![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The RFC was closed as split supported, so we should probably put together a list for what will go on the db page as well as a single line introducing the page, something along the lines of "Militant Atheism is a term with multiple historical and modern uses and may apply to the following:" After we get a few for the list we should probably convert to a db quickly and start merging/writing the new articles. Noformation Talk 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I was going to write a crappy version of the DAB page, because I thought no one else would. But, it turns out the page is locked. Please unlock it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 05:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there could still be an article similar to what BD2412 suggested earlier, including the content from the section Militant atheism#Today (and also from the criticism sections). But in my opinion, there should also be an article about the historical ideology of "Militant Atheism", including the content from Militant atheism#Application (And there are enough sources stating that there was an ideology or doctrine called "Militant Atheism".) And I see no problem with providing the readers with articles containing more detailed information about the uses of "Militant Atheism". Cody7777777 ( talk)
I'm looking forward to someone forming a replacement disambiguation page. If I were not house hunting today I would dig into the task myself. I like Tryptofish's bare bones idea but if I were writing the dab, I would probably give it a little more explanatory prose. Binksternet ( talk) 16:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Militant atheism may refer to:
I am dubious about the remaining incoming redirects from titles such as Fundamentalist Atheism and Militant materialism. Of these, only Militant atheist clearly needs to redirect here. The rest should probably redirect to New Atheism. bd2412 T 18:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=922868 Regards -- В и к и T 09:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am offering a revision of the current introduction, which addresses the major concerns that have been offered by several users, including the degree to which militant atheism holds religion to be harmful as well as the issue of the New Atheist writers not advocating violence against believers, which many have keen on including in the article. Moreover, it meets WP:LEDE by summarizing the major sections of the article, which was not the case in the version listed above. I hope this version can be seen as a good faith compromise that will gain favor from both parties as it also meets WP:RS and WP:V. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this version. With warm regards, Anupam Talk 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Historically, the main usage of the term refers to the doctrine advocating the propagation of atheism among the masses, [2] [7] as well as the combating of religion as a harmful aberration, which was often undertaken by atheist states. [3] [2] [1] This application of the term was an integral part of the materialism of Marxism-Leninism, [8] [9] [10] [11]
and significant in the French Revolution, [12] [13] the Soviet Union, [14] [15] and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. [16] The term militant atheist has also been applied to various political thinkers. [17] Recently the term militant atheist has been used, often pejoratively, to describe atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger (writers often identified as New Atheists), [18] [19] [20] [7] who argue against religion and for the spread of atheism, but do not advocate violence against religious believers. [18] [21] [7] [22]
The appellation has also been criticized by some activists, such as Dave Niose, who feel that the term is used indiscriminately for "an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God." [23]
Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.
ATHEISM A. IN PHILOSOPHY I. Concept and incidence. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any possibility of knowing God. In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.Cite error: The named reference "Rahner" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.Cite error: The named reference "Walters" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.
Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures. In practice, almost as soon as it took power in 1949, the CCP followed the hard line of militant atheism. Within a decade, all religions were brought under the iron control of the Party: Folk religious practices considered feudalist superstitions were vigorously suppressed; cultic or heterodox sects regarded as reactionary organizations were resolutely banned; foreign missionaries, considered part of Western imperialism, were expelled; and major world religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, were coerced into "patriotic" national associations under close supervision of the Party. Religious believers who dared to challenge these policies were mercilessly banished to labor camps, jails, or execution grounds.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as a dangerous narcotic and a troubling political ideology that serves the interests of antirevolutionary forces. As such, it should be suppressed or eliminated by the revolutionary force. On the basis of scientific atheism, religious toleration was inscribed in CCP policy since its early days. By reason of militant atheism, however, atheist propaganda became ferocious, and the power of "proletarian dictatorship" was invoked to eradicate the reactionary ideology (Dai 2001)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknowledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."Cite error: The named reference "Colson" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
From the start Lenin demanded that Communist propaganda stress "militancy and irreconcilability toward all forms of idealism and religion. And that means that materialism organically reaches that consequence and perfection which in the language of philosophy is called — militant atheism."
