beliefs absurd.

Look, there's an A/A group where people aren't allowed to call A/Aers "absurd," and there's an Interfaith group that has the same restrictions. That's what safe havens are all about.

You need to tighten up and just get over it. You're a poor fit for that group--you can get your 'rile' on right here in Religion, but you aren't going to disrupt that group by upsetting people who want pleasant discussion without attacks on their belief or character, any more than the A/A group would permit a religious person to go into their haven and start telling them they all had "absurd beliefs."

Respect. That's the deal.

[cleanhippie]

134. You wanted an "agree with me or leave" group, and you got it.

You need to loosen up and get over it. You can also take you admonition and condescension and jump in a lake.

Come lecture me on respect when YOU learn what it is and that ideas don't get it, especially absurd ones that contradict reality.


Enjoy your "agree with me or leave" group.

[MADem]

138. You don't have any clue as to my beliefs or lack thereof. I've made it a point to not share

that information on this board. You can "ass"ume all you'd like, but the odds are, you'd be wrong. The difference between you and me is that I don't feel that the beliefs or lack thereof of others concern me to the point where my dignity or sense of self worth is affected by someone who doesn't share my views, and I don't have to act like a fucking shithead to "prove" that "I'm right" and the person who doesn't see things my way is wrong.

So it's rather impossible for you to "agree with me" since you don't know how I feel. I think the only person who has half a clue about my views is Skinner--I may have given him a sense of my perspective in an email, once.

The purpose of the group is no different from the A/A group--there's no "challenging" of members in that group, either. The A/A crew don't appreciate being proselytized in their safe haven, any more than the Interfaith people feel like being snarked at by you or others for their views.

You think that making fun of people with words like "absurd beliefs" is helpful. I don't. Most adults who are skilled in mature conversation don't, either. That's the bottom line, here. If you want to call that a lecture, fine and dandy--consider yourself lectured. It's not going to get you back in the Interfaith door, so get over that, why don't you? You'll just have to content yourself with snideness and snark in the Religion group, if you can find anyone here to play with who enjoys the sort of blood sport you prefer.

You have one of those swell days, now.

[cleanhippie]

140. Blah blah blah. You wanted an "agree with me or leave" group and you got it. Enjoy.

Maybe when you can see past your hatred of me and read what I wrote in that post, you can see I challenged no one. I gave my opinion on the subject of the article posted (hence the opening which reads, "To me....&quot

When an opinion on a subject about an idea posited by an article is seen as "making fun of people", irrationality has taken control. The person that posted that OP wanted agreement with the premise of the OP and I got blocked.

If non-believers are to be welcome in that group, as the SoP states, then their opinions on subjects posted there must be allowed too.

Again, take your admonitions and condescension and jump in a lake. Or read it back to yourself while looking in a mirror.

[MADem]

141. Thanks SO much for your demonstration of incivility! You are working SO hard to prove my point!

No one "hates" you--except maybe the man in YOUR mirror...? You certainly do seem to seek out conflict with your abrasive, pointless and immature snark, but that's a matter between you and your therapist, I suppose.

You got blocked because you talked about the "absurd claims of believers" which is against the group TOS. Not because you're being victimized in some fashion.

You do know that respectful believers are welcome in the A/A group, don't you? But if they start talking about A/Aer's "absurd claims" they won't last very long. And they shouldn't.

Goose/gander. Respect for the House you're in. Deal with it.

I spent last week poolside, I've no need to jump in a lake. But thanks for your well wishes, and DO have one of those really nice days, now.

[cleanhippie]

143. Thanks SO much for demonstrating that you are unable to see past your own prejudices.

And if a lake doesn't work, there are many other places your can take your admonitions and condescension.

Respect, something earned. Now get to work.

[MADem]

146. Keep digging that hole--put some wellie in it, now! nt

[cleanhippie]

148. Yeah, that's it. Good one! You really got me.

Fail. But please, keep trying.

[deucemagnet]

135. So according to the SOP of your group

it is not allowed to call young Earth creationism, intelligent design, or the rapture an "absurd claims of believers". Is this correct?

[MADem]

137. The wording of the SOP is quite plain to anyone who has minimal comprehension

skills.

I don't think you'll find many, if any DU members who hold those beliefs you're so anxious to challenge, but if you do, you are welcome to engage them here, not in the Interfaith group.

If you want a fight, the Religion Group can accommodate you as it always has.

[deucemagnet]

139. OK, so let's assume that I have, at least, minimal comprehension,

and maybe this time you can answer my question directly. Here is the SOP of the interfaith group:

A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.

Emphasis mine. So from your second sentence, I infer that you are stating that young-Earth creationism, intelligent design, and the rapture are protected religious beliefs and should not be referred to as "absurd claims of believers". Is this correct?

And a second question: If members do not show the religious beliefs that I listed above the proper respect, will the SOP be enforced, or will the SOP be selectively enforced when it comes to far-out beliefs such as the ones I listed?

[MADem]

142. I told you--I don't think you'll find that here. It's not an issue. If it becomes one,

the group hosts will deal with it as they see fit. You're talking about views that are pretty much incompatible with Democrats or Progressives, and this board is a place for those types of people.

Group hosts have broad powers, you know--much broader than those found in the forums, and I don't think they'd hesitate to use them.

I do know that anyone trying to shit-stir or troll for sport will be shown the door.

Have a nice day.

[deucemagnet]

153. Well, if I'm not going to get a straight answer,

then you have a nice day, too.

[cleanhippie]

155. As I stated above, it's an "agree with me or leave" group.

And the unwillingness to answer a perfectly appropriate question demonstrates that.

Essentially, the individual beliefs of those in that forum are the ones that are off-limits. If it's beliefs that do not exist with those members, it's a-ok to discuss.

At least thats what I take away from this little exchange. You?

[MADem]

161. Your disruptive and aggressive behavior is noted.

You have been told you're not welcome. You've been given a "time out." Keep beating the drum, you make it clear to everyone just why you've been shown the door.

By your conduct in this thread, my vote will be to make your suspension permanent. I don't think I'll have much trouble achieving consensus, thanks to your remarks here today.

Heckuva job, Brownie! How's the view from your own petard?

Go gripe about this in the A/A group--I have a feeling they won't want to hear your nonsense, either.

[cleanhippie]

167. Blah blah blah. Enjoy your "agree with me or leave" group.

And that power trip.

I'd never be welcome in your group. It's too exclusive while pretending not to be.

[deucemagnet]

170. Until I get a clear response, I tend to agree with you.

It seems that the host of that group is unwilling to either admit that beliefs such as young-Earth creationism, etc. are absurd claims and fair game to criticism (contrary to the SOP), or alternately, that such absurd religious claims should be immune to criticism in the forum. At the very least, this new group needs to formulate an SOP that can be applied consistently.

[MADem]

158. You got a straight answer, you just don't like it.

Let me break it down even further--even though I think you're engaging in a chain-jerking, "aren't I ever-so-clever" exercise. I don't say that to be mean, I say that because I question your motives, and in the interests of transparency, I won't be disingenuous about letting you know that I approach your queries from that POV.

This is a site for Democrats and Progressives. Start from that point. The forums and groups are here for people who self-identify as Democrats and Progressives, not rightwingers, anti-choicers, or racist fundies with offensive ideas about gays or people of other races--the Westboro Baptist types, who believe in the whole Jesus on the Dinosaur scenario.

Take some time to review the TOS. http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice People who can live with that document are the types of people who will be posting here. The guidelines in the TOS are NOT optional. You adhere to them, or you get tossed. If not sooner, later, but eventually, those chickens will come home to roost.

Your strawman supposition imagines that people with fundy-hateful, sexist, racist and homophobic religious views will turn up here and start posting in a protected safe-haven group, and not be criticized, because, for reasons that are not clear to me at all, you "suppose" that a protected group's SOP somehow has more clout on this site than this private site owner's well-crafted TOS. That's just not how it works here.

[deucemagnet]

169. That is not my supposition at all.

Please re-read the following excerpts from my posts #135 and #139:

So according to the SOP of your group it is not allowed to call young Earth creationism, intelligent design, or the rapture an "absurd claims of believers". Is this correct?

and

So from your second sentence, I infer that you are stating that young-Earth creationism, intelligent design, and the rapture are protected religious beliefs and should not be referred to as "absurd claims of believers". Is this correct?

What I am getting at, is that criticism of said beliefs are an offense of the SOP that can result in the blockage of a poster from that group, i.e., a progressive, liberal poster claiming that creationism is an "absurd claim by believers", or claiming that end-timers believing that the rapture is nigh is a ridiculous supposition, is a blockable offense. So, again, let me pose a question, in accordance with the SOP of the interfaith group, would you block a liberal, progressive poster who claims that young-Earth creationism, intelligent design, or the rapture is an absurd claim by believers? And, if those beliefs are not immune to criticism (contrary to the SOP), exactly where is the line drawn?

[MADem]

171. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

The expression "Too clever by half" came to mind in the early days of this conversation. You're bearing that out with no small degree of aplomb.

The Interfaith group is for interfaith discussions, conversations between people of the same, or differing faiths, in a positive, constructive and supportive fashion. You go there to learn a little something, not tell people that you're smarter, they're bad, you're good, and they're wrong, and you're right--which is plainly what you're itching to do.

It's not a place to fight with people or call them names.

If you want to criticize the religious beliefs or practices of people of a specific faith, this group--the Religion Group--is the place to do that. No one is saying you can't make fun of people, or "criticize" them if you've just GOT to get your savvy-me "nyah nyah" on--you will just have to do it here.

You won't be permitted to tell DUers that their beliefs are absurd in the Interfaith group. It doesn't matter if they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Mr. Spock, or the 2nd Coming of Teddy Ruxpin. So just get over trying to insinuate your way into a "what if" discussion. And read the doggone TOS. People who post on this board have to pass the TOS test, and people with racist, sexist or homophobic viewpoints (like the dino riders and six thousand year bunch) just aren't going to meet those criteria. You might as well ask me "Well, what if a Young Republican posts in your group, huh, huh? What THEN?"

It's a protected safe-haven. Capisce? And I'm thinking, since you clearly do not understand the purpose of the group, based on your willfully obtuse, dull and relentless line of questioning, that it's just not a good fit for you. You are welcome to challenge all the dinosaur riding creationists you can scare up here on DU, every single one you can find, right here in the Religion forum. Knock yourself out!

[deucemagnet]

172. So, since you're determined to dodge my questions and project upon me for asking simple questions,

let me be blunt. Can I come into your interfaith group and call creationists a bunch of dumbasses, which is explicitly contrary to your SOP?

[MADem]

173. No. We simply don't tolerate rudeness and name-calling in the group. You get your drama on here.

If you read the SOP and comprehended it, like most people seem able to do without the profound challenges you are experiencing, you wouldn't need to ask that question.

You can't come into the group and make fun of believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. You can't make fun of atheists, Buddhists, pet rock worshippers...anyone. If you want to shout "dumbass" at people (so you can feel smarter, better and more important, I suppose?), you'll just have to do it here. You cannot disrupt that peaceful group, any more than these fictional DUer-creationists you are spinning out of whole cloth can go to the A/A group and yell at them about Jesus and Dino and Fred Flintstone.

You'd think a progressive, or an adult with even a modicum of maturity, wouldn't have such a hard time with this concept. Your struggle with this is rather curious, but illustrative. Perhaps it's not really a struggle, and you're just being a jerk, deliberately, because you think it makes you cool to try to goad and bait me with your not-very-clever repartee. It doesn't.

It does add to your profile here, though. By your behavior we shall know you.

[deucemagnet]

175. Thank you for finally answering my question.

You have projected a lot of negativity upon my simple inquiry, but I won't respond in kind.

Good luck with your new group, and I hope that you can enforce your SOP consistently and fairly. I believe it will be a quite a challenge.

[MADem]

176. I answered it from the git-go, you just didn't like the answer and pretended to not understand.

Negativity--like calling people "dumbasses"--something you were all too eager to do--is what the Interfaith group seeks to avoid. That is why the group is protected, like the A/A group. Civility and respect for others gets easier if you practice it, dare I say, religiously. You might try it.

