"Militant Atheism"

Post Reply New Topic

Hi all. I want to talk about another thing that has been clogging up my mind lately. I want to talk about "militant atheism".

A lot of people nowadays will use the term "militant atheism" to describe "the wrong kind of atheism". I don't think that "militant atheism" is a very good term because most of these "militant atheists" aren't using actual violence. Putting internet trolls on the same level as Islamic extremists probably isn't a good idea.

Atheists who engage in atheist evangelism are often called "militant atheists" ... but we never use the term "militant Christian" to describe evangelical Christians. We only use the term "militant Christian" to describe people like Joseph Kony.

It is true that there annoying atheists out there, but I don't think that we should call them "militant atheists". I'm not concerned about militant atheism. I'm more concerned about hyper-simplified atheism.

That brings me to my sister. She is also an atheist, but she is not quite like me. She dismisses the Bible as a "book of lies" and she once made fun of me because I was reading it. For the record, I was reading it because I wanted to make sure that I was making the right decision by abandoning Christianity.

I don't see why only Christians should read the Bible. People don't automatically believe everything that they read.

Is the Bible a book of lies? Well ... perhaps. Some of the factual inaccuracies in the Bible may have been deliberate fabrications ... but the authors of the Bible likely believed a good portion of what they were saying.

In fact, a large portion of the Bible is based on events that actually happened. Most of the Old Testament takes place in Ancient Israel, which actually existed. Judaism was their religion. It is also true that the Israelites were persecuted by other Middle Eastern ethnic groups, such as the Babylonians. That actually happened. The Old Testament also says that Ancient Israelite men were badass warriors. That's probably true as well. ... though there is no evidence for Noah's flood. That obviously didn't happen.

The New Testament takes place in Israel when it was under Roman occupation. This actually happened. The existence of Jesus is up for debate, but some parts of the story make sense. A lot of what Jesus said about the Romans and the Pharisees was true. His execution makes perfect sense because he was opposed to the Roman occupation of Israel. Of course the Romans would want to kill him for that. Christ's message of nonviolence makes sense because many Israelite separatist groups at the time relied on terrorism. This wasn't very effective, as it just fed the Roman propaganda machine.

If Jesus wasn't real, then he certainly was a symbol of very real oppression. He was created for a reason. Religion is the heart of a heartless world. The Roman empire was a heartless place for everyone, except for the Roman upper class. Thus, the oppressed people in the empire thought about saviors, both real and imaginary.

If you are an atheist and you are over the age of eighteen, you should seek out intellectual sophistication. No holy book is 100% lies. All of them are partly true.

"Militant" doesn't necessarily mean "violent". Just means you're marshalling your strength for the cause. Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war (or atheist soldiers)to spread "the good news", but not necessarily literally to war.

So individuals who don't go for that namby-pamby "I don't believe in god, but if you do that's cool with me" stuff, and need to aggressively argue for their atheism like Hitchens et al are indeed "militant".

Though you could also call them "evangelical atheists", or "missionary atheists".

There are militant atheists, just as there are practicing believers.

Same story, and a story is only a story.

Your subject heading for this thread should have included the second part of the discussion about the Bible, btw...

Any moral code in the Bible is easily replicated using modern day psychological/philosophical enlightenment...
I.E, No need for divine inspiration...
And also consider aspects of the Bible which are immoral by today's standards in regards to an eye for an eye, human sacrifice and genocide...


Social conduct is arbitrary and is based on evolutionary meandering...
Social morality was custom designed to cater to human psychological parameters...
Successful social memes proliferate and were/are passed on through the generations...

However, social memes aren't the be-all and end-all to all people or all intellectual constructs...

Religious memes, while catering to the emotional/existential needs of an individual/society, suppress other areas of consideration such as overall enlightenment in regards to the reality system in which humanity *incidentally* exists...

It is the narcissistic arrogance of humanity which seduces individuals away from the greater truth of our existence...
And it is the evolutionary limitations of the human brain which clouds our perception of absolute reality...

Lawrence Krauss said it nicely:
"Why the human brain cant grasp reality"...


