Is it just me or has "rabid" now segued into "militant"?

[Fumesucker]

"Rabid" was like comfortable old shoes to this atheist, heck I even used it as part of an online screen name a few times.. Rabid Atheist Baby Eater 666 or something like that.

Being compared to an animal that is quite literally foaming at the mouth crazy and that is killed on sight by most humans because the slightest scratch from one can possibly be deadly in a horrendous way was kind of flattering really if you looked at it in just the right way and maybe squinted a smidgen.

But now I find that I'm a "militant", to my mind a rather more sinister concept, a person who is prepared to go killing in a religious crusade or jihad, as in the militants we are hearing about on a nearly daily basis being Nobel Peace bombed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and too many other places for my rapidly ossifying brain to keep track of (Yemen?, Lichtenstein?).

I suppose I'm wondering if the choice of "militant" over "rabid" is an ultimately conscious one that's being driven by someone or group and spread deliberately or if it's just a totally unconscious attempt to find the worst thing you can think of to compare someone to, used to be rabid but we're not having a multi trillion dollar war against rabid animals, we reserve that for militants.

[rug]

1. I rather prefer rabid.

[darkstar3]

2. Militant invokes images of terrorism, and that's the reason for its usage.

Terrorism is scarier now than the animals we've run out of our concrete jungles.

[NMMNG]

3. ....

[iris27]

4. Eh, I'm well used to unfairly being labeled as "militant", given that I dare to believe

women are people. No real difference whether it's being applied on one front or two. :)

[socialshockwave]

5. ..........

So now, religious believers are all sexists, automatically? Seriously?

Oh, and here's an example of a militant atheist:

[NMMNG]

7. Reading comprehension fail

Where did Iris say or even imply anything about religious believers? Seriously? You've got a seriously out of control persecution complex.

And how is Stalin a "militant atheist"? How many people did Stalin oppress, harm or kill in the name of atheism?

[socialshockwave]

8. Open your eyes. Stalin continued the pogrom that Lenin and the others did

in which they closed churches(such as the Christ The Redeemer being demolished in 1935), made religious freedom illegal and basically mandated that people follow state atheism; They threw priests and believers into concentration camps and only brought them back when they were losing morale.

Oh, and the USSR supported:

[NMMNG]

9. Those were political regimes, not atheist agendas

People cannot devote 100% of their loyalty to The State if they worship a god--particularly one who demands he be put first in a person's life. Ergo, religion must be tightly controlled if not banned in any totalitarian society.

[rug]

20. No true , , , Russian?

[LeftishBrit]

14. Government imposition of belief systems is always dangerous...

whether the belief system is Christianity, Islam, atheism, or Zoroastrianism.

Most atheists want secularism - Government leaving people free to hold their own beliefs - rather than the imposition of either atheism or a religion into laws.

To equate somebody being snarky on a message board, or writing even an intemperately critical article about religion, with throwing priests into concentration camps, burning down churches, or forbidding worship is either an insulting trivialization of the latter, or a slander against the former. Richard Dawkins is not Stalin! And in fact many people who complain about 'militant atheism' or 'restrictions of religious freedom' are not even referring to criticism of religion, but to any government daring to interfere with people's wish to discriminate against gays or restrict women's reproductive rights.

Yes, I know that many Christians don't wish to discriminate against gays or restrict reproductive rights; and that a fair number of atheists, including Stalin, certainly have done so. But many of the Christians in the West who complain most about 'militant atheists suppressing religious freedom' do mean this.

[socialshockwave]

16. I see your point. And I never said Dawkins WAS Stalin

But some of his more aggressive words have inspired people to call for the destruction of religion.

And I support gay rights, a woman's right to choose(even though personally I'm pro-life) - and does this mean I represent a person's view of Christianity? No. But neither do the anti-gay, anti-choice crowd represent ALL of Christendom.