This "politeness" paradigm, we hope, may one day become a standard across the board, but it isn't yet, so long as we have posters here who find it important to be "allowed" to call people "dumbasses."

You may not realize this, but group hosts are not constrained by the group SOP like forum hosts are. They do not have to be "consistent." They don't have to be what you might regard as "fair." They can ban a person for being a jerk, for being a borderline disruptor or troll, or simply because they don't like a poster's attitude.

As one of several hosts in the Interfaith group, politeness and civility are my particular priorities, along with kindness to one another, and an absence of name-calling. I don't think that maintaining a civil discourse will be a challenge at all--I know insulting language when I see it.

[deucemagnet]

177. OK, I still wish you well with your new group

and the challenging task of enforcing your SOP, but since you seem determined to keep this conversation going, let me ask you one last question. Concerning this part of your post #176:

You may not realize this, but group hosts are not constrained by the group SOP like forum hosts are. They do not have to be "consistent." They don't have to be what you might regard as "fair." They can ban a person for being a jerk, for being a borderline disruptor or troll, or simply because they don't like a poster's attitude.

How is what you are describing in the excerpt of this post unlike what cleanhippie called an "agree with me or leave" group?

[Phillip McCleod]

193. may i say..

..at the risk of drawing the wrath of what appears to be a powerful but capricious force on this site..

..that somebody has a very clean clock..

and it isn't you.

[skepticscott]

184. How ironic

that one of the most frequent posters in your new group has found it important to do exactly that...call people "dumbasses".

[cleanhippie]

188. It's not ironic, it's fucking hypocritical. Shows the true "agree with me or leave" nature

of the group. Even says so upthread with this little gem of honesty...

You may not realize this, but group hosts are not constrained by the group SOP like forum hosts are. They do not have to be "consistent." They don't have to be what you might regard as "fair." They can ban a person for being a jerk, for being a borderline disruptor or troll, or simply because they don't like a poster's attitude.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=75204

Agree with me or leave. I had it pegged right from the start.

[cleanhippie]

186. Which is worse, calling creationism absurd or calling people who believe creationism dumbasses?

[MADem]

189. I don't really care--you can call anyone whatever you want, you just aren't going to do it in a

protected group. Go bait another hook, sonny.

[cleanhippie]

206. Exactly. You don't care if one of your own does it, just those you hate, like me.

Enjoy your "agree with me or leave" group. You're in great company, some hold the opinion that creationists are "dumbasses".

No need to bait another hook, I already caught, filleted, and ate the fish.

[MADem]

212. Sounds to me like you're choking on a fishbone, with all this snark and phony ROFL-ing.

You're bothered. So much that you keep whining to me about it, over and over. How many times are you going to plead with me to "enjoy" "my" group?

It's lovely that you're so concerned about my enjoyment, but I took your point the first time you made it.

[cleanhippie]

213. You tell yourself whatever you need to if it makes you fell better.

You've been doing that all along, why stop now?

Enjoy your "get along with me or leave" group.

And have a nice day.

[MADem]

215. You're clearly the one who feels badly.

Otherwise you wouldn't keep whining at me with the same phrase, repeated, rather like children do, over and over and over--like that might help convince anyone that you're not a goading, baiting disruptor. ROFL indeed.

I don't need to feel "better"--I already feel great that you can't disrupt at least one group in this subscription area. I'm betting I'm not alone, either!


Life has been very good to me. My glass is at least half full, so I always have a nice day. You go on and do the same.

[cleanhippie]

216. Enjoy your "agree with me or leave group." And continue to have a nice day.

[MADem]

220. 8.

[cleanhippie]

253. 9.

[cleanhippie]

168. Told you so. Exactly the response that was expected.

Some are so easy to peg.

[MADem]

174. Just for you.

[cleanhippie]

183. Fail. Epic fail.

Weak sauce, Johnny, weak sauce.

[Iggo]

3. Aw, man.

That's a shame.

[dimbear]

237. Evidently Jean Paul Sartre was right. There's no exit. n/t

[gcomeau]

4. Remains an incredibly stupid article on re-post

So I'll just re-post my original response...


First of all, his definition of "militant" appears to be anyone who forcefully *verbally* defends their positions in discussion or argument... rendering the term "militant" damn near meaningless. Militant *religious* people use things like guns and bombs, not words... so yes let's please draw some kind of absurd false equivalency between the "militancy" of atheists and religious fundamentalists.

"What does atheism have to offer that’s worth fighting for?"

Keeping in mind here that the "fighting" he is talking about is what people call in other areas of society *DISCUSSION* or *ARGUMENT". In that sense there is the same thing "in it" worth fighting for as any othe position you would defend in debate. Establishing which claim is correct and true. Which always matters. Particularly on a subject that people on one side of the issue insist on constantly trying to base the laws that govern the nation on!!!! (And then of course there's just the little added bonus of dealing with irritating morons who, oh let's say, drive up to your house and then start pestering you out of nowhere about "saving your soul".)

"But the elephant also defines them, because what would be the point of atheism in the absence of religion?"

Another mind numbingly idiotic statement. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. What would be the point of not believing in a deity if nobody else did? The same point as not believing in one when lots of other people do... IT DOESN'T EXIST SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN IT.

"All I get out of such exchanges is the confirmation that believers will say anything to defend their faith and that some atheists have turned evangelical. Nothing new about the first, but atheists’ zeal keeps surprising me. Why “sleep furiously” unless there are inner demons to be kept at bay?"

Gosh, what an amazingly insightful question! I wonder if I will be able to ever dig up an answer no matter how far and wide I search...

Oh wait, there's one right over there... IN THIS FREAKING ARTICLE TWO PARAGRAPHS BEFORE HE SAID THIS.

"Religion looms as large as an elephant in the United States, to the point that being nonreligious is about the biggest handicap a politician running for office can have, bigger than being gay, unmarried, thrice married, or black. This is upsetting, of course, and explains why atheists have become so vocal in demanding their place at the table. "

Apparently he lacks the ability to remember words he wrote himself for more than a few minutes. And the idiocy goes on and on and on from there but I'm simply going to stop here.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

21. Atheists have used things like guns and bombs to enforce their ideas

Does the name "Enver Hoxha" ring any bells? How about Josef Stalin. Both men willing -- nay, eager -- to use force to enforce their atheism. So don't pretend that atheists have not used force. That more militant atheists have not done so is probably due more to lack of opportunity than anything else.

[gcomeau]

22. Ummm... no.

Please show me where any of those people were utliziig force in the name of "not believing in a deity".

Communism is not atheism. In both cases they were eliminating the churches because they didn't like the competition while setting up their communist regimes, not in the "name of atheism". Don't be ridiculous.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

25. Ummm...Yes

Hoxha and Stalin did use force to enforce their atheistic ideas. There have been dictators -- even communist dictators -- who have not done so.

No, as I said, the main reason more atheists have not resorted to force has more to do with lack of opportunity than any sort of moral qualms.

[gcomeau]

28. Again, they enforced COMMUNISM

Communism is not "an atheistic idea".

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

31. Yes, they enforced Communism

They ALSO enforced atheism. Gosh, someone doing two different things, what a unique idea. I'll bet you never do two different things.

[gcomeau]

33. Try and wrap your noodle around this...

Stalin and his ilk were simply eliminating ANY AND ALL competition to the state. Period. It had *nothing to do* with any "atheistic ideals" or "enforcing atheism". They were never running around announcing "in the name of not believing in a deity, we smite you down!!!" or some other such nonsense. The churches commanded the loyalty of their adherents, Stalin didn't want them owing loyalties to anyne but the state, so he eliminated the churches. That's it. It was not some kind of "atheist crusade" to convert people in the name of atheism. That's idiotic.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

36. As I said, they enforced atheism by force

You are just blabbering about WHY they did so. The fact remains that they were atheists, and enforced their atheism with force.

For some unknown reason, you do not want to admit that atheists can do and do do exactly the same thing you accuse the religious of doing.

Get your head around this: Atheists are no more paragons of virtue than anyone else. I'm not saying that atheists are less virtuous than anyone else, but they are certainly no more virtuous. And at least some of them are willing to push their ideas with force.

[gcomeau]

38. Read for comprehension.

I could just repeat myself but since you didn;t understand it the first time I don't see the point.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/atheism

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

40. And you are missing my point

There are atheists who have enforced atheism by force. You want to deny this fact, apparently because you want, oh, so desperately, to believe that all atheists are paragons of virtue. Well, they aren't.

Your little comic is saying that some atheists did nasty things, not because they were atheists, but because they were arseholes. On the other hand, you have believers doing nasty things, not because they were arseholes, but because they were believers. Anyone ever introduce you to the logical fallacy of Special Pleading? In case you are not familiar with it, it means that you are applying a standard to one group -- in this case, believers -- but are saying that it does not apply to a second group -- in this case, atheists. It is also calling having something both ways.

[cleanhippie]

44. Hey, HB, don't forget to use your "league of militant atheists"!

You know so much about it, it would be a shame for you to not bring that up again.

[gcomeau]

45. No I got your point fine. It's just wrong.

No, atheists are not all paragons of virtue. The point however is that there DOES NOT EXIST some kind of atheistic set of beliefs or dogma to compel people to act on them so there DOES NOT EXIST anyone, ever, who has gone to war or waged some campaign of terror upon a population "for atheism". To do so would be idiotic. Hence the math analogy in the comic, which also appears to have flown right over your head.

Compare and contrast with all manner of various religious teachings explicitly instructing their adherents to spread the faith...

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

46. The two examples that I gave were of atheists who enforced atheism BY FORCE

Your blathering about there is no "atheistic set of beliefs" is both untrue and irrelevant. It is untrue because there is a core belief common to all atheists: God or gods do not exist. It is irrelevant because Stalin and Hoxha were not acting for the Universal Brotherhood of Atheists. As you yourself admitted, they were acting for wholly different reasons. Their individual reasons make no difference anyway -- they were atheists who were persecuting believers for being believers.

Just as it makes no difference if infidel <X> is being persecuted by the Spanish Inquisition or by the Taliban, it makes no difference if believer <Y>is being persecuted by Hoxha or Stalin for being a believer. (Note: I am using "infidel" in the technical sense of "one who does not adhere to a specific religion, as seen by those who do adhere to it". Thus I, as a Catholic, am seen by Muslims as an infidel.)

[gcomeau]

47. No they were not.

They were two examples of people enforcing communism by force. They were two examples of people shutting down organized churches that competed with their authoritarian state for control/ loyalty of the population by force.

There is a fucking difference between shutting down a competing power structure in order to consolidate the control of a dictatorship and "enforcing atheism". How the hell do you even think someone COULD "enforce atheism"??? Telepathic mind control???

THINK. Give it a try. Atheism is not "don't go to church". Atheism is not "don't practice Christianity". THERE ARE NO ENFORCEABLE COMPONENTS OF ATHEISM. No teachings, no rituals, no doctrines. There is simply one single lack of belief in one single thing and you can't enforce that!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

48. Also enforcing ATHEISM by force.

You seem determined to deny the fact that that they were enforcing atheism by force. They killed imams and priests for being imams and priests. They closed up and often tore down houses of worship. They imprisoned believers, not because they were anti-communists, but because they were believers. They indoctrinated schoolchildren as atheists.

I do not know why you are so insistent on denying well-established history. I suspect it is because you don't want to admit that atheists can be just as intolerant as the most intolerant of believers.

[gcomeau]

49. Now you're just ignoring me completely.

I'll repeat. Atheism is NOT "don't go to church" or "don't be Christian" or "don't be a priest or an imam".

Do you understand this or don't you?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

51. I am answering you

Those two men were forcing atheism on others literally at gunpoint. It is exactly the same as the forced baptisms of Jews and Muslims by the Spanish in the late 15th century -- whether or not these "conversions" actually took is a quite different question. (Indeed, the Spanish Inquisition spent much of its time looking at conversos.) It makes no difference if they were actually able to change people's opinions, since any failure to do so was not from lack of trying

You are the one not paying attention. These two men used force -- what libertarians call "men with guns" -- to push atheism on the populace. You want, for some reason known best to yourself, to deny that this can even happen. Look at it this way: Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain forced Catholicism on non-Catholics in their country. So why is it so hard for you to accept that Hoxha and Stalin forced atheism on non-atheists in their respective countries?

