Types of Atheism.
November 16th 2008 22:32
Types of Atheism.
There are two main kinds of atheists:
Angry and Not Angry or has been better explained militant and non-militant. Actually if you try to include agnostics in the group you would be stretching the definition to favour the view that many of the militant ones hold. Namely that if we don’t know what people believe then they must be one of them. Why agnostics cannot simply be put into the class as atheists is because the question is still open in their minds. That is: there may or may not be something spiritual in the universe or if there it is then it may be so unimportant that we need not worry about it. So to class anyone as Atheist they must hold that position that there is nothing in the universe of a godly nature. No spirituality, no soul, no god or any other deities and the span of a human life is the entire span of its human existence. It is a simple enough definition that few I have met Atheists would disagree with.
The Non Angry Atheists are hard to spot because they do not go out of their way to tell all and sundry what they are. We can walk down the street and few people would be able to guess the religious persuasion of majority of the people we meet. Few people come up to you and declare ‘Hi I am a ... but let’s talk about something else.’ Only in some mad house perhaps this scenario would occur. This is a social norm in Australia where it is more or less taboo to start asking people what religion they are or suddenly declare what religion you are to unsuspecting people. If there is any doubt about this taboo then think about a work place where you have workmates that say absolutely nothing about religion for years and then return to their private worlds after finishing time. Taboo subjects do exist in the Australian culture because the habit of customary non-discrimination that has developed over the recent years. The anti-discrimination act has wiped such questions from job interviews. Also to start any conversation about Sex, Politics or Religion is to start an argument that may have no end because each subject is endless.
Militant Atheists are of a different breed, so to speak. They do not have the same concept of leaving others alone because they see it as their personal duty to save everyone from the ‘chains of religious oppression in all its forms’. To the angry atheist all religion is not just wrong it is pure evil incarnate. Religion as Richard Dawkins books so fervently display is the root of all evil. The love of money is somehow exorcised from the equation because they have a scapegoat to blame for all the ills of the world. In looking at what many Militant Atheists say it is the belief in religion that caused all the bad things and even when a natural disaster hits, religion only makes it worse. It is a perfect system of logic that has not progressed beyond the same mentality that Hitler used to blame the Jews for Germany’s problems. Q: Why do people suffer? A: Because their evil deist overlords oppress them. Q: Why is their hunger in the world? A: Because religions like to see people suffer. Q: Why won’t my car start? A: Because the clergy abused the fuel prices. Q: Why am I not a famous author yet? A: Those evil Christians are suppressing my novel because it opens the lid on all their secrets, just like Dan Brown did. It is a perfect system of blame that is only missing one important factor: objective evidence. Yet in the Militant Atheist universe they are objective because they atheists and therefore not bound by religion or superstition. Great theory, no? No, because it is a circular argument that says: Atheist are correct because they atheistic. The premise of why it is correct is never established and so the argument becomes even more circular until we have the insane situation where some militant atheists try to claim a monopoly upon sanity because merely they say so.
There is an important factor that is usually over looked in the battle of the unholying war and that is what do Atheists represent? This is an important question because when dismantling any established institution you need to have something replace it with. This goes for any institution that you can think of. For example: the education system. We can easily dismantle it by not paying teachers and burning all the schools down. Yet if we need educated people to run the future economy; then what are we going to replace it with? The same goes for the legal system. Who is going to ensure that there is some kind of order in society if the courts no longer exist? The rail network would need a replacement if we expect people to arrive at work on time. The medical system would need to be replaced if suddenly it was deemed unnecessary. So rather than wondering what people are against, which is obvious, we need to know what they are in favour. If people give the ultimate cop out of, ‘I am in favour of Atheism,’ then they have failed to state how that will be manifested. What does it believe in as the principles of society; what is its personal and social morality; how does it define justice; what human rights does it support and why? All these questions are far more important than what they oppose because those questions show what they will do if the ever get power.
There are a lot of ideologies that have grown up over the course of human civilization. Many are the products of paganism, others Judaeo-Christian and others atheism. When I say products, I mean that people started from a basic premise contained in each of those and moved forward. This is no different for Atheism as it is for any religious entity. In religion Modernism is not the same as Orthodoxy which is not the same as Fundamentalism. In Atheism there are just as many versions and ideologies as are there are outside and many are diametrically opposed to each other. So it would be a huge mistake to class all Atheists as being the same and believing in the same positive or negative things. There can be even more different from each other as Pagans are from Jews.
Monopolies on sanity that Militant Atheists like to claim are not proven just because they claim it to be so. This is because what may seem like sanity on the surface can also be insanity when examined in detail.