[skepticscott]

39. Stalin conducted many pogroms, purges

and campaigns of mass murder, against all manner of real or perceived threats to his power or the communist regime. These were conducted primarily for political reasons and not religious ones, and priests and religious believers were targeted along with many others.

And the Stalin regime also supported the church when it suited their purposes. Hardly the mark of a regime obsessed with destroying religion at all costs.

[Deep13]

100. We're not Stalin.

Anyway, the church was part of the imperial power structure, so of course they closed them.

[humblebum]

15. Several hundreds of thousands + actually. Groups like

the League of Militant Atheists were formed specifically to do those things and many other acts in the propagation and inculcation of atheism at all levels of society. And they heartily received the support of prominent atheists outside of the Soviet Union. They were very strong atheist agendas designed and targeted for that exact purpose.

[darkstar3]

18. Read #9.

Your old schtick is answered there quite succinctly.

[humblebum]

21. My old schtick is based on fact. If everything you are doing is

done under the banner of atheism, and the claim is that it is being done in the name of atheism - it is being done in the name of atheism. Overwhelming evidence.

[darkstar3]

23. And of course everyone does things ONLY for the reasons they state.

It's impossible that there could be an underlying political motivation behind something that happens in a totalitarian state.

:sarcasm:

[humblebum]

24. I didn't say maybe. I said overwhelming. nt

[darkstar3]

25. So just to be clear, you are denying that there was a political reason

for the subjugation of the faithful in Communist Russia?

[humblebum]

30. The Atheist movement in Russia began long before the Bolsheviks

assumed control. They were the vehicle used to enable their advancement. Their wish to subjugate the faithful, as you put it, was no more politically motivated than that of the atheist movement today. Organized Atheism must rely on imposition of lock-step patterns of thought - then and now.

[skepticscott]

31. Read a history of Bolshevism or

the communist revolution. Count up the number of times the word "atheism" is even mentioned, let alone cited as a significant motivating force. Then get back to us.

We all know what you refuse to admit, that it was not a factor worth mentioning.

[humblebum]

32. Um? I have and they did. you haven't got a leg to stand on.

The imposition of atheism was a major goal and effort.

[skepticscott]

33. Cite two or three

and tell us how many mentions in the index of each "atheism" gets. Quote the scholars who claim it was a major goal and effort.

You're flailing and spewing bullshit and hoping you aren't called on it. Atheism was NOT a significant factor behind the communist revolution.

[humblebum]

35. Evidently you put much confidence in your ignorance, but this

seems like deja vu for about the tenth time over. So here is a list of a few publications that tell the story:

“Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in the Soviet Union" by Husband

"Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless" by Peris These first two deal entirely with the subject of atheism and anti-religious activity.

The Black Book of Communism by Courtois, et al

Death by Government by R J Rummel

William Henry Chamberlin - Two works, both primary sources: "The Russian Revolution 1917-1918" & "Russia's Iron Age."

[skepticscott]

38. Yes, it is deja vu

when all you offer is your usual name and title-dropping, and conspicuously avoid supplying what I asked for. All totally predictable.

And duh...it's not a revelation that the communists in Russia had an official policy of atheism. Well, except when they didn't. Which in either case has nothing to do with what were the prime motivators of the communist revolution or what caused the deaths under brown haired dictators.

You're just going to have to live with the fact that your understanding of all this is fundamentally flawed.

[humblebum]

40. And you can continue living in denial. I have supplied you with

with all of the proof I need to prove my case. Therefore, any more of your fabrication just floats into oblivion in the face of the evidence that has been presented for anyone to see, if they are so inclined to look for the truth, instead of being fooled.

[darkstar3]

46. Wrong. None of those books you named are original sources on the Bolshevik movement.

They are simply opinion pieces written by people whom you consider to be authority figures. If I said that all religious people were fundamentalists or that they at least enable fundamentalists, and I cited as my source "The God Delusion," you'd laugh your ass off, and rightfully so. You have done nothing different here.