[gcomeau]

52. No, you're STILL ignoring me.

Your entire response didn't spend one single line dealing with what I just said. Not one.

So now we're done. Enjoy your delusions.

[skepticscott]

55. Idiotic from the get-go

As pointed out to you OVER and OVER and OVER, public expression of religion and many, many other things that would have competed with communist authority were suppressed under Stalin. Did that turn people who used to be religious into atheists? Of course not. Atheism as a way of thinking was not being "enforced" in any way, shape or form, nor could any intelligent person ever argue that it COULD be. Did people pretend to be atheists under Stalin, just as they pretended many other things to keep from dying? Sure they did. So what? You argument is horseshit.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

108. Yes, you are being idiotic from the start

As pointed out to you OVER and OVER and OVER, public expression of religion and many, many other things that would have competed with communist authority were suppressed under Stalin. Did that turn people who used to be religious into atheists? Of course not.

I never said that Stalin was SUCCESSFUL in turning people into atheists. Indeed, I gave the parallel example of the Spanish in the late 15th century, who forced Jews and Muslims to convert to Catholicism, and then spent the next couple of centuries trying to determine if the forced conversions "took" or not. Whether or not either the Spanish Inquisition or Stalin or Hoxha was successful or not is immaterial. All of them tried to convert their peoples' religious beliefs through force. Any lack of success was certainly not due to a lack of effort on any of their parts.

Atheism as a way of thinking was not being "enforced" in any way, shape or form

It can certainly be tried, as shown by Stalin and Hoxha.

No, you merely want to pretend that atheists are too good and too moral and too "saintly" ever to try to foist their ideas on others by force. You can only do this by ignoring the facts of history. The one whose argument is horseshit is you, not me. But hey, I only have facts on my side, while you have prejudice on yours.

I suggest we drop this. It is quite clear that you are not going to accept the truth, and I am not going to accept your bullshit.

[skepticscott]

121. You didn't say Stalin "tried" and wasn't too successful

Read your post 51 again. You said he did it. "Stalin forced atheism on non-atheists" If he did it, that means he was successful.

You just keep chasing your tail and making shit up. It's what you do best.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

132. Ok, change it to Stalin and Hoxha tried really, really hard to force atheism on their peoples.

Their success or lack thereof makes not the slightest difference to my argument. The original post said something to the effect that only those nasty godbotherers force religion on others, this is something which atheists never do. I gave a couple of counterexamples -- Stalin and Hoxha -- and you got all snippy about it.

IN FACT, there are atheists who have tried to force atheism on others, using guns, imprisonment and similar methods. All the huffing and puffing you do does not change that fact.

[Gore1FL]

179. How? Did they go door-to-door like bands of anti-mormons?

Knock knock Knock

"Hello, may we please discuss with you the plans that no deity has for your life?


The motivations of Stalin and Hoxha where not some Holy-Spirit-esque driven desire to anti-proselytize. It was to rid the state of competing political forces.

No one goes into battle driven by the will of the no God.

As far as this is concerned:

IN FACT, there are atheists who have tried to force atheism on others, using guns, imprisonment and similar methods. All the huffing and puffing you do does not change that fact.

I'd like to see that IN LINK, please--and not in the context of political power consolidation, but one that atheism is actually the demonstrable goal. Thanks!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

180. Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Obviously, you do not want to admit the facts. In other words, you have shown that you are not worth discussing things with.

I'm done. It is clear that you are ignorant of history, and you have no desire to learn.

[Gore1FL]

187. I am happy to discuss the facts.

Please provide some with supportive links from credible sites to back them.

If you are done, it is not becasue of my ignorance, but rather your inability to support your arguments. If you are correct, that would be easy with a tool; you can find at this link:

www.google.com

But until you can give actual supportable examples, I am going to have to assume you are in error.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

199. No, you are obviously NOT prepared to discuss the facts

Your demand for "supportive links" is on EXACTLY the same level as someone demanding evidence that Hitler had a policy of exterminating Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses und so weiter. If you really meant it seriously, then your knowledge of 20th century European history is sorely lacking.

Any popular history of the Soviet Union or of the Balkans in the 20th century would satisfy your demands. Heck, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism for a starting point.

[Gore1FL]

200. Except that no atheist ever pushed atheism for the purpose of atheism

I asked for a link because you are making shit up.

Atheism, when pushed as a religion, was not pushed because of some "atheist evangelism." It was to rid the state of the political competition of the state.

I look for a link providing an example of the atheist evangelism you claim exists. I cannot come up with a single one.

[Gore1FL]

204. What rituals were these people forces to perform?

and on edit:

Do you have a credible link to support your answer?

And on Further edit, if the Holy Spirit drives Christians, what drives Atheists?

[cleanhippie]

214. "You atheist ARSEHOLES"? Is that all you have left is namecalling?

Not that you had anything to begin with.

if namecalling is how you want to have a discussion, is it ok for me to call you a "theist douchebag"? Would you consider that fair?

[ZombieHorde]

217. Will you please make your broad-brush, personal attacks more subtle?

Why is it so difficult for you atheist arseholes to accept this.

No, the one making shit up is you atheists.

This is a heated group, and fights break out, so I understand frustrated posts, just please try to be more subtle about it.

[Apophis]

218. "You atheist arseholes."

That's very Jesus-like.

[trotsky]

221. Your posts continue to be a bountiful source of Christian love.

One might say that you're completely full of it.

[mr blur]

222. We're "arseholes"? That's rich, coming from a bigoted moron. Fuck off back to church,

and come back when you've grown up.

[hrmjustin]

223. Please do not call names in here.

[Warpy]

226. Why is this obvious violation of TOS still up?

I know juries are full of Christers who think they hate atheists, but where are the moderators?

So much for this group.

[MADem]

249. There are no moderators. There are hosts who can block the poster if they all agree.

I think the remarks are unacceptably rude, myself. I think the poster should edit and apologize at a minimum. Otherwise, the hosts should think about a time out. There's just no reason to be personal and rude like that--no one deserves to be called names for their beliefs.

I imagine the comment was alerted upon and managed to survive? Some people think "arsehole" is "cuter" than "asshole." I've lived in UK; it's the same...er....shit.

[Iggo]

232. How many?

[backscatter712]

250. Hold the ad-hominems if you want anyone to take your arguments seriously. n/t

[gcomeau]

257. You're completely hopeless.

"No, the one making shit up is you atheists. Stalin and Hoxha (and others) forced atheism on their subjects in exactly the same way Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain forced Catholicism on their non-Catholic subjects. "

If you actually cannot comprehend the *profound* difference between those two things you don't have enough of a clue to even use as a foundation for beginning to explain to you how you don't have a clue. The point, the goal, the PURPOSE of forcing Catholicism on those people was.. to ... FORCE CATHOLICISM ON PEOPLE. The end. Done. That was the motivation. Their catholic beliefs called upon them to convert everyone to their faith.


The purpose of the Stalinist moves against the churches was to eliminate the churches as competition to their communist governments control over the populace. Not to "force people to be atheists". There is ZERO structure or basis in atheism to call on people to "convert" to atheism beyond that which would exist in arithmetic to "convert" people to believing 2+2=4.

[Starboard Tack]

259. Well, you just cashed in any gold stamps you might have had left.

As an atheist, I've never tried to push it on anyone and have always shown respect for the personal beliefs of others, including yours. Unfortunately, you have stooped to the level of broad brushing bigotry.
Your post should have been hidden for the "you atheist arseholes" remark. There are and always will be arseholes, of every stripe, who try to shove their beliefs down the throats of others. I guess you just joined those ranks.
Have a nice day!

[skepticscott]

185. Of course, our friend here has already backpedaled

from this: there are atheists in power who enforce their atheism by force SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN ATHEISM. , to now saying "tried to force". He has no evidence for either, nor can he point to one single person who was ever "forced" to stop believing in god. He still hasn't got his head around the concept that you can't "force" beliefs out of someone's head. You may force them to say or act like they don't believe in god, but that's not remotely the same thing as not believing in god.

[Iggo]

233. He still called us assholes.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

225. where do you get these ideas? STALIN REFORMED

the Eastern Orthodox Church and supported its existence. The fact that he replaced priests with his own spies is entirely another matter. I can only view his killing of priests as simply evening the odds after all the wars and murders the church had been involved in by then.

Stalin was no athiest, did not care one way or another about religion, and did not push atheism on others.

[napoleon_in_rags]

131. Remember the buckets people used to bang at protests?

They just made a lot of noise, and could be used to drown out the message. That's how I feel about these exchanges...not that I myself haven't been involved in them a million times, but that's the conclusion I've come to, after wasting a lot of time on them. All the bad "isms" attempt to pin the root of evil on some overly simplistic thing. Its probably most useful to look at the intellectual bankruptcy behind any "ism" and proceed in more effective directions.

[backscatter712]

39. They enforced cults of personality.

The way dictators worked, they wanted you worshiping them, not the traditional deities. In North Korea, you worship Kim Jong Un, in China, you worshiped Mao, in the old Soviet Union, you worshiped Stalin, and in Nazi Germany, you worshiped Hitler.

In religion, it's good to be the god! I wouldn't call these dictatorships atheistic at all - they just made their populations change religions.

[AlbertCat]

73. They enforced cults of personality.

And of course they wanted the church's money.

Replacing an all powerful infallible deity with an all powerful infallible political party is not enforcing atheism.

[Bradical79]

86. No he didnt enforce atheism

He took down religious institutions and then reinstated them under state control. He wasn't even much of an atheist on a personal level. While he didn't believe in an all powerful deity, he did believe in the supernatural and promoted anti-scientific ideas. Rather than worship an imaginary deity, Stalin took that role making his communist party a nonatheistic religion. North Korea is the same where their "dear leader" is given supernatural attributes and ahteistic scientific free thought is supersede.

[SpartanDem]

97. You should read this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=74943

[gcomeau]

99. Ok did.

My response remains exactly the same. You are confusing doing things "in the name of atheism" with doing things that are in any way associated with atheism.

The communists didn't do anything in the name of atheism any more than they did things in the name of arithmetic. They did things *in the name of communism*... which is a whole elaborate political/economic/social ideology.

[SpartanDem]

144. I think don'the claim was that they're doing it "in the name of atheism"

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 04:10 PM - Edit history (1)

it was have atheist ever tried to use violence in an attempt to get people to adopt their views. The answer to is that yes they have.

[gcomeau]

255. Stll not getting it.

They used violence to eliminate the churches as competition *to their communist government* for control of the population. Not to "get people to adopt atheism".

[SpartanDem]

275. No, the adoption of atheism was a big part of why they were doing it.

Last edited Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:12 AM - Edit history (3)

It was part of the broader ideology of communism. Within Marxism there were two camps, one said that religion could tolerated and would die naturally in a communist society. The other said religion should directly confronted, this is what Lenin believed and was generally the policy during the Soviet Union's existence. Groups like the League of Militant Atheist went about with deliberate propaganda campaigns to discourage religion. Their efforts were a failure, but it was not for a lack of trying. Pretty much every Marxist state has tried to discourage religion this includes China, Albania and Cuba. None of these countries ever did campaigns as sustained and brutal as the Soviets and countries that are still under communist rule have pretty much given up it.