Take the concept of Anarchy. It may seem like perfect freedom for the exponent until it is applied universally. Everyone doing what they want sounds fine until they infringe upon others freedoms. Yet once we set conditions upon the anarchy it ceases to be anarchy and becomes something else. Pure anarchy cannot exist. An Anarchist as Mussolini said is just a confused Tyrant.
Pure Socialism ceases to be sane to people who like to own stuff. Socialist groups in Australia have split, joined forces, split again, engaged in branch stacking and generally hate each over minor doctrinal issues. Trotsky verses Moa debate ends and the Trotsky purists verse the Reformed Trotsky thinkers. Confused? So are they.
Moral Nihilism also falls apart as soon as people start to dictate what is or is not included. Rather it can be seen for what it really is; a licence to justify any action, even killing. Good and Evil once replaced with Strength and Will can become murder and mayhem. Jolly good if you are strong, not so if you are weak.
Moral Relativism: a delightful feel good response to the world’s problems or just another person saying that ‘Ends Justify the Means?’ I say the later.
Nationalism has no religious requirement to exist; nor does fascism, communism, Nazism or any of the other versions of self justifying isms that exist. Fly my flag it looks better.
Rationalists seem so rational until they start to splinter off into their versions of what are essentially rationalized excuses for any behaviour. You need only look at the decline of the Australian Rationalist Society with its bitter infighting about who is being irrational to see this. Pure rationalists reject emotions like love, mercy and compassion as irrational and unprovable. In essence they become the image of what absolute ruthlessness can mean.
There is no point in people screaming out with rage at institutions that they wish to destroy when they keep their own dark and sinister plans hidden from the scrutiny.
When people cry out to tear down something they do so with plan to replace it with something else. Many keep these agendas hidden because they know how extreme their views are in comparison to the mainstream. If people only knew what plans they had they might be repulsed by them instantly. Claims by people that they have a monopoly on sanity merely because they are atheists are just pure elitist self deception and prejudice in its most blatant form.
The Dark Side on the Ideology
There are two main kinds of atheists:
Angry and Not Angry or has been better explained militant and non-militant. Actually if you try to include agnostics in the group you would be stretching the definition to favour the view that many of the militant ones hold. Namely that if we don’t know what people believe then they must be one of them. Why agnostics cannot simply be put into the class as atheists is because the question is still open in their minds. That is: there may or may not be something spiritual in the universe or if there it is then it may be so unimportant that we need not worry about it. So to class anyone as Atheist they must hold that position that there is nothing in the universe of a godly nature. No spirituality, no soul, no god or any other deities and the span of a human life is the entire span of its human existence. It is a simple enough definition that few I have met Atheists would disagree with.
The Non Angry Atheists are hard to spot because they do not go out of their way to tell all and sundry what they are. We can walk down the street and few people would be able to guess the religious persuasion of majority of the people we meet. Few people come up to you and declare ‘Hi I am a ... but let’s talk about something else.’ Only in some mad house perhaps this scenario would occur. This is a social norm in Australia where it is more or less taboo to start asking people what religion they are or suddenly declare what religion you are to unsuspecting people. If there is any doubt about this taboo then think about a work place where you have workmates that say absolutely nothing about religion for years and then return to their private worlds after finishing time. Taboo subjects do exist in the Australian culture because the habit of customary non-discrimination that has developed over the recent years. The anti-discrimination act has wiped such questions from job interviews. Also to start any conversation about Sex, Politics or Religion is to start an argument that may have no end because each subject is endless.
Militant Atheists are of a different breed, so to speak. They do not have the same concept of leaving others alone because they see it as their personal duty to save everyone from the ‘chains of religious oppression in all its forms’. To the angry atheist all religion is not just wrong it is pure evil incarnate. Religion as Richard Dawkins books so fervently display is the root of all evil. The love of money is somehow exorcised from the equation because they have a scapegoat to blame for all the ills of the world. In looking at what many Militant Atheists say it is the belief in religion that caused all the bad things and even when a natural disaster hits, religion only makes it worse. It is a perfect system of logic that has not progressed beyond the same mentality that Hitler used to blame the Jews for Germany’s problems. Q: Why do people suffer? A: Because their evil deist overlords oppress them. Q: Why is their hunger in the world? A: Because religions like to see people suffer. Q: Why won’t my car start? A: Because the clergy abused the fuel prices. Q: Why am I not a famous author yet? A: Those evil Christians are suppressing my novel because it opens the lid on all their secrets, just like Dan Brown did. It is a perfect system of blame that is only missing one important factor: objective evidence. Yet in the Militant Atheist universe they are objective because they atheists and therefore not bound by religion or superstition. Great theory, no? No, because it is a circular argument that says: Atheist are correct because they atheistic. The premise of why it is correct is never established and so the argument becomes even more circular until we have the insane situation where some militant atheists try to claim a monopoly upon sanity because merely they say so.