You were asked for cites from original sources. You can provide them, or admit you don't actually know wtf you're talking about.

[humblebum]

53. Chamberlin was an eyewitness to much of the Revolution. Yes

he was a primary source. Whether or not you agree with his views or not is your business, but he was present nonetheless and his stories are corroborated by archival materials, films, and many other authors. you will find no more qualified writers and historians. You have a habit of disqualifying evidence that doesn't support your position. But here there is FAR too much evidence.

[skepticscott]

56. If there is FAR too much evidence

Then link us to some quotes from scholars who cite atheism as one of the primary motivations behind the Russian revolution, along with their evidence.

We all know you can't, but it'll be amusing to watch you dodge another direct challenge for evidence to back up your claims.

[humblebum]

63. The only dodging around here is yours from the obvious.

The League of Militant Atheists comprised workers, peasants, students, and members of the intelligentsia. Organizations were founded at plants, factories, kolkhozes, and educational institutions. By early 1941, the league consisted of approximately 3.5 million working people of 100 nationalities. The number of groups reached 96,000. Guided by Leninist principles of antireligious propaganda and by the party’s decisions on these principles, the league dedicated itself to ideological struggle against all forms of religion and the development of a scientific world view among working people. It disseminated propaganda on the natural sciences and atheism, offered believers individual counseling, and trained propagandists and atheist agitators. It also published scientific and popular scientific works and a number of periodicals, founded museums and organized exhibitions, and conducted scientific research in the field of atheism and criticism of religion. Working under the motto “The struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism,” the league coordinated atheist propaganda with economic, political, and cultural tasks. The league maintained extensive international ties; it belonged to the International of Proletarian Freethinkers, and then to the World Union of Freethinkers. In 1947 the league turned over its tasks of disseminating scientific-atheist propaganda to Znanie (Knowledge), a newly created all-Union society.
REFERENCES
Konovalov, B. N. “Soiuz voinstvuiushchikh bezbozhnikov.” In the collection Voprosy nauchnogo ateizma, no. 4. Moscow, 1967.
Konovalov, B. N. K massovomu ateizmu. Moscow, 1974.

[LAGC]

73. You may have a point, bum...

Regarding the League of Militant Atheists. I've been doing some research on it to see what all your fuss is about, and it really does seem like there may have been an organized movement trying to propagate disbelief and actively repress religion for a brief time in the Soviet Union.

While I still don't think it would have been possible without totalitarian Communism as a ruling political ideology, your concern is noted. I definitely don't agree with forcing churches closed at gun-point, rounding up believers and sending them to camps, etc. nor do I think that most Western atheists believe this way. Democratic forms of government would seem to be a strong safe-guard against this type of movement ever being able to take root, as only in totalitarian forms of government can such a minority position be imposed on the majority opinion like that.

I think we non-believers can achieve our goals of promoting science and skepticism through non-violent means, persuasion not oppression. The success that many European countries have made in fostering free thought in an open market-place of ideas seems more conducive to really lowering the religious belief-rate than the Soviet Union ever achieved through force. Indeed, look how fast religion rebounded when Stalin realized it was more useful as a tool to control people and rally them and boost morale than outlawing it ever was. It never went away, it was just driven underground. You don't convince believers to become non-believers by government decree, you just make them resentful and set in their ways and no longer speak up about it. Not the way to go.

I still don't think its fair to count Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and other "new atheists" as "militant atheists" though. I've never heard any of them say that religion should be banned. Friendly criticism and even ridicule is a far cry from banishment.

[skepticscott]

75. Let's try again

link us to some quotes from scholars who cite atheism as one of the primary motivations behind the Russian revolution, along with their evidence. What you cited doesn't remotely qualify, so why did you bother?

And Communist Russia was full of "organizations" and movements that people went along with purely out of fear, but didn't take at all seriously. Your "authority" has no clue how many member of the League of Militant Anti-Theists were actually atheists and how many just pretended to be. Nor do you.