Plekhanov demonstrates, writes Doroshevich, that the materialists' militant atheism was thoroughly grounded in their materialism : Deeply convinced of the materiality of the world, of the ability of matter to give rise to all its modifications, the French materialists rejected the "hypothesis" of the existence of God as an unecessary and harmful chimera, which hindered the development of science (p. 10).
One fundamental element of that system was its propagation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism. Until only a little over three years ago, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church in what might be called an atheocratic state.
For seventy years, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the closing years of the Gorbachev regime, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union, and the Communist Party was, in effect, the established church. It was an avowed task of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, to root out from the minds and hearts of the Soviet state, all belief systems other than Marxism-Leninism.
The French Revolution was unprecedented in a militant atheism that was at once a cause of, and an index to, its novel status as "a revolution in sentiments, manners, and moral opinions" (Reflections 175).
So was the French Revolution fundamentally atheist? There is no doubt that such a view is to be found in much Christian and atheist literature on the movement. Cloots was at the forefront of the dechristianization movement that gathered around the militant atheist Jacques Hébert. He "debaptised" himself, setting aside his original name of Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce. For Cloots, religion was simply not to be tolerated.
On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities.
Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite.
Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.
The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Science and religion, according to the proponents of the new atheism, are mutually exclusive. Richard Dawkins's Foundation for Reason and Science is out to debunk religion, which Dawkins calls "the God delusion." His book of the same title is a best seller, and Dawkins is not alone. Sam Harris, Daniel C. Den-nett, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens are only a handful of militant atheists who are convinced Christianity is toxic to human life.Cite error: The named reference "Appositive" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Aronson, Ronald. "The New Atheists." The Nation 286 (6/7/07). Available online. URL: www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson. This article provides an extensive explanation and analysis of the views of today's most militant atheists in the United States and Europe. While the author is sympathetic to the free choice to choose nonbelief, or atheism, he questions the vehemance of the new atheism and wonders to what extent it has itself become a type of rigid, fundamentalist religion.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, philosopher Daniel Dennett, and British journalist and polemicist Christopher Hitchens, a group sometimes referred to as "the Four Horsemen," have taken the offensive, deeming religious belief a form of "delusion," a dangerous kind of collective madness that has wreaked havoc upon the world for millennia. Their rhetoric is the emblem of a militant radical atheism, a view I believe is as inflammatory and intolerant as that of the religious fundamentalists they criticize.
MILITANT ATHEISM The change in tone is most evident in the writings of the so-called New Atheists-Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens-men who have been trying to accelerate a process that's been under way for centuries.
When the media and others refer to a "militant atheist," the object of that slander is usually an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God.
There seems to be evidence that some distinguish and some equate new atheism with militant atheism. Since this page is about helping people find articles based on usage, it seems reasonable to include new atheism with a disclaimer. See
Ian Hutchinson (equating new atheism with militant atheism) and
Paul Kurtz (distinguishing new atheism from militant atheism). I don't think there is an attempt to portray a POV here, but rather an attempt to inform. Supposing I read something or heard someone called a believer something "Militant atheism", I search wikipedia - I think it would be helpful to know what new atheism is and read that article. Especially if they are obviously not referring to state atheism or Russia --
Trödel
21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC) PS - I found these from
this search
[←] I am uneasy about the inclusion of that note referring to New Atheism. Two issues: (1) The article on New Atheism does not include the term "militant" anywhere within it, so where is the basis for the claim that the term "militant atheism" is applied to the New Atheists? I want to see a reliable source, either here or there. (2) If we are going to list things/movements/people to whom the label "militant atheist" has been applied, why stop there? Go on - add a list starting with Dawkins and going on through Hitchens, Clive Bone and the High Court of Justice - all of them have been (or might have been) called "militant atheists". Are we not heading down the sorry route of using this Wikipedia article as an attack piece (again)? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
An RfC was held this past fall which discussed whether the content of this article should be split and this page being made into a disambiguation page. However, no one ever ended up moving the content to its appropriate place. As such, I followed through with the RfC and moved the relevant content to the New Atheism article, which now discusses its criticism as militant atheism. I may work on moving the other leftover content from this article to the state atheism article at a later time. Thanks, Anupam Talk 17:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the edits of the last 24 hours or so have changed my mind. You can see what I now think at the AfD for this page, where I now support deletion/redirection. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
This page (and the edit war) is being discussed elsewhere on-site. User:Mathsci proposed in one of the threads that the naming of the article is causing the dispute, rather than the content. He suggested the page be named Atheism (disambiguation), and that Militant atheism be a redirect to that disambig page. I think that's a good suggestion, and it seems it would entirely eliminate this dispute. Are there any objections/comments to that proposal? — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This page should not have redirected to the League of Militant Atheists, a specific organization in a specific country. Militant atheism is far more widely applicable than to this single entity. Further, associating modern militant atheism, which is nothing more than New Atheism, with the Soviet Union can send the wrong message to believers or others who oppose atheists. I suggest keeping this redirect or making Militant Atheism a disambiguation page, offering New Atheism, Antitheism, the League of Militant Atheists. and perhaps other pages as links.