Soviet officials heavily promoted scientific atheism. The doctrine was taught in schools, advocated in the media, and emphatically propagandized in books, posters, the arts, during holidays, and with celebrations.
Convinced atheists could join atheist organizations and meet on a regular basis in lieu of church
participation; the primary atheist organization was the League of Militant Atheists, which was
active prior to World War II and later replaced by the Knowledge Society. All in all, scientific
atheism was omnipresent in the daily lives of Communist citizens. Atheist propaganda and rituals, in combination with the brutal repression of Russian religious groups, produced an atheistic
“church” similar to a state-supported religious monopoly

http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z3211C.pdf

The League of Militant Atheists[1] (Russian: Союз воинствующих безбожников Soyuz voinstvuyushchikh bezbozhnikov); Society of the Godless (Общество безбожников Obshchestvo bezbozhnikov); Union of the Godless (Союз безбожников Soyuz bezbozhnikov), was an atheistic and antireligious organization of workers and intelligentsia that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Communist Party in 1925–1947.[2] It "consisted of Party members, members of the Komsomol youth movement, workers and army veterans".[3]

The League embraced workers, peasants, students, and intelligentsia. It had its first affiliates at factories, plants, collective farms (kolkhoz), and educational institutions. By the beginning of 1941, it had about 3.5 million members of 100 nationalities. It had about 96,000 offices across the country. Guided by Bolshevik principles of antireligious propaganda and party's orders with regards to
religion, the League aimed at exterminating religion in all its manifestations and forming an anti-religious scientific mindset among the workers. It propagated atheism and scientific achievements, conducted 'individual work' (a method of sending atheist tutors to meet with individual believers to convince them of atheism, which could be followed up with public harassment if they failed to comply) with religious people, prepared propagandists and atheistic campaigners, published anti-religious scientific literature and periodicals, organized museums and exhibitions, conducted scientific research in the field of atheism and critics of religion. The League's slogan was "Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism", which was meant to tie in their atheist views with economy, politics, and culture. One of the slogans adopted at the 2nd congress was "Struggle against religion is a struggle for the five year plan!"[4] The League had international connections; it was part of the International of Proletarian Freethinkers and later of the Worldwide Freethinkers Union.

The League was a "nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism." It published newspapers, journals, and other materials that lampooned religion; it sponsored lectures and films; it organized demonstrations and parades; it set up antireligious museums; and it led a concerted effort telling Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and "harmful", and that "good" citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

[gcomeau]

277. Uh-huh...

...which is why when it suited his purposes Stalin supported and *actively revived* the Russian Orthodox Church as soon as it was to his advantage to do so right? Because that's what you do when your purpose is to spread atheism, you throw your support behind an official state religion!

Get serious. They were not in this "for atheism". They were using any tools at their disposal to advance the power and control of their government. When the church was seen as a rival to that due to things like backing the white army during the civil war and spreading anti-Stalinist materials they went after it. When it looked like it could be turned to their purpose like during WWII they jumped behind it.


Try and wrap your head around this simple fact. There does not exist any form of atheist dogma or belief structure to convert people TO to any greater degree than you would go on a crusade to convert people to the belief that 2+2=4. Stalin and his ilk were not on some quest to spread atheism. They were on a mission to consolidate communist power by whatever means were required at the time.

THE. FREAKING. END.

[SpartanDem]

278. You're in denial of history

if you think that the elimination of religious thinking was not a part communist of ideology in the Soviet Union. You have to deny the writings of Lenin. If it was just about power why were there propaganda campaigns? Why were groups like LMA formed?


I also said it was PART of the reason, sometimes it was for purely political reasons they oppressed or tolerated religion. But that doesn't changed their overarching ideology from wikipedia article of Marxist-Leninist atheism: "The pragmatic nature of the militant atheism of the USSR, meant that some cooperation and tolerance could exist between the régime and religion when it was deemed to be in the best interests of the state or it was found that certain antireligious tactics would deal more harm than good towards the goal of eliminating religion (e.g. hardening believers’ religious feelings). These forms of cooperation and tolerance by no means meant that religion did not need to be eliminated ultimately.[34] Militant atheism was a profound and fundamental philosophical commitment of the ideology, and not simply the personal convictions of those who ran the regime.[38]"

and anti-religious campaigns continued after WWII. From the article that I posted in my previous reply from the Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion(which is a peer reviewed academic sociology/psychology journal).

"As this report hints, the blame for religious persistence was attributed to Yaroslavsky’s
own organization and during the final months of the Great Terror the “personnel and cadres
of the League of Militant Atheists movement were under heavy fire” (Luukkanen 1997:161).
Widespread killings of religious believers ended on the eve of World War II, and as Soviets faced
death from a foreign invader, religious persecution was put on hold.1
Immediately following World War II, religious persecution generally took on a less deadly
form through the use of social sanctions and a renewed effort to offer religious believers an
atheistic alternative"

Another from the JSSR. Why are there so many peer reviewed articles studying the effects of the Soviets attempting to have their populace adopt atheism? That's a lot studies on something that you say didn't happen.

The amazing decline and then re-growth of religious monopolies across the
Soviet Union is mainly due to the arrival and then disappearance of a powerful
religious competitor m the doctrine of scientific atheism. Soviets introduced
"scientific atheism" as an alternative to religion; the doctrine of atheism held a
monopoly status within the Soviet religious economy through state repression of
its ideological competitors and continued government funding of its promotion
(Froese forthcoming).
Following the Russian Revolution, the Communist Party fully believed that
the intellectual enlightenment brought on by modernization and socialism
would naturally quell all religious activity.
The advent of a new society was to make the eradication of religion all but automatic .... In
this belief the party tumed out to be greatly mistaken. The Bolsheviks had anticipated post-
revolutionary battles involving political parties, classes, nationalities, and interest groups.
What they did not foresee was the extent to which competing cultural perceptions and
aspiratiom that emerged around the issue of atheism would bring ala important cukural
dimension into the equation as well (Husband 2000;, 35)
http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/1/57.full.pdf

Finally, atheism does not have dogma, but communism did in the Soviet Union and part of that was the elimination of religion. On DU we've seen people express views that could be described as anti-theist. These people just took their anti-theist views to an extreme as part of broader ideology. I don't think I can express the broader ideology part enough, an atheist society was not their goal, a communist one was their goal. The elimination of religion was a means to an end.

[gcomeau]

279. *I'm* in denial of history?

f you think that the elimination of religious thinking was not a part communist of ideology in the Soviet Union

Only when it suited their purposes. Those purposes being the advance of *communism*, not the advance of *atheism*.

Did Stalin actively back the revival of the Russian Orthodox Church when doing so served his purposes of consolidating state power under his communist government? Yes? Ok then, debate over.

Finally, atheism does not have dogma, but communism did in the Soviet Union...

HOLY CRAP! You finally got it! Congratulations! The dogma they were forcing on people WAS FREAKING COMMUNISM, NOT ATHEISM.

[SpartanDem]

280. And atheism was a part of that dogma

and it suited their views for much their existence. That gets us back to the original question of whether atheist have ever used force in trying to get people to adopt their views. The answer is still yes, whether they were trying to do for communism is irrelevant. They were still trying to force their atheist/anti-theist views on people.

Again there are a lot of peer reviewed studies on effects in the Soviet Union for something you say that didn't happen.

[gcomeau]

281. SOMETIMES

And so was math and science... all the time.

See the point yet?

[Act_of_Reparation]

282. That's quite a stretch

Motivation matters.

The Nazis were Christians, but we don't attribute the Holocaust to Christianity. While Hitler's anti-semitism was couched in religious rhetoric, his motivations were of a decidedly nonsensical racialist stripe.

I argue the same applies to the Soviets. Did they advocate atheism? Sure. But why? Certainly not because they were advocates of free-thought or scientific rationalism, but because they were authoritarian pricks who didn't feel like competing with the church for political capital.

[SpartanDem]

283. You're right motivation matters

and if you understand Lenin's anti-theist writings and understanding of Marxism and how they guided the Soviet Union during it's existence. You'd understand that atheism was a central part of their communist ideology and that their motivation for targeting churches was simply not because they were "authoritarian pricks".

Lenin considered atheism and theoretical ideas, not as important in themselves, but as weapons to use in the class struggle in order to overthrow the ruling classes that supported themselves with religion. For this reason he considered it important to maintain an intellectually enlightened Party that did not hold religious superstitions, and he considered that a true socialist must be an atheist.

Marxism as interpreted by Lenin and his successors required changes in social consciousness and the redirection of people’s beliefs. Soviet Marxism was considered incompatible with belief in the Supernatural. Communism required a conscious rejection of religion or else it could not be established. This was not a secondary priority of the system, nor was it a hostility developed towards religion as a competing or rival system of thought, but it was a core and fundamental teaching of the philosophical doctrine of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.[34] Marxist philosophy traditionally involved a thorough scientific critique of religion and an attempt to ‘demystify’ religious belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_atheism

Following the Russian Revolution, the Communist Party fully believed that
the intellectual enlightenment brought on by modernization and socialism
would naturally quell all religious activity.

The advent of a new society was to make the eradication of religion all but automatic ....
In this belief the party tumed out to be greatly mistaken. The Bolsheviks had anticipated post-
revolutionary battles involving political parties, classes, nationalities, and interest groups.
What they did not foresee was the extent to which competing cultural perceptions and
aspiratiom that emerged around the issue of atheism would bring ala important cukural
dimension into the equation as well (Husband 2000;, 35).

Many Marxist-Leninists believed that fully educated individuals would
eschew religious beliefs as uncivilized superstition. The initial policies of the
Soviet regime set out to fully industrialize society and redistribute power
amongst disenfranchised workers; in addition, Soviet citizens were to receive
free and liberal educations. The joint impact of industrialization, collec-
tivization, and atheist education was intended to create a new "Soviet human"
who was free from the psychological bondage of pre-communist societytudies of the communist
educational system show that "physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, mathe-
matics, history, geography and literature all serve as jumping,off points to
instruct pupils on the evils or falsity of religion" (Bociurkiw and Strong 1975:
153).

http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/1/57.full.pdf

[Act_of_Reparation]

284. You're missing something.

Marx opposed religion because he saw it as a distraction, a means by which the powerful persuaded the oppressed to accept their earthly suffering. So long as people believed an eternal, better life awaited them after death, there could never be "pure communism".

So, again, the motivation behind Soviet repression of religion is steeped in the political doctrine of Marxism, and to say that the Soviets were pushing atheism for atheism's sake is complete obtuse.

Incidentally, I also know of more than a few scientists who would call bullshit on the assertion that the Soviets promoted science.

[SpartanDem]

285. I never said they were doing for atheism's sake

What about saying it was PART of their ideology wasn't clear? Have atheist ever tried using force to get people to adopt atheism that is the question that started this whole thing. It's a simple freaking question and answer is yes!!. The question has nothing to do with why they were doing it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

286. It's perfectly clear... just completely irrelevant.

We're talking about violence and intolerance being problems endemic to religion. You're firing back with problems which are endemic to communism, alleging that atheism is somehow guilty by association.

The comparison is fallacious. I don't know how else to put it.

[SpartanDem]

288. Apparently it is not

What about this is not clear?

Communism required a conscious rejection of religion or else it could not be established. This was not a secondary priority of the system, nor was it a hostility developed towards religion as a competing or rival system of thought, but it was a core and fundamental teaching of the philosophical doctrine of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.....[34].

Soviet leaders, propagandists and other militant atheists debated for years over the question of what approach was most pragmatic in order to eliminate religion. The state recruited millions of people, spent billions of roubles, and made incredible efforts towards this end, although it ultimately failed to achieve their goal. The pragmatic nature of the militant atheism of the USSR, meant that some cooperation and tolerance could exist between the régime and religion when it was deemed to be in the best interests of the state or it was found that certain anti religious tactics would deal more harm than good towards the goal of eliminating religion (e.g. hardening believers’ religious feelings). These forms of cooperation and tolerance by no means meant that religion did not need to be eliminated ultimately.[34] Militant atheism was a bprofound and fundamental philosophical commitment of the ideology, and not simply the personal convictions of those who ran the regime.[38]

You are trying needlessly to split hairs. Atheism/antitheism was a fundamental part of Lenin's and the Soviet Union's interpretation of Marxism. It was a central of the part the reason why there was violence against religious institutions and propaganda to discourage religious thinking . You can not leave blameless one its fundamental beliefs.
is

Which leads us back to the original exchange that started this particular discussion(below) and that is the simple question of whether atheist have ever used violence/force on people to adopt atheism. Again it's not why these atheist did it(they were communist), it was was whether any have done it.

gcomeau: Militant *religious* people use things like guns and bombs, not words

Fortinbras Armstrong :Atheists have used things like guns and bombs to enforce their ideas

[Act_of_Reparation]

292. Do you not understand what a "composition fallacy" is?

Because you're making one right now.