In summary:
-Bible morality is man-made...
-Aspects of Bible morality is immoral by today's standards...
-Social conduct is arbitrary and is a result of the evolutionary process...
-Successful social memes proliferated...
-Religious memes cater to emotional and existential needs rather than the intellectual...
-Humanity is incidental in this life system...
-Human self-centeredness/arrogance/narcissism inhibits a greater awareness of absolute reality...
-Primitive human brain development makes it impossible to comprehend absolute reality in its entirety...

I thank you...
<exit stage right>

Nor is assuming trollhood right out the gate. There are plenty of reasons to actively oppose and engage with theism that don't involve scoring lolpoints on the interwebs. The recent bruhaha in Iceland being a lovely example: Jews and Muslims being in beautiful agreement that their lives will be completely ruined if they can't mutilate babies.




Talking about "atheist evangelism" implies that there is such a thing as an atheist gospel. There is not.




I'd posit that atheism is a rather simple proposition.




I agree. There are few more effective ways to make more atheists than actually sitting down and reading the allegedly holy books. On a less "strident" note, the bible is an extremely important and influential literary work, and a huge chunk of the western literary canon becomes incemprehensible without it.




The problem is that a work written and compiled over such a long period of time by so many different authors with their own ideas, messsages, agendas and values, not to mention the inherent unreliability of an originaly oral tradition is going to be inconsistent in pretty much every way.

And ancient warriors of any sort likely had their own claims to badassery in their own tradition, so that part isn't particularly strange. The scope of the battles and outright genocides the Israelites attribute to themselves is likely wildly exaggerated (at least one battle is claimed to involve more people than were alive in the region at that time), and are more than likely fairly local tribal squabbles inflated over time.

One notable problem is that while most people can easily dismiss the more obvious mythological/allegorical aspects of the bible, such as the garden of eden, the flood, angels, demons and all the rest of it, they are quite happy to accept things that have only a veneer of historical accuracy as true events. The israelites being slaves in Egypt? Never happened. Caesar Augustus' tax census that sent Joseph and Mary on their merry way? Nope.




Personally, I'm inclined to believe there was a a person by the name Jesus (or Jeshua, or whatever the case may be), and that he was propped up as much as a political figure as a religious one, and that a whole lot of religious baggage was attached to him in order to lend him credence, either by him or by his followers and possibly even after the fact.

He may even be a mashup between multiple people operating in the same area at the same time, which would explan why his messages are a bit mixed: nevermind work or family and follow me for the world is about to end, but also practice non-violence and be good to the poor etc.

And while the Roman Empire was surely a harsh place for most, let's not forget that most of the world was pretty s**t at the time, with the only other civilization comparable to Rome that comes to mind being China. And they did eventually accept Christianity as a state religion, so make of that what you will.

The bottom line is this: most of the teachings of Jesus appear in similar forms in much older works, and several of his teachings rely entirely on his alleged divinity to be moral at all. And the fact that you can tell the difference at all means that your morality is independent of the book. Hence claims to unique morality and divine influence can be dismissed.




Great, so which part of the Book of Mormon is true? Or Dianetics?

Talking about "atheist evangelism" implies that there is such a thing as an atheist gospel. There is not.


[quote="DarthMetaKnight"]quote]

You have "evangelism" confused with "Fundamentalism".

An "Evangelist" spreads "the good news" ( ie is out to make converts). A Fundamentalist is someone who believes in getting to "the fundamentals"of belief by adhering to the bedrock of scripture. Adhering to scripture in not only in theology,but also by implication being Biblical literalist about historic events in the Bible.

So its true that the phrase "Atheist Fundamentalist" would be meaningless because atheism has no "scripture". But if someone is militant about arguing with religious folks in favor of atheism they could fairly (if a bit jokingly) be called "atheist evangelists". Dawkins and Hitchens et al could be called "atheist evangelists". It is a tad tongue in cheek to say it that way, but atheist missionaries can be just as annoying as their theistic counterparts.

Oh, I'm certain Hitchens would insist on being an "Anti-theist evangelist", in that case.