The result of the move request was: Oppose move. Snow close/proposer withdrew prior to 7 day listing. Consensus appears to be against redirecting the page to New Atheism, and generally supportive of keeping the current redirect. ( non-admin closure) — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Militant atheism →
New Atheism – Inappropriate redirect.
Lagoy (
talk) 09:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if I filed this right. I'm new at this. But I believe it is inappropriate and biased to redirect the page "Militant Atheism," a page with a title about a general concept, to a specific organization in Soviet Russia (i.e., the
League of Militant Atheists). That has the potential to put militant atheists in a bad light, given the crimes of the Soviet Union. The Soviet League of Militant Atheists is fundamentally irrelevant to modern militant atheists. A more appropriate redirect is to the page
New Atheism, since that's what militant atheism actually is.
Lagoy (
talk)
09:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
As most people presumably look for New Atheism and not for the League of Militant Atheists, I suggest to transform the redirection in a disambiguation page (as shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Militant_atheism&diff=643259550&oldid=643231928). What do you think? Raruss Okssél ( talk) 00:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC).
Whoever tries to turn this page into a disambig or redirect is demonstrating militant ignorance. The term is ages old, well known in European philosophies. The article is well referenced with sources of direct relevance, which operate with this term. I have no idea why this version was tagged as non-neutral. The very concept is non-neutral.
Ironically, the term is embraced both by [militant] atheists and anti-atheists alike: the former have been proud of being militant in fight against religion, while the latter use the term as an accusation, since "militant atheists", in their opinion, are fighting against the source of "all Good on Earth". Militant atheism was one of the cornerstones of the Communist ideology.
I strongly suggest you to get familiar with the subject before destroying this page again. -M.Altenmann >t 06:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Currently I am trimming the article of various fluff. It is not that important who called whom "militant atheist" and why. This may be added to the corresponding bios, but for encyclopedic understanding of the concept it is marginal. What is important how the concept emerged and to which heights it evolved. Association with " New Atheism" deserves references to scholar research (if any), not just listing of name calling. -M.Altenmann >t 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the following idea, but I'll point it out as a possible alternative to consider. At present, there is a hatnote at the top of League of Militant Atheists, and it says: "Militant atheism" redirects here. For opposition to religion in general, see Antireligion.