[dimbear]

61. Not much use to deny Stalin took extreme measures. After he ended his stay in seminary for politics

he came down hard on religion. We should ask why, and have a good hard look at the centuries long interdependency of the Russian clergy and the despotic Czarist regime. Stalin took Marx seriously, evaluated religion as a minus and acted accordingly. (Later when WWII went badly, Russians made heartfelt appeals to the old system.) But it wasn't until Putin managed to again use the church as a useful personal crutch that the opposing forces were completely reconciled.

You see the same effect in the French revolution. A thousand years of Christian monarchs could only be brought to an end by thumping down some believers. The problem that requires atheist violence is theist support for corrupt government.

Happily such stuff never happens nowadays.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

68. Atheists may have their own corrupt governments to support

and so they support their atheism with guns and bombs.

No, atheist bleating to the contrary, there are atheists in power who enforce their atheism by force SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN ATHEISM. Blaming the victims of these atheist thugs is hypocritical at best. Atheists are no more "saintly" than theists. Yet at least some of the atheists here object to my saying that there are atheists who force atheism on others in exactly the same way the Spanish Inquisition forced Catholicism on others; there are atheists here who object to my saying that atheists can be bigoted; heck, there are even atheists here who object to my saying that atheists can be ill-mannered.

[dimbear]

69. Did these figures from history act because they believed in atheism or because they despised

religion? A difficult question, looking into the human heart. I can only recall the sentiments of Mao, who seemed to speak his mind. I don't recall him announcing a new saintly atheism, but rather I recall him decrying religion. One sees the effects in China today, where some religions are tolerated and others suppressed depending on their utility to the state.

It's always useful and good to recall the methods of the Inquisition. They were without parallel in their sadism and horror. They clearly inflicted pain for the pleasure of inflicting and observing it. Give us the atheist parallels if you can. Especially note that the Inquisition had to turn to the clergy for workers with enough resolution to do the most grisly tortures, the civil authorities being revulsed.

There is an extensive literature describing the details of the ceremony called the auto da fe. One of the most notable involves the victims on the pyre begging for more wood to be added to shorten their sufferings, a request which the clergy refused. Give atheist parallels.

A wonderful little reference volume is "De la Cruaute Religieuse," "On Religious Cruelty." It can be found on the net (Googlebooks or Gutenberg), and contains my example.

[skepticscott]

74. Name them

And provide quotes that prove that they are enforcing their atheism by force simply because they believe in atheism (however one manages to "believe" in atheism), as opposed to simply suppressing anything and everything (including religion) that might challenge their power and cult of personality.

Show us how actual non-belief (as opposed to simply dishonestly professing non-belief when asked) can be "forced" on anyone.

Show us any atheists here who object in principle to the notion that atheists can be bigoted (as opposed to objecting to your ginning up charges of bigotry by inventing false quotes).

Show us any instances here where atheists have objected to your saying that atheists can be ill-mannered.

We'll wait. But we won't hold our breath.

[SpartanDem]

91. The elimination of religion was a major a ideological goal of the Soveit Union

According to Lenin: Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class

Further he went on say: Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism

Since religion was the ideological tool that kept the system in place, Lenin believed atheistic propaganda to be of critical necessity. To this effect, before the revolution Lenin’s faction devoted a significant portion of their meagre resources to antireligious propaganda, and even during the civil war, Lenin devoted much of his personal energy towards the anti-religious campaign. The influence of the Orthodox Church especially needed to be weakened in order to undermine the Tsarist régime. The populace also needed to be prepared in order to make a transition from religious beliefs to atheism, as Communism would require of them.[28] Lenin considered atheism and theoretical ideas, not as important in themselves, but as weapons to use in the class struggle in order to overthrow the ruling classes that supported themselves with religion. For this reason he considered it important to maintain an intellectually enlightened Party that did not hold religious superstitions, and he considered that a true socialist must be an atheist

.


Throughout the history of the Soviet Union there was very systematic attempt to eliminate religion from that society. This ranged from anti-religious propaganda to taking church property and murdering clergy. IMO it is a major why atheist have not generally been liked in this country, it was one of the biggest foreign criticisms of the Soviet Union. For many generations of Americans the only real exposure to atheism was through hearing about the acts of the Soviet Union and the Cold War only intensified the feeling of American and patriotic= being religious. It's not surprising to me that much of the sharp rise in non believers is 30 or younger. I turned 30 this January, the SU collapsed when I was 7 and so did some that cultural pressure to be religious, because they weren't.

The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.[1] More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.[2] Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.[3]

In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500.
The campaign slowed down in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and came to an abrupt end after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa.[1] The challenge produced by the German invasion may have ultimately prevented the public withering away of religion in Soviet society.[4]
.......
Stalin called "to bring to completion the liquidation of the reactionary clergy in our country".[41] Stalin called for an "atheist five year plan" from 1932–1937, led by the LMG, in order to completely eliminate all religious expression in the USSR.[42] It was declared that the concept of God would disappear from the Soviet Union.[42]
........
The published anti-religious propaganda was not as conspicuous as it was during the 1920s, but this did not bear reflection on the level of actual persecution. The verbal propaganda was increasingly relegated to public organizations, such as party branches, the Komsomol, the Young Pioneers, the League of the Militant Godless, Museums of Scientific Atheism, Workers' Evening Universities of Atheism under the auspices of Trade Unions, and others.[31]

All forms of behavior and policies of the Churches were treated in the official propaganda as insincere and aiming to overthrow Communism (including both believers that were pro-soviet and anti-soviet). Even acts of loyalty by religious leaders to the system were considered to be insincere attempts to curry favor in order to retain their influence over the believers and protect religion from its final liquidation as the sworn enemy of the workers.

Religious behavior was presented in the official propaganda as being linked to psychological disorders and even criminal behavior. Textbooks for schoolchildren tried to evoke contempt for believers; pilgrims were depicted as morons, repulsive-looking alcoholics, syphilitics, plain cheaters and money-grubbing clergy.[32] Believers were treated as harmful parasites that spread ignorance, filth and disease, and which needed to be liquidated.

The press was filled with slogans like "let us deal a crushing blow to religion!" or "we must achieve liquidation of the Church and complete liquidation of religious superstitions!".[29] Religious belief was presented as superstitious and backward.[11] It often printed pictures of former churches that had been demolished or turned into other uses.

The anti-religious campaign of the Khrushchev era began in 1959, coinciding with the twenty first Party Congress in the same year. It was carried out by mass closures of churches[2][3] (reducing the number from 22,000 in 1959[4] to 13008 in 1960 and to 7873 by 1965[5]), monasteries, and convents, as well as of the still-existing seminaries (pastoral courses would be banned in general). The campaign also included a restriction of parental rights for teaching religion to their children, a ban on the presence of children at church services

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

[skepticscott]

92. Go back and read

The claim was "there ARE atheists in power who enforce their atheism by force SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN ATHEISM."

Did I miss the news of Stalin being re-animated?

In any case, your wasted exercise in cut-and-paste ignored one of my other admonitions, as well as failing to explain why the Russian Church was rehabilitated during the war, if all of this was simply about erasing religion utterly and forever.

Try again.

[SpartanDem]

93. That was not the initial claim that started this thread

It was "Atheists have used things like guns and bombs to enforce their ideas". With a disagreement whether religion was suppressed because was it a challenge to state authority or was there any ideological reason. As I showed, there was a systemic attempt to try to eliminator religion, this is something that lasted well into until the 1980's. It simply a historical FACT that the Soviet Union, tried to forced people to reject religion.

As the for rest I didn't make claim atheist couldn't be bigoted or ill mannered, Forntinbras did. But I did at least address want the reason why religion was suppressed in the Soviet Union.

[skepticscott]

95. Which was not what I requested evidence for

And you still didn't read my admonitions, did you?

[SpartanDem]

96. You mean

"Show us how actual non-belief (as opposed to simply dishonestly professing non-belief when asked) can be "forced" on anyone."

History shows propaganda works, if you can get millions of Germans to believe that Jews are the problem. I'm sure some these people in Russia were convinced there is no god.

[skepticscott]

101. If you have accounts from some attesting to that

then by all means, point us to them. Can you find anyone who said "I really, really wanted to keep believing in god, but the propaganda forced me not to"?

Convincing someone of something is not the same thing as "forcing" them to believe it.

Try again.

[SpartanDem]

136. You don't think those methods constituted force?

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 04:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I think you're defining forced way too narrowly. Why worry about the separation of church and state in public schools if it won't force people into certain beliefs? It's that history has show the government's power to coerce in things like schools that we worry about things like the separation of church and state.

[skepticscott]

181. I'm sure you'd love to redefine "force"

in the middle of the discussion. And even if you did, suppose someone put a gun to my head and said "I'll shoot you if you don't say you believe in god". If I lie and say "I believe in god" in response, just to make him go away, have I been "forced" to "believe" in anything? Of course not.

And as far as separation of church and state in this country, the government's action don't have to rise to to the level of force to be illegal and unconstitutional, so that's a pretty big fail of an argument. Do you really need it explained why prayer in public schools is still illegal and a bad idea?

[SpartanDem]

190. I'm not trying to redefine anything

You asked how could beliefs be forced on anyone. You don't think a deliberate program of government indoctrination counts as method of doing that? That your example of pointing a gun to someones head, not compelling actual belief does not mean it can't and hasn't been done by other methods.

[skepticscott]

192. Bullshit..you're trying to do exactly that

And you've been asked to show us accounts from ANYONE...ANYONE who was "forced" to not believe in god. You failed miserably. "Forced" means they had no choice, btw. Unless EVERY person subjected to those "other methods" ended up truly, sincerely not believing, then it wasn't "forced", now was it?

[Phillip McCleod]

75. i think what atheists object to..

..is your utterly dismissive and abrasive posture that warrants zero compromise. you like the lines where they are and will defend them, that is your right.

fortunately the eyes following this thread, if they are anything like myself, and i propose there are many, find the constant stalin refrain to be utterly pathetic when made in defense of religious history, so brutal that we had to establish a wall to separate it from our more *civilized* political systems.

that's saying something, when politics is more civilized than one's favorite hobby.

[skepticscott]

107. Still waiting for you to back up even ONE thing you claimed here

Or this just another pack of falsehoods?

[skepticscott]

117. STILL waiting for that evidence

Doesn't it bother you to bear false witness so often and so shamelessly, and to have everybody see you exposed for what you are?

And don't you get tired of replacing all of those burned trousers?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

224. stalin took marx seriously? Are you kidding?

I studied there 6 years before Brezhnev was officially declared dead, which was probably 5 years after he was already dead. I learned much from observation, from asking innocent questions (as an american college student, they were quite liberal, compared to how they treated their own people) and doing all the research I could handle.

I can assure you from personal experience that Stalin was not a socialist, not a communist, not a marxist leninist. He was a thug, pure and simple. His idea of gaining power was to kill everyone and anyone in his way. Neither marx, nor lenin, nor trostski, nor many other former leaders or idea men would have ever believed that a maniac like him would ever be appointed as chairman.
Those who did the dirty deed repeatedly thought that he was so dumb, so vile as a human, and so unconcerned with political theory, that by voting him in, they would have a convenient puppet. I wonder what crossed their minds as they were goose-stepped to the bloody wall that would be their last conscious moment on earth.

During Brezhnev times, the hardest job people had was admitting that stalin was a dangerous, murderous disaster, while also stating that the Politburo was infalible and had not done any wrong by electing him. Much like celebating today's catholic priests for their celibacy while they continue to fuck innocent kids. Like yesterday's paper stated here (as even more current crimes are uncovered)

[longship]

129. Dare one interject Hitler and Catholicism?

I would hope not. That's the same bullshit as bringing up atheism and Stalin. Both are gigantic logical fallacies. It's called Poisoning the well.

These are the arguments that drive many atheists crazy. We've heard them so many times that it gets tiring to respond so many countless times.

Also, theists need to abandon Pascal's wager, the Satan worship ploy, and all morality requires religion arguments. There are so many more. We atheists have heard them all.