[humblebum]

78. What you are doing is demonstrating a woeful ignorance on

the subject. I could tell you about the Bolshevik mandate to eradicate all religion even before the Revolution began, citing specific passages, but you would be asking for evidence on how many atheists spelled atheism with a capital 'A'.

[humblebum]

81. They were not called League of Militant Anti-Theists , but

League of Militant Atheists. That should be your first clue. There were 96,000 local chapters across 11 time zones. That would indicate a high importance along with the acts they engaged in.

And as far as how many "were actually atheists and how many just pretended to be," that's for you to figure out. If the members claimed to be atheists, which was a requirement in the organization, then one must assume that they were. I need prove nothing more. The burden is yours to prove otherwise.

[skepticscott]

86. Just another example of your blithering

ignorance. You don't even know that the members claimed to be atheists, let alone whether they actually were. If you understood Stalinist Russia at all, you'd know that people going along with something when doing otherwise might very well mean a trip to a concentration camp means nothing as far as whether they actually supported it or believed it. You'd know that people said and did all sorts of things that they didn't believe in or knew weren't true simply out of fear, and that belonging to an organization called "League of Militant Atheists" isn't prima facie evidence that they were atheists. Not even remotely. Leaving the burden on you.

And apparently you don't have much of a grasp of sarcasm, not still of the difference between atheism and anti-theism.

[humblebum]

87. Must be tough to spend your life in such ignorance. Clue #1:

What happened in Russia could not have happened without widespread support. It also goes to show that you will deny anything in the face of totally objective evidence.

[darkstar3]

102. Actually, if you want to get so technical, they weren't even called that,

because the name was in Russian, and you're engaging in a transliteration. An inaccurate transliteration, by the way, since most scholars worth a damn call them the "League of Militant Godless."

[skepticscott]

55. You've proven your case to...

yourself. No one else. Pardon me for being unimpressed and unconvinced by your ducking every request for substance.

[humblebum]

64. Do you really believe I care what you think? Your case now rests on foolishness.

You may be able to deny the existence of God, but denying the existence of something in the face of overwhelming objective evidence only demonstrates your irrelevance to any serious discussion.

[LAGC]

66. LOL! Objective evidence? Please cite.

What overwhelming objective evidence do you have for God's supposed existence?

Every time you've been asked that, you retreat to "other ways of knowing" that you never clearly define, and what amounts to nothing more than BLIND FAITH.

You have nothing.

[humblebum]

68. Pardon me, but did I miss something here? When and where did I

claim overwhelming objective evidence for God's existence? you might want to follow the thread a little before you jump in or go back to sleep.

[skepticscott]

74. Blah, blah, blah...same old refrain

The only irrelevancy here is your continual and unsupported claim of overwhelming evidence, which you are never able to produce when challenged.

[humblebum]

80. I have produced just evidence to make your case an absolute sham. nt

[LeftishBrit]

65. Are you implying that atheism *caused* authoritarian communism?

Of course, some atheist groups collaborated with the Communists and acted as their enforcers. Atheist individuals and groups are no more immune to corruption by a dictatorship than any other individuals or groups.

Much history is also full of religious groups acting as enforcers for tyrannical governments; e.g. the bishops who collaborated with monarchs in getting people executed for 'heresy' and rebellion and in helping to foment wars during much of British history until the end of the 17th century. This doesn't mean that Catholicism or Protestantism *caused* cruel monarchies.

[humblebum]

72. Not at all. An atheist movement was well underway in Russia before

the Communists took control. But Communism was certainly the vehicle used by organized atheism to achieve its stated goal of abolishing religion. Religious expression was outlawed. Atheism was supported and encouraged.

[LAGC]

76. But do you really think such a thing can happen in a democratic society though?

The only reason "organized atheism" may have been able to take root was when it was piggy-backed on a totalitarian ideology (Communism, with a capital C.)