We could consider expanding that hatnote in some way (so long as it conforms with WP:NPOV), by also directing readers who came here looking for New Atheism to that page. I do realize that some readers will come here looking for that. The issue is that we should not be promoting a POV-pushing talking point. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Although people may come here looking for specific people which have been labeled New Atheists, that is a movement rather than a particular stance as far as I understand it. Those who use this term seem just as likely to apply it to anyone taking an active stance against religion whether part of New Atheism, another contemporary who has not been linked with New Atheism, or someone from centuries ago (long before New Atheism). For that reason isn't the ideal target for a redirect Antireligion? It in turn links to New Atheism as a particular movement within that concept. In other words: no related hatnote at New Atheism; redirect this page to Antireligion; include a hatnote there linking to League of Militant Atheists. Update: To clarify, even though I agree that this term applies more broadly than New Atheism, I'm not suggesting restoring this article -- I think Antireligion covers it, though I wouldn't be opposed to merging verrrrry selectively there. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
An editor has changed the hatnote at the target page to read: "For opposition to religion in general, see Antireligion and New Atheism." I'd like to check whether any editors here feel that this wording misrepresents New Atheism. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The RFC was closed as split supported, so we should probably put together a list for what will go on the db page as well as a single line introducing the page, something along the lines of "Militant Atheism is a term with multiple historical and modern uses and may apply to the following:" After we get a few for the list we should probably convert to a db quickly and start merging/writing the new articles. Noformation Talk 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I was going to write a crappy version of the DAB page, because I thought no one else would. But, it turns out the page is locked. Please unlock it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 05:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there could still be an article similar to what BD2412 suggested earlier, including the content from the section Militant atheism#Today (and also from the criticism sections). But in my opinion, there should also be an article about the historical ideology of "Militant Atheism", including the content from Militant atheism#Application (And there are enough sources stating that there was an ideology or doctrine called "Militant Atheism".) And I see no problem with providing the readers with articles containing more detailed information about the uses of "Militant Atheism". Cody7777777 ( talk)
I'm looking forward to someone forming a replacement disambiguation page. If I were not house hunting today I would dig into the task myself. I like Tryptofish's bare bones idea but if I were writing the dab, I would probably give it a little more explanatory prose. Binksternet ( talk) 16:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Militant atheism may refer to:
I am dubious about the remaining incoming redirects from titles such as Fundamentalist Atheism and Militant materialism. Of these, only Militant atheist clearly needs to redirect here. The rest should probably redirect to New Atheism. bd2412 T 18:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=922868 Regards -- В и к и T 09:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am offering a revision of the current introduction, which addresses the major concerns that have been offered by several users, including the degree to which militant atheism holds religion to be harmful as well as the issue of the New Atheist writers not advocating violence against believers, which many have keen on including in the article. Moreover, it meets WP:LEDE by summarizing the major sections of the article, which was not the case in the version listed above. I hope this version can be seen as a good faith compromise that will gain favor from both parties as it also meets WP:RS and WP:V. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this version. With warm regards, Anupam Talk 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Historically, the main usage of the term refers to the doctrine advocating the propagation of atheism among the masses, [2] [7] as well as the combating of religion as a harmful aberration, which was often undertaken by atheist states. [3] [2] [1] This application of the term was an integral part of the materialism of Marxism-Leninism, [8] [9] [10] [11]
and significant in the French Revolution, [12] [13] the Soviet Union, [14] [15] and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. [16] The term militant atheist has also been applied to various political thinkers. [17] Recently the term militant atheist has been used, often pejoratively, to describe atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger (writers often identified as New Atheists), [18] [19] [20] [7] who argue against religion and for the spread of atheism, but do not advocate violence against religious believers. [18] [21] [7] [22]
The appellation has also been criticized by some activists, such as Dave Niose, who feel that the term is used indiscriminately for "an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God." [23]
Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.
ATHEISM A. IN PHILOSOPHY I. Concept and incidence. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any possibility of knowing God. In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.Cite error: The named reference "Rahner" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.Cite error: The named reference "Walters" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.
Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures. In practice, almost as soon as it took power in 1949, the CCP followed the hard line of militant atheism. Within a decade, all religions were brought under the iron control of the Party: Folk religious practices considered feudalist superstitions were vigorously suppressed; cultic or heterodox sects regarded as reactionary organizations were resolutely banned; foreign missionaries, considered part of Western imperialism, were expelled; and major world religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, were coerced into "patriotic" national associations under close supervision of the Party. Religious believers who dared to challenge these policies were mercilessly banished to labor camps, jails, or execution grounds.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as a dangerous narcotic and a troubling political ideology that serves the interests of antirevolutionary forces. As such, it should be suppressed or eliminated by the revolutionary force. On the basis of scientific atheism, religious toleration was inscribed in CCP policy since its early days. By reason of militant atheism, however, atheist propaganda became ferocious, and the power of "proletarian dictatorship" was invoked to eradicate the reactionary ideology (Dai 2001)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknowledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."Cite error: The named reference "Colson" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
From the start Lenin demanded that Communist propaganda stress "militancy and irreconcilability toward all forms of idealism and religion. And that means that materialism organically reaches that consequence and perfection which in the language of philosophy is called — militant atheism."