Including the one that claims that atheism is equally religious.

It's rubbish. All rubbish.

[Skittles]

262. they used bombs to enforce their sociopathy

[cbayer]

6. For the record, I do not believe anyone suggested this be posted in interfaith group.

IMHO, it is way too controversial for that group. The suggestion to repost in interfaith was on an entirely different thread.

[backscatter712]

8. Here is good.

The Interfaith forum, and the religion-specific forums are safe-havens, and I'll respect them, just as I'd hope that our safe haven in the Atheists and Agnostics forum is also respected.

Here, it's open debate.

[cbayer]

9. Thanks back scatter. Agree with you.

[DonViejo]

10. Please read...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022563297#post101

[cbayer]

11. Yes, I saw that. I was also involved in the hosts discussion about the lock and the

locking host misspoke. Several threads were being discussed. There was a suggestion that one be redirected to religion or interfaith, but that suggestion was not made in regards to this thread.

Simply small error in the locking message. No biggie, just wanted to clarify.

[DonViejo]

13. Thank you for the clarification...

much appreciated!

[cbayer]

14. You are most welcome.

[gcomeau]

23. No, someone suggested it. In fact the mod who locked in in GD did.

I agree that that suggestion was absurd however. There could be no serious discussion of this article in that environment without mass deletions of posts.

[cbayer]

26. Agree. I tink it would be a trainwreck to have something this divisive in that fledgling group.

[dimbear]

12. "worth fighting for?"

Clearly the referenced author isn't right on top of history. One might turn to the French Revolution, which was preceded by decades of fervent atheist, agnostic and deist propaganda which played an important role in bringing a thousand year line of Christian monarchs to an end, and eventually after long evolution allowed France to emerge as a democracy.

Or one might look to the revolutions in China or Russia. In each case the revolutionists realized the importance of displacing the ruling religious powers which had walked hand in hand with their oppressors. They-the revolutionaries- may have been harsh folk and left a wake of destruction, but they weren't fools. They understood politics and religion very well indeed.

[Phillip McCleod]

287. how did i not read this before?

i somewhat feel the same. soviet leaders were cynical bastards but the revolution's ideals were subverted blatantly. there was little wrong with marx's analysis, in my estimation.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. Another guy attacking an non-existent strawman, also sick of the "militant" label...

Look, if I ever meet a militant Christian, I have to duck to dodge the bullets, same for a militant Muslim, but a so called militant Atheist, they may offend a religious person's sensibilities, the HORROR!

[Dorian Gray]

16. This discussion will end well....

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. By the time you reposted here, the title and subtitle on Salon had changed

It now reads:

"Has militant atheism become a religion?"

"Can the gap between the religious and the non-religious be bridged, when the debate itself is so attention-getting? "

which is good, because the original headline was a bald, not to say dumb, assertion; and the subtitle was another bald assertion which wasn't really made in the article, and also contained an accusation of doing it for money, which wasn't touched on in the article at all. The Salon subeditor ought to have been ashamed of themselves, trying to drum up controversy like that. Or maybe they just hate atheists.

I'd like to see an example of someone calling for 'a militant atheism'. Normally, it's a phrase used by others, about atheists they want to criticise. So the 'sleeping furiously' is just a sign that the critics of atheists are dumb.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

18. Just as an aside

The bit about "sleeping furiously" comes from Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structure, in which he gives an example of a sentence, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.", which is syntactically correct, but semantically meaningless. He used this to show that probabilistic models of grammar were inadequate.

[Jim__]

20. And, as a further aside ...

... from wikipeida:

It can only be the thought of verdure to come, which prompts us in the autumn to buy these dormant white lumps of vegetable matter covered by a brown papery skin, and lovingly to plant them and care for them. It is a marvel to me that under this cover they are labouring unseen at such a rate within to give us the sudden awesome beauty of spring flowering bulbs. While winter reigns the earth reposes but these colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

[Shadowflash]

27. Right.

I don't believe in dragons and unicorns either.

Does that make me a militant anti-unicorn theist? Ot an anti-dragon theist because I'll tell you so?

Not believing something because it's preposterous and has no evidence, at all, to suggest it's real is not a 'religion'.

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. I am a militant non-stamp-collector

All day long, I enthusiastically do not collect stamps.

[Shadowflash]

53. Wow!

Me too!

Small world.

[marions ghost]

29. "Activist atheism reflects trauma"

caught my eye since I operate from the psychological...

--------
Here:

"Egbert Ribberink and Dick Houtman, two Dutch sociologists, who classify themselves, respectively, as “too much of a believer to be an atheist” and “too much of a nonbeliever to be an atheist,” distinguish two kinds of atheists. Those in one group are uninterested in exploring their outlook and even less in defending it. These atheists think that both faith and its absence are private matters. They respect everyone’s choice, and feel no need to bother others with theirs. Those in the other group are vehemently opposed to religion and resent its privileges in society. These atheists don’t think that disbelief should be kept locked up in the closet. They speak of “coming out,” a terminology borrowed from the gay movement, as if their nonreligiousness was a forbidden secret that they now want to share with the world. The difference between the two kinds boils down to the privacy of their outlook.

I like this analysis better than the usual approach to secularization, which just counts how many people believe and how many don’t. It may one day help to test my thesis that activist atheism reflects trauma. The stricter one’s religious background, the greater the need to go against it and to replace old securities with new ones.

---------------

Interesting article--thanks for posting.

Activist atheism makes sense to me because we see all this ridiculous Science Denial in fundy religions in America. So in defending atheists we are defending freedom of thought. (Not an atheist but not religious myself). I see activist atheism as a direct reflection of the oppression by evangelical religions in America (and their invasion into politics). So I am supportive of activist atheism (tho not one).

[backscatter712]

41. The traumas are very real.

Recalling older threads here, like my thread about Good News Clubs, the fact is that a lot of people are taught some very nasty beliefs.

They're taught about Hell at the age of 4, and told they'll be tortured forever after they die if they don't behave.

There's the concept of original sin, taught to kids as "You are evil scum, it's literally impossible for you to improve to the point where you're good enough, so you have to submit to our authority as the only chance of not burning in Hell."

Over and over, they're given endless lessons in shame, they're drenched in fear, they're told they deserve to die, threatened with Hell, coerced into obedience.

So yeah, excuse me if I'm pissed off about this sort of child abuse.

[marions ghost]

42. For sure

there is child abuse in religions. Divides a lot of families later on when the kids grow up, or perpetrate it on their own kids.

Agree, the traumas are real. I think it's interesting if the link to subsequent atheism is true. I can understand it.

[Shadowflash]

43. +1000!

[skepticscott]

56. You're still apparently clueless

about the distinction between atheism and anti-theism, and it makes your argument fall flat on its face. Learn the difference, then come back and try again.

[Phillip McCleod]

64. you mean the made up difference?

completely made up as a compromise with theists who want to object to 'strident', 'militant' and otherwise 'vocal' 'new' atheists?

that fanciful difference?

or is it indifference?

[skepticscott]

65. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods

Anti-theism is the conviction that organized religion (or certain flavors of it) is, on balance, a negative and detrimental influence on society, whose negative influence should be spoken out against and fought.

The two are not the same. If they were, every atheist would be an anti-theist, and every anti-theist would be an atheist and that's most definitely not the case. A person can be one and not the other, which would not be possible if they were exactly the same thing. Yes, many atheists are anti-theists, and vice versa. But many people with blonde hair have blue eyes, but that doesn't mean that blonde hair and blue eyes are the same thing.

[Phillip McCleod]

66. my point is that the distinction is entirely fabricated

made up in the last few years and now we're being expected to start using the term as if it was anything but a derogatory term used to dismiss vocal atheists and atheists with a chip on their shoulder.

one may self-identify as an atheist but 'anti-theist' is a label generally applied from the outside.

hence, 'made up term'

[skepticscott]

67. I identify as both

And the fact that the specific term "anti-theist" may be of relatively recent vintage (and I don't know when its earliest usage dates from) does not mean that the distinction between atheism and anti-theism is artificial. It may simply mean that, for most of history, there was no need for a special term to describe people who were openly critical of, or hostile towards, organized religion (or at least, the organized religion that held power). "Toast" served just fine.

[kwassa]

54. A good article that was completely mistitled, and misrepresented by it's headline.

I read it on Salon before it showed up here.

[gcomeau]

57. It was not in any way a good article.

Title didn't bring it down any further than it's imbecilic content did.

[AlbertCat]

70. Militant atheism has become a religion

....or at least it WILL when it exists.

[Phillip McCleod]

76. magical horsefart has become a telethon!

..right?

hey! those are all words! my spell checker said so. it's a sentence!

what do you mean it's a completely empty phrase?



ugh

[Warpy]

77. Oh, stop it. Just stop it.

it's the absence of belief and the absence of religion.

There is no holy writ, no liturgy, no dogma, no officiators, no temple or church, no nothing.

So just stop this, already. What gets believer's knickers in knots is the fact that there is nothing there and that we all do quite well with that.

[Act_of_Reparation]

78. The argument itself is utterly pointless

It's essentially a tu quoque.

Atheist: "Religion is bad."

Theist: "BUT YOU DO IT, TOO."

[Warpy]

79. Most atheists who've been at it a while

don't say religion is bad. We just say we don't believe a word of it and are too honest to fake it.

[dimbear]

106. That's certainly a polite attitude, but occasionally I point out that where there is much religion

there is likely to be much poverty and other problems. Nothing against individual believers, just noting the trends.

[backscatter712]

94. That's exactly what it is. Tu quoque. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

80. Mostly, but...

Nothing wrong with lack of belief but there are those who proclaim absolutely and loudly that there are no gods and call believers idiots.

That goes beyond disbelief and becomes itself an act of faith (faith being defined as the belief in things unprovable) that most atheists and agnostics I know say goes too far. It's every bit as obnoxious as preachers getting in your face and demanding you believe their way.

A small group (and a small part of what were once called "hard atheists&quot to be sure, but making noises far greater than their numbers.

Making the distinction between the mass of nonbelievers and these advocates is important.

[cleanhippie]

81. Who does that? Who "proclaim(s) absolutely and loudly that there are no gods..."?

Please, be specific and show who does it and what they said.

[TreasonousBastard]

82. You need me to find them for you? Not...

gonna be pulled into that by someone who already made a point about "absurd beliefs."

[cleanhippie]

83. No, I want you to find them for you. You say they exist, yet refuse to provide any evidence at all

Hmm, where else does one see that happen?

Absurd beliefs, indeed.

[cleanhippie]

85. You make a claim to disparage an entire group then refuse to support that claim with evidence.

I guess it's purely coincidental that that is how the religious right operates too, huh?

[kwassa]

98. One can act dogmatically while claiming a lack of belief.

What the author pointed out is dogmatism. Some atheists behave as dogmatically in their lack of belief as some ardent theists behave in theirs. The effect is essentially the same. Claiming absence of belief is, in my opinion, denied by the behavior.

This is what causes others to call them "militant atheists". It is the behavior, not the alleged lack of belief.

[trotsky]

100. Does your god exist, kwassa? n/t

[Warpy]

102. What dogma is that, dear?

What holy atheist scripture are you referring to?

Oh wait, that doesn't exist, either.

[kwassa]

118. Well, to be honest ...

If someone acts dogmatically, then I think there is a belief underlying that behavior, though most won't admit it. A dogmatic lack of belief. People who believe they have the truth, regardless of what that belief is, can behave in a very similar fashion. There are certainly atheists here on DU who behave in such a fashion, in my opinion.

and I'm not your dear, your condescension is duly noted.

[Warpy]

122. I think you are confused

Telling someone a firmly held opinion is not dogma, nor is acting upon a firmly held opinion acting dogmatically.

You want a dogmatic person, you'll have to find the dogma that guides him.

Again, there is simply no "there" there.