And even the Commies realized that religion was more useful legalized than it was banned, which is why Stalin brought it back as a morale booster just in time for some WWII ass-kicking.

[humblebum]

79. "Stalin brought it back as a morale booster just in time" - but

it certainly did not remain that way after the war. And under Khrushchev a new effort to completely eliminate all traces of religion was undertaken.

[LAGC]

83. Yet, look at Russia now.

Religion is BOOMING. Clearly, outlawing religion and oppressing it doesn't work, if the goal is to reduce the percentage of believers.

You don't change anyone's mind by simply driving their ideology underground, where it festers and waits for its next escape.

[humblebum]

84. That's true, but there is still a very large atheist community.

24 to 48% of the population according to http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

[LeftishBrit]

97. And if it's not helping to enforce tyranny, why shouldn't there be?

[HereSince1628]

10. That's really a perfect example

of a strawman for this discussion.

[Fumesucker]

11. ...

[LeftishBrit]

13. I'm not Iris, but that is not how I interpreted it.

I think she meant that she already keeps getting called a 'militant feminist' so she might as well be caused a 'militant atheist' as well.

And your picture has nothing to do with the sort of people commonly referred to as 'militant atheists'.

[iris27]

19. Bingo. n/t

[onager]

22. Examples of militant Xians, just for balance...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Cx5YSp-ghS8/TMHFR8iAmII/AAAAAAAAIt0/vOMMVPjq0os/s1600/execution+of+jews+at+Babi+Yar.jpg

[socialshockwave]

26. More militant atheists:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/ea/20110116003858!EnverHoxha.jpg







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_God_Delusion_UK.jpg

[socialshockwave]

27. And one more:

[onager]

28. Militant Xian at prayer...

And signing an autograph for a fan...

[socialshockwave]

29. There's conflicting rumors that Hitler was not religious; he may have even been a Pagan

so there's tons of conflicting rumours about him.

[Fumesucker]

34. The official position of the Nazis was religious..

This is a WWII German soldier's belt buckle, the words translate as "God Is With Us", hardly what you would expect from a society headed by an atheist or pagan.

[NMMNG]

36. Not to mention Hitler's own words

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)


"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


Thus, Protestantism will always stand up for the advancement of all Germans as such, as long as matters of inner purity or national deepening as well as German freedom are involved, since all these things have a firm foundation in its own being; but it combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

[trotsky]

77. I've even heard that he wasn't a True Scotsman.

So difficult to know.

[laconicsax]

59. Can you name a militant action he's taken?

Attending conferences? Writing books on evolution? Writing one book on religion?

[LeftishBrit]

82. Who has nothing to do with the previous ones.

[HereSince1628]

6. I found this from Wiki informative...this term has a long history

"Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is violently hostile towards religion.<1><2><3><4><5><6> Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine,<2><7> and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be pernicious.<3><2><1> Militant atheism was an integral part of the materialism of Marxism-Leninism,<8><9> and significant in the French Revolution,<10> atheist states such as the Soviet Union,<11><12> and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.<13> The term militant atheist has been used going back to at least 1882,<14> and it has been applied to political thinkers.<15> 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.<16><17><18><7><19> 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."<20>"

- - - - - - - -
Name calling is very common social phenomenon. It often (usually?) involves exaggeration/hyperboly, and is directed at 'others' in in a manner that creates an ad hominem strawman around which the in-group rallies.

When intolerance emerges between groups, name-calling is very likely to emerge. Intolerance between advocates proposing social policies of dialectically opposed beliefs, such as theism and atheism, seems very likely. It seems to me that, when one group uses descriptors of radicalism, violence, and militancy about a second group the first group is expressing anxiety about perceived existential threats represented by the second group.

[Fumesucker]

12. That's really quite interesting, thanks for looking it up and sharing..

It's interesting being part of the most despised minority but one that can "pass" very easily just by keeping their mouths shut, you learn that people will change their entire opinion of you in a few seconds based on whether or not you profess to believe a particular fantasy.