Plekhanov demonstrates, writes Doroshevich, that the materialists' militant atheism was thoroughly grounded in their materialism : Deeply convinced of the materiality of the world, of the ability of matter to give rise to all its modifications, the French materialists rejected the "hypothesis" of the existence of God as an unecessary and harmful chimera, which hindered the development of science (p. 10).
One fundamental element of that system was its propagation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism. Until only a little over three years ago, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church in what might be called an atheocratic state.
For seventy years, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the closing years of the Gorbachev regime, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union, and the Communist Party was, in effect, the established church. It was an avowed task of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, to root out from the minds and hearts of the Soviet state, all belief systems other than Marxism-Leninism.
The French Revolution was unprecedented in a militant atheism that was at once a cause of, and an index to, its novel status as "a revolution in sentiments, manners, and moral opinions" (Reflections 175).
So was the French Revolution fundamentally atheist? There is no doubt that such a view is to be found in much Christian and atheist literature on the movement. Cloots was at the forefront of the dechristianization movement that gathered around the militant atheist Jacques Hébert. He "debaptised" himself, setting aside his original name of Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce. For Cloots, religion was simply not to be tolerated.
On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities.
Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite.
Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.
The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Science and religion, according to the proponents of the new atheism, are mutually exclusive. Richard Dawkins's Foundation for Reason and Science is out to debunk religion, which Dawkins calls "the God delusion." His book of the same title is a best seller, and Dawkins is not alone. Sam Harris, Daniel C. Den-nett, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens are only a handful of militant atheists who are convinced Christianity is toxic to human life.Cite error: The named reference "Appositive" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Aronson, Ronald. "The New Atheists." The Nation 286 (6/7/07). Available online. URL: www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson. This article provides an extensive explanation and analysis of the views of today's most militant atheists in the United States and Europe. While the author is sympathetic to the free choice to choose nonbelief, or atheism, he questions the vehemance of the new atheism and wonders to what extent it has itself become a type of rigid, fundamentalist religion.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, philosopher Daniel Dennett, and British journalist and polemicist Christopher Hitchens, a group sometimes referred to as "the Four Horsemen," have taken the offensive, deeming religious belief a form of "delusion," a dangerous kind of collective madness that has wreaked havoc upon the world for millennia. Their rhetoric is the emblem of a militant radical atheism, a view I believe is as inflammatory and intolerant as that of the religious fundamentalists they criticize.
MILITANT ATHEISM The change in tone is most evident in the writings of the so-called New Atheists-Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens-men who have been trying to accelerate a process that's been under way for centuries.
When the media and others refer to a "militant atheist," the object of that slander is usually an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God.
There seems to be evidence that some distinguish and some equate new atheism with militant atheism. Since this page is about helping people find articles based on usage, it seems reasonable to include new atheism with a disclaimer. See
Ian Hutchinson (equating new atheism with militant atheism) and
Paul Kurtz (distinguishing new atheism from militant atheism). I don't think there is an attempt to portray a POV here, but rather an attempt to inform. Supposing I read something or heard someone called a believer something "Militant atheism", I search wikipedia - I think it would be helpful to know what new atheism is and read that article. Especially if they are obviously not referring to state atheism or Russia --
Trödel
21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC) PS - I found these from
this search
[←] I am uneasy about the inclusion of that note referring to New Atheism. Two issues: (1) The article on New Atheism does not include the term "militant" anywhere within it, so where is the basis for the claim that the term "militant atheism" is applied to the New Atheists? I want to see a reliable source, either here or there. (2) If we are going to list things/movements/people to whom the label "militant atheist" has been applied, why stop there? Go on - add a list starting with Dawkins and going on through Hitchens, Clive Bone and the High Court of Justice - all of them have been (or might have been) called "militant atheists". Are we not heading down the sorry route of using this Wikipedia article as an attack piece (again)? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
An RfC was held this past fall which discussed whether the content of this article should be split and this page being made into a disambiguation page. However, no one ever ended up moving the content to its appropriate place. As such, I followed through with the RfC and moved the relevant content to the New Atheism article, which now discusses its criticism as militant atheism. I may work on moving the other leftover content from this article to the state atheism article at a later time. Thanks, Anupam Talk 17:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the edits of the last 24 hours or so have changed my mind. You can see what I now think at the AfD for this page, where I now support deletion/redirection. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
This page (and the edit war) is being discussed elsewhere on-site. User:Mathsci proposed in one of the threads that the naming of the article is causing the dispute, rather than the content. He suggested the page be named Atheism (disambiguation), and that Militant atheism be a redirect to that disambig page. I think that's a good suggestion, and it seems it would entirely eliminate this dispute. Are there any objections/comments to that proposal? — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This page should not have redirected to the League of Militant Atheists, a specific organization in a specific country. Militant atheism is far more widely applicable than to this single entity. Further, associating modern militant atheism, which is nothing more than New Atheism, with the Soviet Union can send the wrong message to believers or others who oppose atheists. I suggest keeping this redirect or making Militant Atheism a disambiguation page, offering New Atheism, Antitheism, the League of Militant Atheists. and perhaps other pages as links.