[kwassa]

123. I think you need to read a dictionary. No dogma is required to be dogmatic.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogmatic

dog·mat·ic (dôg-mtk, dg-)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. See Synonyms at dictatorial.

dog•mat•ic (dɔgˈmæt ɪk, dɒg-) also dog•mat?i•cal,

adj.
1. of the nature of a dogma; doctrinal.
2. asserting opinions in a dictatorial manner; opinionated.

dogmatic (dogˈmӕtik) adjective
tending to force one's own opinions on other people. He's very dogmatic on this subject.
dogˈmatically adverb

[Warpy]

126. You can't prove a negative

The god squad are the ones who need to supply proof. So far, they've come up with some very nice poetry, but poetry aint proof.

Given the impossibility of proving a negative, one can hardly be dogmatic for asserting a negative in the absence of any proof of the positive.

But nice try.

[kwassa]

127. You avoid the issue.

I talk about dogmatic behavior, not proof. No dogma is required for dogmatic behavior, as I've already shown.

All I have been talking about is behavior, as did the article in the OP.

[skepticscott]

115. Which atheists?

Ask a hundred atheists "what evidence would convince you that a god exists"? and then ask a hundred religious believers "what evidence would convince you that your god doesn't exist"? See what kind of responses you get. Even your so-called "militant" atheists have no problem answering that question with something substantial. Fundy religionists...never will.

[kwassa]

119. Oh no, many fundamentalists will be happy to discuss their evidence with you.

You won't accept it as evidence, that's all, and there the conversation ends, as it always must.

[skepticscott]

120. What evidence? That their god exists?

That wasn't what my post was about. Read again. Carefully this time.

[kwassa]

124. What did I miss?

Spell it out.

[skepticscott]

145. Read my post 115 again

It's spelled out very clearly.

[kwassa]

149. If it was spelled out clearly I wouldn't ask for clarification, would I?

If you can't be bothered, neither can I.

[Act_of_Reparation]

147. Spell it out? Are you serious?

The point is simple.

Atheists know the limits of their disbelief. They know what evidence, if presented, could compel them to believe in God. Does this sound like dogmatism to you? If so, you may want to revisit the dictionary.

[kwassa]

151. I never said that atheists had a dogma, unless they are hard atheists, of course.

I simply said some of them can and do behave dogmatically, as supported by the dictionary definition of the word, and common usage.

I would also suggest that some atheists know the limits of their disbelief, and probably some don't.

[cleanhippie]

156. I never said atheists had dogma, except when I did!

Stop it Smalls, you're killing me.

[kwassa]

160. and where was that?

[Act_of_Reparation]

164. 98 & 151

Before you bother trying to draw the distinction between "soft" and "hard" atheists, allow me to preempt you. There's no difference, ideologically speaking, between a person who does not believe in God because there is no good evidence and a person who claims God does not exist because there is good evidence. Both hinge on the same argument: there is no good evidence.

If good evidence is presented, an atheist, "hard" or "soft" would reverse his or her opinion.

But that's neither here nor there, as your argument, ultimately, is an equivocation fallacy.

Dogma:

dog·ma [dawg-muh, dog-] Show IPA
noun, plural dog·mas or ( Rare ) dog·ma·ta [dawg-muh-tuh] Show IPA .

1. an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.

2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.

3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.

4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation. Synonyms: conviction, certainty.

You are conflating the first definition of the word (which refers specifically to religious dogma) and the third definition (which does not encompass the same qualifiers).

You could argue theists and atheists are both dogmatic (and I would disagree here, as I don't think the third definition is really applicable to a people who are not bound by a formal belief structure), but you cannot argue they are dogmatic in the same way, or that their dogmatism produces the same effect.

[kwassa]

165. There is a distinction between soft and hard atheists

A hard atheist has a belief. That the source is shared with the soft atheist is irrelevant, he still has a belief.

I made no definition of dogma, I did provide multiple definitions of dogmatic, so you are barking up the wrong tree. I can argue they are dogmatic in the same way as there is no necessary attachment to dogma, only a description of behavior. You can make a distinction that satisfies you, if you like. I am arguing that they can be dogmatic in the same way, and that there dogmatism can produce the same effect.

[Act_of_Reparation]

166. Vocabulary...

...you do not has it.

Allow me to illustrate:

A hard atheist has a belief. That the source is shared with the soft atheist is irrelevant, he still has a belief.

Again you are treating two incompatible definitions of the same word as if they are equal. In this case, that word is "belief".

Generally, a "belief" is an opinion or conviction. Everyone--atheist or otherwise--has beliefs. A religious belief, on the other hand, is confidence in the truth or existence of an idea or a thing in the absence of proof.

So, no, "hard" atheists do not "believe" the same way theists "believe", because their opinions and convictions hinge upon proof.

I can't begin to ascertain how you've arrived at such a mind-bogglingly nonsensical position. "Hard" atheists say there's no God, so they have religious-like "beliefs"?

What about people who claim homeopathy is bullshit? Are anti-homeopaths dogmatic and religious, too?

I made no definition of dogma, I did provide multiple definitions of dogmatic, so you are barking up the wrong tree. I can argue they are dogmatic in the same way as there is no necessary attachment to dogma, only a description of behavior. You can make a distinction that satisfies you, if you like. I am arguing that they can be dogmatic in the same way, and that there dogmatism can produce the same effect.

You don't get to define anything. The fact of the matter is religious dogma and generalized dogma have different meanings and you are attempting to use them interchangeably.

[kwassa]

178. I've spent endless time on this group talking to atheists who think they have no beliefs and are not

believers. Going back to 2005, when I first joined this site. That has been a central argument in this forum. Over and over and over.

You are creating distinctions in this endless cycle of an argument that I have not seen before.

Not that I think they have merit. You are merely setting up this distinction to say that you have different and better beliefs than religious believers. Fine, if you want to believe that.

You don't get to define anything. The fact of the matter is religious dogma and generalized dogma have different meanings and you are attempting to use them interchangeably.

I don't attempt to define anything. I let the dictionary do that. You keep attempting to DIVERT the discussion into dogma, not dogmatic behavior. It would be nice if you stayed on topic. I posit the behavior is precisely the same, regardless of the underlying beliefs, religious, secular, nationalistic, ethnic, scientific, etc. You apparently think that the behavior is different because you have better quality beliefs. I am guessing, because you haven't discussed behavior at all. This thread, after all, is about behavior, not dogma.

Would you like to talk about dogmatic behavior? Otherwise, I am out of this conversation.

[Phillip McCleod]

247. yep same thing happening with the word 'militant' in this thread.

it's being applied unfairly and colloquially to atheists, where the strict meaning is reserved for believers. religionists have dogmas, but atheists are 'dogmatic'. all of human history is rife with religious warfare between factions of zealots fighting for the supremacy of their respective dogmas, but atheists are 'militant'.

the double standard is truly stunning.

it's also an obvious ploy.

maybe it's a good thing you've finally noticed the distinction..

..it was my first thought.

[trotsky]

133. Forget fundies, why don't you answer the question, kwassa?

What evidence would convince YOU that your god doesn't exist?

Simple question. Answer it, if you dare.

[kwassa]

150. Not much.

My belief is based on my life experience, with numerous small things, and some big things pointing that direction. I can't imagine suddenly having completely opposite experience. It is possible, I suppose, but probably not likely.

[trotsky]

152. OK, so you don't have an answer to the question (specifically WHAT evidence),

but your statement here says that you're about as certain as possible that your god exists.

On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being an atheist who claims absolutely no gods exist and 7 being a theist who asserts absolutely that their god exists, where would you place yourself?

(Feel free to use decimal points if you want to get more granular than 1 to 7.)

[cleanhippie]

157. This should be interesting, assuming you actually get an answer.

[kwassa]

159. 7

[trotsky]

162. Fascinating.

Richard Dawkins, the king fundie militant atheist that is almost universally reviled in this group by believers, on a scale of 1 to 7 (reversed from the one I gave you, so 7 is absolute certainty no gods exist), rates himself a 6. (When he's being cheeky, he'll say 6.9.)

So you are more certain in your belief about the existence of gods than Richard Dawkins is.

Given what's been said about Dawkins right here in this group, that would appear to make you an extremist fundamentalist militant theist. You won't even allow for the possibility that you could be wrong - something that Dawkins readily does.

No wonder discussions with you go nowhere.

[kwassa]

163. I think you drew an unsupported conclusion.

[trotsky]

182. I'm sure you do. The truth hurts, huh?

Perhaps you can explain why Richard Dawkins, who isn't absolutely sure god doesn't exist, is an extremist, but you, who are absolutely sure your god does, aren't one.

I await a thorough justification of the double standard.

[trotsky]

258. Still waiting for the justification.

I'm sure you're busy. Whenever you have time.

[Warpy]

87. While I'm sorry you are offended by some people who are rude

you need to understand where it's coming from.

Newly "out" atheists are often very angry about the years of indoctrination they underwent. I know my mother was. It takes a while for that anger to be processed and that is often at a cost of being rude. Don't take it personally. It goes away.

99% of what's happening among atheists now is just self identification and telling other, closeted atheists that we have a right to be who we are, too. The angry, defensive behavior by theists to even the mildest of these campaigns has been a real eye opener for a lot of us. Realize also that there has been rudeness on both sides.

However, it's not atheists who are passing laws that prevent theists from holding office. Nor is it atheists who block religious materials from being delivered by the USPS. I'm honest enough to think if the tables were turned and 80% of us were atheists the atheists might be doing this stuff, but we aren't the ones doing it now.

However, it's dead wrong. The separation of church and state needs to be absolute. Even Jesus understood that one, giving Rome what belonged to Rome and to god what belonged to god. Theists seem compelled to rage against this and long for theocracy. They wouldn't like it if they got it, each sect battling the other for primacy.

So take a deep breath, take a step back, and realize that a rude atheist is likely working through a lot of heavy things and leave him to it for a while. And realize that the separation of church and state means that one doesn't diminish the other. Rather, the sharp delineation enhances both.

[Phillip McCleod]

125. k&r

+10000

[TreasonousBastard]

130. I'm not in the least offended, although...

I am slightly annoyed.

While I understand the frustration, I just don't see where such discrimination gives license for uncalled for rudeness.

[Kolesar]

227. It is as if you didn't read her post #87 .. eom

[TreasonousBastard]

229. Huh? Of course I read it and understood every word. I simply...

don't agree with the central point of it.

(And what is that, you ask...)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

154. Very true Warpy.

Religion is societally sanctioned child and adult abuse. Emotional and mental abuse. Sometimes physical and sexual abuse as well.

It's tough to get up the self esteem to walk out when they have told you for years you are a filthy sinner just for existing based on a fairy tale.

[backscatter712]

103. Ah, those horrible militant extreme atheists!

[Apophis]

128. This is the dumbest OP I've ever read.

[backscatter712]

191. Given the persecution of atheists in places like Bangladesh, maybe we should be militant.

We're certainly gaining no ground in terms of acceptance and respect of our rights by shutting up and being nice. The only way we begin the process of recognition is to act like assholes and make enough noise to force a response.

Look at the LGBT community - Today, we're talking about gay marriage. A few short decades ago, they got thrown in jail or the psych ward just for being gay. It took Stonewall, a FUCKING RIOT, to get the process moving forwards.

My recommendation for my fellow atheists, it's time to act like assholes. If we don't we get ignored.

[Phillip McCleod]

194. Lately I'm more worried about getting the banhammer as PZ calls it.

Opening my atheistic mouth makes me a 'militant bigot'. It's not new. I'm used to it. But Rabbis slavering blood off of baby's genitals? That should be protected.



The disconnect is galling.

There's a resurgence of religious privilege afoot on the left? A revival w/tude? Sing Kumbaya or sit at a different table?

[cbayer]

195. Malarkey. No one has been banned from this site or blocked from this group

for being an atheist or being really vocal about it.

And what's wrong with Kumbaya? You don't want to sing it, no problem.

There is a resurgence in the progressive religious community, and that's a good thing. It's what many complain has needed to happen for awhile.

People expressing differing views is not an expression of privilege. No one is being stifled here.

[Phillip McCleod]

196. Just seems tense.

What you call a 'resurgence in the progressive religious community' I call, 'cause for concern.'

History is on my side.

[cbayer]

197. Really? When has a resurgence in the progressive religious community caused

you concern?

It's tense only because some members here make it so.