[HereSince1628]

17. True enough...Thoughts may be free, but expression of thoughts

through direct or indirect communication can be consequential.

[skepticscott]

37. What they are calling "militant atheism"

is actually anti-theism. It's hard to take any piece seriously when the writer has no clue about the difference.

[humblebum]

41. Whenever certain groups refer to themselves as "militant atheists"

the chances are pretty good that they are indeed militant atheists and yes they were indeed involved in anti-religious activities.

[laconicsax]

42. Name them.

Name the atheist groups call themselves "militant." Cite your sources.

[humblebum]

43. Don't play coy. nt

[laconicsax]

44. Is this going to be another example of you failing to back up your assertions?

You've had over a month to come up with a link on another thread; how long will this one take?

[humblebum]

45. You asked me this question a month ago? Like I said. Don't play coy.

you know very well that there was a group called the League of Militant Atheists. They have changed their name several times over the decades and still exist today.

[darkstar3]

47. Then NAME them.

[humblebum]

48. Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension. I just did. nt.

[darkstar3]

49. No you didn't. In case you can't read very well, we're talking about the present tense here.

You named a group that hasn't existed for decades, and claim that they've somehow changed their name and persisted. Give the current name, and name any other present groups that you consider "militant." That's what you were asked for. I know you like to twist every question to refer back to Communist Russia, but that't not what this is about.

[humblebum]

50. Ok. I'll name them the Militant Atheists. There. Done.

"The term militant atheist has been used going back to at least 1882,<14> and it has been applied to political thinkers." Hardly present tense.

[darkstar3]

51. That group doesn't exist. Conservapedia refers to atheists in general as "militant,"

but a quick Google search shows that the only place where "Militant Atheists" can be found as a group name is as a slur on the sites and lips of the faithful.

[humblebum]

52. Why would you consult Conservapedia for one thing? And, you are

right. Here was the group's real name - Союз воинствующих безбожников. It can be translated to League of Militant Atheists or league of Belligerent Atheists or League of Militant Godless or Society of the Militant Godless. Take your pick. The term "bezboznik" translates to atheist or godless - same word. Yes, there was a League of Miliant Atheists. The book 'Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless' tells their story. Now if you want to continue living in a state of denial - have a ball.

[darkstar3]

70. And they are not current, therefore you have not answered the quetion posed.

Try again.

[laconicsax]

58. No, you were asked a different question last month.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=296124&mesg_id=296163

On August 10th, you said you could come up with a link to back up what you claimed. We're still waiting.

I see your named militant atheist group is a former Soviet association that disbanded in the 40s. And you wonder why no one believes you.

[humblebum]

62. And yet you still claim they never existed? Amazing.

The League of Militant Atheists comprised workers, peasants, students, and members of the intelligentsia. Organizations were founded at plants, factories, kolkhozes, and educational institutions. By early 1941, the league consisted of approximately 3.5 million working people of 100 nationalities. The number of groups reached 96,000. Guided by Leninist principles of antireligious propaganda and by the party’s decisions on these principles, the league dedicated itself to ideological struggle against all forms of religion and the development of a scientific world view among working people. It disseminated propaganda on the natural sciences and atheism, offered believers individual counseling, and trained propagandists and atheist agitators. It also published scientific and popular scientific works and a number of periodicals, founded museums and organized exhibitions, and conducted scientific research in the field of atheism and criticism of religion. Working under the motto “The struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism,” the league coordinated atheist propaganda with economic, political, and cultural tasks. The league maintained extensive international ties; it belonged to the International of Proletarian Freethinkers, and then to the World Union of Freethinkers. In 1947 the league turned over its tasks of disseminating scientific-atheist propaganda to Znanie (Knowledge), a newly created all-Union society.
REFERENCES
Konovalov, B. N. “Soiuz voinstvuiushchikh bezbozhnikov.” In the collection Voprosy nauchnogo ateizma, no. 4. Moscow, 1967.
Konovalov, B. N. K massovomu ateizmu. Moscow, 1974.