There is an important factor that is usually over looked in the battle of the unholying war and that is what do Atheists represent? This is an important question because when dismantling any established institution you need to have something replace it with. This goes for any institution that you can think of. For example: the education system. We can easily dismantle it by not paying teachers and burning all the schools down. Yet if we need educated people to run the future economy; then what are we going to replace it with? The same goes for the legal system. Who is going to ensure that there is some kind of order in society if the courts no longer exist? The rail network would need a replacement if we expect people to arrive at work on time. The medical system would need to be replaced if suddenly it was deemed unnecessary. So rather than wondering what people are against, which is obvious, we need to know what they are in favour. If people give the ultimate cop out of, ‘I am in favour of Atheism,’ then they have failed to state how that will be manifested. What does it believe in as the principles of society; what is its personal and social morality; how does it define justice; what human rights does it support and why? All these questions are far more important than what they oppose because those questions show what they will do if the ever get power.
There are a lot of ideologies that have grown up over the course of human civilization. Many are the products of paganism, others Judaeo-Christian and others atheism. When I say products, I mean that people started from a basic premise contained in each of those and moved forward. This is no different for Atheism as it is for any religious entity. In religion Modernism is not the same as Orthodoxy which is not the same as Fundamentalism. In Atheism there are just as many versions and ideologies as are there are outside and many are diametrically opposed to each other. So it would be a huge mistake to class all Atheists as being the same and believing in the same positive or negative things. There can be even more different from each other as Pagans are from Jews.
Monopolies on sanity that Militant Atheists like to claim are not proven just because they claim it to be so. This is because what may seem like sanity on the surface can also be insanity when examined in detail.
Take the concept of Anarchy. It may seem like perfect freedom for the exponent until it is applied universally. Everyone doing what they want sounds fine until they infringe upon others freedoms. Yet once we set conditions upon the anarchy it ceases to be anarchy and becomes something else. Pure anarchy cannot exist. An Anarchist as Mussolini said is just a confused Tyrant.
Pure Socialism ceases to be sane to people who like to own stuff. Socialist groups in Australia have split, joined forces, split again, engaged in branch stacking and generally hate each over minor doctrinal issues. Trotsky verses Moa debate ends and the Trotsky purists verse the Reformed Trotsky thinkers. Confused? So are they.
Moral Nihilism also falls apart as soon as people start to dictate what is or is not included. Rather it can be seen for what it really is; a licence to justify any action, even killing. Good and Evil once replaced with Strength and Will can become murder and mayhem. Jolly good if you are strong, not so if you are weak.
Moral Relativism: a delightful feel good response to the world’s problems or just another person saying that ‘Ends Justify the Means?’ I say the later.
Nationalism has no religious requirement to exist; nor does fascism, communism, Nazism or any of the other versions of self justifying isms that exist. Fly my flag it looks better.
Rationalists seem so rational until they start to splinter off into their versions of what are essentially rationalized excuses for any behaviour. You need only look at the decline of the Australian Rationalist Society with its bitter infighting about who is being irrational to see this. Pure rationalists reject emotions like love, mercy and compassion as irrational and unprovable. In essence they become the image of what absolute ruthlessness can mean.
There is no point in people screaming out with rage at institutions that they wish to destroy when they keep their own dark and sinister plans hidden from the scrutiny.
When people cry out to tear down something they do so with plan to replace it with something else. Many keep these agendas hidden because they know how extreme their views are in comparison to the mainstream. If people only knew what plans they had they might be repulsed by them instantly. Claims by people that they have a monopoly on sanity merely because they are atheists are just pure elitist self deception and prejudice in its most blatant form.
| 152 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Et vous?
If you don't mind me asking.
I'd have to say I'm a small 'a' atheist. A for arsehole.
Comment by Nevar
ad hominem
the inner sanctum
fire in your eyes - ink in your pen
Writers Challenge ~ 2008
Comment by signals
The Health Fanatic
The Natural Order
Media Piranha
Arrogant News
The Dope Chronicles
Financial Ramble
Aviation Domination
Our Daily Sites
Pet Husbandry
Atheists claim they want separation of church and state, but fail to give credit to Jesus who established it when he claimed to render to Caesar's what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. Of course most 'militant' Christians do try to impose their beliefs on the state.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
This post is not about the biggest 'A' of all advocacy.
Yet it is about a smaller but more important 'a' : analysis.
Nevar
Thanks for your comments.
The a - theists or the b - theists?
I am glad you enjoyed this.