The result of the move request was: Oppose move. Snow close/proposer withdrew prior to 7 day listing. Consensus appears to be against redirecting the page to New Atheism, and generally supportive of keeping the current redirect. ( non-admin closure) — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Militant atheism →
New Atheism – Inappropriate redirect.
Lagoy (
talk) 09:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if I filed this right. I'm new at this. But I believe it is inappropriate and biased to redirect the page "Militant Atheism," a page with a title about a general concept, to a specific organization in Soviet Russia (i.e., the
League of Militant Atheists). That has the potential to put militant atheists in a bad light, given the crimes of the Soviet Union. The Soviet League of Militant Atheists is fundamentally irrelevant to modern militant atheists. A more appropriate redirect is to the page
New Atheism, since that's what militant atheism actually is.
Lagoy (
talk)
09:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
As most people presumably look for New Atheism and not for the League of Militant Atheists, I suggest to transform the redirection in a disambiguation page (as shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Militant_atheism&diff=643259550&oldid=643231928). What do you think? Raruss Okssél ( talk) 00:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC).
Whoever tries to turn this page into a disambig or redirect is demonstrating militant ignorance. The term is ages old, well known in European philosophies. The article is well referenced with sources of direct relevance, which operate with this term. I have no idea why this version was tagged as non-neutral. The very concept is non-neutral.
Ironically, the term is embraced both by [militant] atheists and anti-atheists alike: the former have been proud of being militant in fight against religion, while the latter use the term as an accusation, since "militant atheists", in their opinion, are fighting against the source of "all Good on Earth". Militant atheism was one of the cornerstones of the Communist ideology.
I strongly suggest you to get familiar with the subject before destroying this page again. -M.Altenmann >t 06:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Currently I am trimming the article of various fluff. It is not that important who called whom "militant atheist" and why. This may be added to the corresponding bios, but for encyclopedic understanding of the concept it is marginal. What is important how the concept emerged and to which heights it evolved. Association with " New Atheism" deserves references to scholar research (if any), not just listing of name calling. -M.Altenmann >t 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the following idea, but I'll point it out as a possible alternative to consider. At present, there is a hatnote at the top of League of Militant Atheists, and it says: "Militant atheism" redirects here. For opposition to religion in general, see Antireligion.
We could consider expanding that hatnote in some way (so long as it conforms with WP:NPOV), by also directing readers who came here looking for New Atheism to that page. I do realize that some readers will come here looking for that. The issue is that we should not be promoting a POV-pushing talking point. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Although people may come here looking for specific people which have been labeled New Atheists, that is a movement rather than a particular stance as far as I understand it. Those who use this term seem just as likely to apply it to anyone taking an active stance against religion whether part of New Atheism, another contemporary who has not been linked with New Atheism, or someone from centuries ago (long before New Atheism). For that reason isn't the ideal target for a redirect Antireligion? It in turn links to New Atheism as a particular movement within that concept. In other words: no related hatnote at New Atheism; redirect this page to Antireligion; include a hatnote there linking to League of Militant Atheists. Update: To clarify, even though I agree that this term applies more broadly than New Atheism, I'm not suggesting restoring this article -- I think Antireligion covers it, though I wouldn't be opposed to merging verrrrry selectively there. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
An editor has changed the hatnote at the target page to read: "For opposition to religion in general, see Antireligion and New Atheism." I'd like to check whether any editors here feel that this wording misrepresents New Atheism. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)