[laconicsax]

67. What part of "a former Soviet association that disbanded in the 40s" says "they never existed?"

:eyes:

[humblebum]

69. Uh huh. Yeh. nt

[laconicsax]

71. I accept your apology. n/t

[skepticscott]

54. A lot of atheists don't grasp the difference either

But it still exists, and compounding their misunderstanding with your own ignorance of the difference makes a really shitty argument. And you can't cite a single real (as opposed to made up by you) organization that refers to themselves that way in any case. So you lose either way.

What exactly was your point again?

[humblebum]

57. "as opposed to made up by you" - so if I made up the term the

name militant atheists, then I guess it would stand to reason that all the others who used the name must have borrowed it from me - before I was born. Funny how these things work.

[skepticscott]

60. See your post #50 above

for your invented "group". You're obviously not able to cite one that actually exists, nor to respond substantively to anything else here.

[humblebum]

61. Obviously you do not recognize sarcasm and the existence of the

original group by that name has been thoroughly documented.

[skepticscott]

85. You were challenged to name a group that exists NOW

but you can't. So you fall back on the same old schtick. Stalinblahblahblahmilitantatheistsblahblahblah130milliondeathsblahblahblahviolenceandrepressionblahblahblah.

[humblebum]

90. Where? And really, those deaths were no laughing matter. nt

[Taverner]

88. We Atheists are discriminated against, and when we complain...

The Xians accuse US of discrimination...

[humblebum]

89. Yes. There are just loads of anti-atheist rallies. nt

[Taverner]

91. Pretty much any Christian rally is an Anti-Atheist rally

[humblebum]

92. I see. So you have a problem with what other people think, believe,

and speak. And you want to put a stop to it. Says volumes.

[Taverner]

93. When they call me the devil and the father of all lies, yes I have a problem

And no I don't want to "put a stop to it"

But they could use some growing up

[humblebum]

94. I am not even going to ask about the circumstances in which

you were called that.

[LeftishBrit]

95. I certainly don't

All I ask is that:

(1) My citizenship status should not be linked to religious belief. I should be regarded as an equal citizen with believers.

(2) There should NEVER NEVER NEVER be any attempt to defeat ANY political candidate simply because they are an atheist (or a religious minority member if it comes to that). Similarly organized attempts by 'pro-life' groups to defeat pro-choice politicians totally cross my line in the sand.

(3) Related to (2), people should not attempt to impose religiously-based 'moral' rules into law.

(4) I should not be treated as suspect or dangerous because I am an unbeliever.



I have never experienced (1) or (4) in my country, but it obviously happens in America. I have experienced (2) nearby, ONCE, and that was once too often!! (3) happens occasionally in my country, though less than in many others including America.

[Deep13]

99. I disagree with them, if that's what you mean...

...but apparently only nonbelievers have a duty to STFU. I guess you have a problem with us expressing our views and want to put a stop to it. It would speak volumes if it weren't so damned hypocritical.

All religion is an expression of disapproval for all other religions and for non religion. Either JC is the one true path to salvation, or else he isn't. Either the Koran is the final, perfect revealed word of god or it isn't. Affirming one necessarily denounces the other ever if ecumenists like to pretend that isn't so.

[humblebum]

101. deleted

[LeftishBrit]

96. You're right. There are.

It is NOT true that any Christian rally is an anti-atheist rally. But any rally that is held with a view to asserting a nation's religious identity, or persuading a country to return to its religious roots or to impose religion-based laws on a country (e.g. most 'pro-life' rallies) are anti-atheist, or at any rate anti-secularism, rallies.

In any case, anti-atheist rallies are hardly necessary if a country already has religiously-based laws or criminalizes blasphemy - as many still do, and many others did until extremely recently.

[Deep13]

98. It's just you. nt