[Phillip McCleod]

198. When? Every time. 1995, the New Age movement.

Nothing makes progressives look more ridiculous than our religious revivals.

THAT'S what's wrong with Kumbaya. It's cacophony.

[cbayer]

205. What happened in 1995? And how do you equate the New Age movement with progressive

religion?

Our "religious revivals" have included the Civil Rights Movement and anti-Vietn Nam war movements, and these are two that have happened in my lifetime.

I fail to see what is ridiculous about that.

You trying to tie this to Kumbaya makes no sense at all.

[Phillip McCleod]

207. you can't claim the civil rights movement or anti-vietnam as religious revivals.

that's what makes no sense, at all.

they were political movements not religious revivals. christians have participated in those movements, but you can't claim them in the name of progressive religiosity. that's just insulting.

..

i just like 1995 as the pinnacle for new ageism.. others may choose a different year. i most certainly consider it to be a religious revival, and having participated in it somewhat at the time, can attest to its progressive political leanings. a picture's worth a 1000 words..

[cbayer]

208. I don't claim anything at all. You, on the other hand, would be wildly off base

to claim that progressive religious groups were not critical players in these movements.

New ageism has nothing to do with progressive/liberal religious groups and the work they have done in this country. While there may be a tendency for these people to be individually progressive, they generally do not get involved in social movements.

Your initial claim was bogus and appears to be one of many you have made that are just anti-religious knee jerk blanket statements. While much of what you write is thoughtful, you do yourself a great disservice when you just start repeating the nonsense of the anti-theists.

[Phillip McCleod]

209. thanks for your review of my work.

let's not make this about me shall we? i don't accept the term 'anti-theist'. it's a made up pejorative intended to dismiss the authors of legitimate criticism, rather than addressing the criticism itself. it doesn't work for me and it doesn't work *on* me. point it elsewhere, plz.

..

as i said, progressive religious groups participated in those movements, but you cited them as examples of progressive religious revivals. thx for the clarification on that, but then we are left with no examples of prog revivals to work with in this discussion. i have offered new ageism and a picture of a rainbow gathering. pretty weak, right?

are there progressive religious revivals i don't know about that aren't pretty weak?

[cbayer]

211. I will agree not to make this about you, as it really does not serve any purpose.

The term anti-theist is in use and claimed by some prominent people, like Dawkins. Whether you accept it or not doesn't make much difference. Whether it applies to you or not is entirely up to you.

There is a tendency to pick a team in these debates. I think that's not necessary and not helpful. There is strength in numbers and in forming coalitions. We have much more in common than we do differences.

We defeat our own purposes by blindly attacking those who are essentially on the same side we are.

I'm not sure what you mean by revivals, I guess. You made an initial statement that indicated that the resurgence of religious liberals an progressives was a bad thing and that history was on your side in this.

My experience with this has been quite different. The religious community I grew up in was at the forefront of activist movements for social justice and peace. I have very little first hand knowledge of new age communities or groups, but I have never known them to be about much politically.

[skepticscott]

210. Horseshit

You've posted over and over that religious progressives were at the forefront of these movements and that they would have been impossible without such people.

And for someone who constantly upbraids others for "broadbrushing", you certainly have no problem engaging in it yourself. Hypocrisy never seems to end with you, does it?

[trotsky]

203. Singing kumbaya tends to ignore/dismiss the very real problems of religion,

pretending they don't exist, or are just superficial and inconsequential. This does a great disservice to those who suffer from the effects of religion around the world. If you make criticism of religious beliefs off-limits or "bigoted" you are carrying water for the fundamentalists and those who seek to impose their religious beliefs on others.

[Arugula Latte]

219. Fail.

[Kolesar]

228. What's wrong with becoming rich on the lecture circuit?

Aren't gold watches and nice homes what the big preachers aspire to, also?

[patrice]

230. No matter how wrong religion is, INDIVIDUAL religious persons CAN stand at the nexus between

Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:41 PM - Edit history (1)

rationalism/knowledge and the a-rational/non-known universe as honestly as possible.

The fact that militant atheists apparently refuse to recognize this about some individual persons or they assume that it means nothing, the fact that so much of what MAs are about isn't justice so much as an inordinent concern for what OTHER people THINK, suggests they may be more like those religious whom they oppose than they admit.

This is the internet, though, a place where people seek, above all else, to be noticed, so MAs are probably competing amongst themselves for reputations, hence a higher proportion of radical atheist dogmatism in their discourse.

[Phillip McCleod]

236. more insulting claptrap. sorry you don't get to define the terms.

your religious privilege is showing once again.

you use the term 'militant atheists' to dismiss and diminish people who frighten you and try to pass it off as reasonable discourse but it is nothing but insulting.

show me a 'militant' atheist ready to enforce atheism. you just don't like that we won't just shut up and let people inject made up and entirely subjective cherry picked nonsense into public discourse. that's not militant. that's just plain atheist.

you brandish these pejoratives as if you can force the world to accept their meaning.. same with the 'anti-theist' label if you ask me, though i gather there are some atheists who, rather like the impressionists, or gangster rappers, or slutwalkers, or queers, have embraced the pejorative and reclaimed it.

perhaps we should do the same with 'militant atheist.' shall we embrace that role and take it to the Nth level.

if you think we're annoying now, just imagine what that would be like.

[patrice]

239. Ha, ha. I was actually referring to previous usages, by others & then you proved THEIR point. wow.

[Phillip McCleod]

240. i know you think you just scored a big point.

sorry to disappoint.

i don't accept that either.

[patrice]

242. A rationalist reads my mind???? wow, again. You don't know shit about what I think. nt

[hrmjustin]

231. Yes there are atheists that are just as militant as believers are.

My definition of Militant is someone who thinks I am right on this issue and that is it. I have to say here I get insulted by people here when they call my religion fairy tales. I do not stoop to a level to insult their beliefs, so I wish others would take care with their words.

[Phillip McCleod]

238. we don't get to define words for ourselves and impose them on the world.

sorry but your definition doesn't count. i don't accept it, so it's null and void.

see how that works? that's what cherry picking gets us. cancellation.

[patrice]

241. So, words have no connotative meanings. Poetry means nothing. & Usage NEVER changes.

And words like "fuck" would mean one thing and one thing only.

Sorry, if words worked the way you claim they do, they wouldn't work at all.

Please find an unabridged Oxford English Dictionary and acquaint yourself with what you're talking about.

[Phillip McCleod]

243. my point is one individual cannot unilaterally make up terms and impose them.

which is exactly what the author in the OP and most of the believers in this thread are doing.

if that's the way it works then, as i said, i can simply cancel that definition by the same force of will.

[patrice]

245. And that would apply to BOTH sides of this question, so about that, we agree.

[Phillip McCleod]

246. that's right it does apply to both sides.

calling your average vocal atheist.. which is quite a lot of us.. 'militant' is completely unfair unless we agree that the new pope is a 'militant catholic' because he vocally and publicly speaks his mind on subjects religious, which he does. he has also pissed off and annoyed people. is he militant?

it's unfair to call vocal atheists 'MAs' like you're being clever (juvenile is more like it) precisely because you want to use meaning #2 for atheists, but the standard for calling a believer 'militant' is that they already killed a bunch of people (what i'm calling meaning #1).

that's called a double standard. pick a meaning and stick with it. either there's very few.. indeed almost no militant atheists in the public sphere, or even the most casual believer stating that they believe in god is militant as well.

[hrmjustin]

256. I would never call anyone here militant because it might insult them.

I think the term vocal is more appropriate.

[Phillip McCleod]

264. 'vocal' i appreciate

i would bet that many of the most vocal on the internet are still in the closet, IRL. this is the one place they can find people willing to 'go there' with them, for good or ill.

that's why i appreciate the public voices, the atheoblogosphere more than dawkins, hitchens, et al, who i have not read, but also appreciate.. they are creating a bigger safe space for mousier nonbelievers, and they're doing it worldwide.

[hrmjustin]

270. I get along with the athiests here because I try to be respectful of their views.

This is a safe space for many people and I always want it to be. For the most part people a polite to me about my beliefs. I never take anything to personal that is said here.

[Phillip McCleod]

271. i've noticed that and have to say..

..it's entirely disarming. worked on me, didn't it?

[hrmjustin]

272. I am glad it did.

Your fun to talk to.

[Phillip McCleod]

273. i suppose i'm so used to having my defenses up all the time..

..it makes me a tad prickly. it helps that you apparently have pretty thick skin, because i can be vocal, i know it, and you've been unflappable. it's an admirable trait. wish i had it, but then where would we be?

[hrmjustin]

274. I always like people who are honest.

You have been. We will discuss religion and argue it for many posts to come but we can agree that we have a respect for each other. We also agree that some of these RW religious people make life much more difficult then it needs to be.

[Phillip McCleod]

276. maybe that's why i keep holding out such hope..

..for the progressive movement. once in a while we can honestly reach each other and take another small step forward.

[hrmjustin]

254. Would you agree there are atheists that are hard edge and are uncomprimising as some religious folk.

[skepticscott]

260. I don't know of any atheists

who wouldn't change their minds about god, given sufficient evidence. Plenty of religious fundamentalists will cling to god and their literalist beliefs, no matter what the evidence says.

[Phillip McCleod]

266. i'd be satisfied with a sensible and reliable definition of 'god'..

..though i confess that definition would have to be absent any anthropomorphism. we name things all the time, but this whole deal where different believers demand different definitions and they all suck anyway is too much. i throw up my hands in disgust.

mostly what i hear are various redefinitions of other things. deists say the universe = god. then there's love = god. or energy = god. or cosmic cosciousness = god..

.. well, that last one doesn't count, since that's like saying unicorns = fairies. who's to say they aren't since neither seems to exist. at all. ever.

why not just call it the 'universe' and say, 'i love you,' instead of 'i god you?' it would make it much easier to take the 'love' part seriously.

[hrmjustin]

268. do all religious people cling to God or just fundamentalists?

[Phillip McCleod]

263. i would agree that there are some atheists who are willing to speak openly..

..and those that will not, or only rarely and in the company of close and likeminded friends. many atheists if not most have lost loved ones or good friends when the they come out of the a-proverbial closet and made up their minds after that it didn't matter.

what happens is a circle of believers with one atheist are sharing their beliefs and it comes time for the nonbeliever to speak and everything they say is offensive to everyone else in the group. it's a double standard. there is no compromise to be had, simply because by merely opening our mouths and stating our genuine thoughts we elicit strong reactions from a broad swath of the believing population.

the only way we can be any more accommodating is to sit down and stfu, and this metaphorical genie is not willingly going back in the allegorical bottle.

edit. meant to add.. this outsized reaction has definitely attracted some trollish atheists, who nobody will deny exist.. the folks at freethoughtblogs talk about it all the time. The hot buttons are there and it's so easy to get some believers frothing, that the juvenile or particularly cynical.. or just atheists living in a red state.. are liable to have a chip on their shoulder on teh webz, the one place they say what they really think.

[cbayer]

265. You make some really good point here and I appreciate that.

It helps to understand where some of the hostility comes from. Although it seems unwarranted, I think you have explained some of the reasoning behind it very well.

Thanks.

[Phillip McCleod]

267. i don't doubt that a great deal of lashing out occurs..

..if what i wrote rings true it's from personal experience. here on this site, no doubt. i'm definitely one of those surrounded entirely by believers of one sort or another. i suppose i sought out a place like this.. 'religion' maybe more than 'a&a'.. where people willingly go (for whatever reason) to talk about these topics that the people in my life will not hear of.

[hrmjustin]

269. You know sometimes being in NYC I just expect atheists to speak their mind.

I sometimes forget that in many places, families, and groups of friends it can be very hard to come out as an atheist. My parents think I am a bit odd for believing and I am just so used to hearing my beliefs challenged so I forget. Yes their bare trollish people of all strips which is what I was getting at.

[XRubicon]

289. It's harder to work on your brain

[okasha]

290. Perhaps one of the reasons

that atheism is sometimes mistaken for a religion is that so many of the responses to criticisms of Dawkins et alia amount to "Burn the Heretic!"

[Phillip McCleod]

291. link plz.