Signals
Thanks for your comments.
Now that I have tackled religion I will tackling politics followed by sex.
I am not very concerned about what militants say because from my experience they seem to have a short life span. Sooner or later they splinter or people ignore their rants as being just that : rants.
Comment by Wynona Lavota
Generation Y Life
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I am not asking for people to declare what they are.
However there are some very angry people out.
Comment by Anna Kovacevic
So who are you anyway?
Militants on both sides of the equation muddy the waters.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Do you know most atheists?
I do not propose to speak for most theists.
There are branches of both sides.
Comment by Anna Kovacevic
So who are you anyway?
I don't believe in God but I have never wanted to de-convert those who do.
My mother in particular finds great comfort in God and I respect that, sometimes I feel that keeps her going in rough times and for that I'm grateful. I would never want to take that away from her.
One of my sons attends a Catholic school and I have never once imposed my views on him, if the time ever comes for him to not believe in God it will be of his own accord as it was with myself.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
So would you agree that there is no stereotypical Atheist per say? Rather there are various versions of atheism?
You have yours and others have theirs.
As I said earlier. This is only an analysis.
Comment by Anna Kovacevic
So who are you anyway?
This applies to both groups on either side of the fence.
I have met very few atheists in real life as most of my family and friends do believe and those who aren't religious don't fit the atheist criteria, they just aren't practicing their religion visibly by going to church, etc.
Online I have met the most militant of atheists, it's true, just as I have met the most militant of those who believe.
I think the security of sitting behind a keyboard and not having to say things face to face tends to bring out the worst in people...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
That is so true.
Membership does not ensure salvation. Ideology does not ensure people are good. People have to reasonably decent regardless of what they believe in.
I did a post about Jack Chick about year ago and according him almost everyone is going to Hell.
Then I read people like Richard Dawkins and blames religion for every problem on earth from wars to pimples.
Over simplification and stereotyping of enemies just creates more divisions. I don't think that educated people should be giving into every comfortable ignorance that massages their prejudices.
So I think rather than people spend their whole life allocating collective blame they could spend a bit of time dealing with a bit of objectivity.
Comment by JoshZ
A Simple Christian
nice post and good analysis.
I think the church does have a lot that it needs to own up to but I also think humanity in general has a lot to own up to.
A friend of mine is fairly open with his dislike of atheism. He tends to make fun of it (though some of his points are valid) even to points where I think "hey man, that's a little strong."
I definetely agree with you on the militant atheist part. Some of them would blame religions for absolutely everything without looking at the problem.
That being said though, I wouldn't put it past the Pope to crush your dreams. He's funny like that.
JZ
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
I think Anna also brought up some great points here, especially about people being much ruder online than they would dare to be in person.
I really don't know what beliefs my friends have; I was raised to not ask such personal questions, and I get a bit peeved when someone asks me about personal things as well. There's a line, you know?
When someone does get in my face about religious beliefs, I don't bite.
In my middle age I'm learning to pick my battles, and battles about religion are invariably counterproductive and unwinnable on both sides.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for comment.
Firstly let say that I am not promoting any alternative viewpoint here.
Except that each of us has a viewpoint including The Pope.
I have heard some people say that the are a Christian as if that alone tell me everything about their beliefs. In USA alone there are well over 1000 separate christian denominations. That means over 1000 different viewpoints. In Buddhism the same thing, Hinduism there are so many versions I lost count. Each has different tenements and principles so to class them all the same would be a mistake.
I just wanted to highlight that when someone says that they are an atheist the answer is just as meaningless. What is important is what type of atheist they are and what principles they are promoting.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Yet I think that we can find reason for common ground and co-operation. These are much more ecumenical times than years gone by. We rarely read about where things work well, less so by those who wish to ferment divisions for the own ends.
I intentionally never put on Orble my race, creed or colour so that it remains irrelevant to what I write. If people want to formulate a prejudice about me then I cannot do much about it. Nor do I care what others are. They have a right to privacy and I hope that they respect mine.
You are right about rudeness, but it is an old issue. Emails once had the same problem where people could instant blast someone from a safe distance. Even before that we had poison pen letter.
I find it funny when people reduce every argument down to 'You would say that because you are a ....'
Crazy no?
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
...after all, I don't believe in any spiritual force, but if I had reason to believe in one, I would. To me, it's only more likely that there is no God, but the universe is consistently mysterious at this point in time. Some atheists say with certainty that there is no godly force - this anti-religion is, in fact, a religion itself.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I think an umbrella term only works so far and beyond that point we only find confusion.
People who try to stereotype make terrible mistakes.
There is no single version of atheism because they use different precepts and ideologies to build their moral structures.