Bomb attacks on Brussels airport

"As for the term militant atheism which you seem to hear for the first time, it was not his coinage." Wrong again. But your "specialist" made a massive mistake in connecting making atheism a religion. So, I doubt of his analyse(s) which are at least biased.
These are his words: "militant atheism was the official religion". As atheism can't be a religion by definition, he had to build a analogy, to fabricate a bridge, reason why he involves the communist Party in it. Reason why I involved the
"random guy on the internet": You should have read the quote: It was about the attempt from religious to made atheism a religion...
Not because I need someone to analyse a text so biased that it is a piece of art, but because I find his text much better than mine.

As the work of your specialist, I admit I never read it. I went for French Specialists at my times...

"Not in the case of Lenin who fought religion and church being the head of the Soviet state" Really? 2 solutions; Some might think he wasn't so much against religions, or, some might think because he was against religions, he is in big need to save his soul. Whatever the reasons, I still don't understand why you bring this in the actual exchange...

How can atheism not be a religion, isn't rejection an acknoweledgment

"How can atheism not be a religion, isn't rejection an acknoweledgment" By the definition of religion itself: A religion is the link between the creator and the creature. Do not mix a system of believes and religion. You can believe in unicorns. This doesn't make unicorns divine, so your belief is not a religion. You can believe in some kind of philosophies or political platforms, this doesn't make these religions.
Atheism is not a rejection, it is a lack of belief in Gods/divine.
Religions are codified by texts, injections, rules, punishments and rewards. Religions are linked, included into mythology, supernatural, providing a outside explanation for natural events.
Atheism has none of this.
If you say that atheism is a religion, you can as well say that a non-smoker is a smoker who doesn't smoke, a monk a sex-addict who doesn't have sex, or, to quote Bill Maher, abstinence being a sexual position/activity.

Let me put it this way, why does a word that means you aren't religious even exist. I am not religious but I would never call myself an atheist, I just don't care what some believe in. There is a hidden hostility in that word, a need to break it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Let me put it this way, why does a word that means you aren't religious even exist. I am not religious but I would never call myself an atheist, I just don't care what some believe in. There is a hidden hostility in that word, a need to break it down.

---

Agnostic=I don't know and so choose not to give judgement either way
Atheist= I see no proof and thus choose to refuse the assertion that there is a god.

There's not necessarily any hostility in either position, though the more hostile people tend to choose Atheism, since they are more assertive usually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Agnostic=I don't know and so choose not to give judgement either way
Atheist= I see no proof and thus choose to refuse the assertion that there is a god.

There's not necessarily any hostility in either position, though the more hostile people tend to choose Atheism, since they are more assertive usually.

---

Why reject something you don't believe in? It just isn't necesarry and comes close to just bullying for my tastes. A question I would like ask to those who insist on being atheists, why do you even care? What do you have to prove in the first place? Valid questions imho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Why reject something you don't believe in? It just isn't necesarry and comes close to just bullying for my tastes. A question I would like ask to those who insist on being atheists, why do you even care? What do you have to prove in the first place? Valid questions imho

---

Do you reject the belief that we must sacrifice a goat every Sunday or we'll be struck down by the great God of thunder? Or do you feel that in the absence of evidence for extraordinary claims we must reject those claims? "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is a great way to justify most things, but it is not really an honest way of arguing.

Me myself I am agnostic, I'm just trying to show to you why atheists are not by definition bullies. Unless you are a bully for not believing we have to sacrifice goats every Sunday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Do you reject the belief that we must sacrifice a goat every Sunday or we'll be struck down by the great God of thunder?
[...]
Unless you are a bully for not believing we have to sacrifice goats every Sunday.

---

I'd say you have to prove the goat thing before we have to do or deny anything. Why would Fragony have to deny something you can't even prove exists?

I believe the word atheist exists because around the time it came up it was simply a reality that 90% or more of the people were religious and being religious was considered normal. So the ones who did not want to be religious anymore needed a term to set themselves apart from the norm. Nowadays it seems like atheism is closer to being the norm, but I don't think it really is yet if you look at who identifies as atheist in polls and the likes. See this map for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...anced_2010.png

To me it looks like France is almost alone beyond the 50% atheists mark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I'd say you have to prove the goat thing before we have to do or deny anything. Why would Fragony have to deny something you can't even prove exists?

---

Do you believe in the Thunder God who will slay you lest he be given a goat in offering on Sunday? Will you slay a goat in sacrifice on Sunday? Either way come Sunday we will know your stance on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Do you believe in the Thunder God who will slay you lest he be given a goat in offering on Sunday? Will you slay a goat in sacrifice on Sunday? Either way come Sunday we will know your stance on the matter.

---

Why Sunday and not Thursday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Why Sunday and not Thursday?

---

You shall not question the word of the Thunder God or he will smite you. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

But your "specialist" made a massive mistake in connecting making atheism a religion.These are his words: "militant atheism was the official religion". As atheism can't be a religion by definition, he had to build a analogy, to fabricate a bridge, reason why he involves the communist Party in it.

---

Once again - it was called a religion not in meaning 1 or 2, but rather in meaning 3:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\

Simple Definition of religion

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Not in the case of Lenin who fought religion and church being the head of the Soviet state" Really? 2 solutions; Some might think he wasn't so much against religions, or, some might think because he was against religions, he is in big need to save his soul. Whatever the reasons, I still don't understand why you bring this in the actual exchange...

---

To show that the leader of the Soviet country (both long dead and still alive) was often imparted with a divine nature worth worshipping. And his effigies and monuments seemed a proper place to expose it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Do you reject the belief that we must sacrifice a goat every Sunday or we'll be struck down by the great God of thunder? Or do you feel that in the absence of evidence for extraordinary claims we must reject those claims? "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is a great way to justify most things, but it is not really an honest way of arguing.

Me myself I am agnostic, I'm just trying to show to you why atheists are not by definition bullies. Unless you are a bully for not believing we have to sacrifice goats every Sunday.

---

I just don't understand why someone calls himself an atheist if be simply isn't religious. It's like an anarchist voting for an apolitical-party

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I just don't understand why someone calls himself an atheist if be simply isn't religious. It's like an anarchist voting for an apolitical-party

---

I thought I had explained that above? Could you re-read it for me and try to help me solve why you do not understand what an atheist is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

I thought I had explained that above? Could you re-read it for me and try to help me solve why you do not understand what an atheist is?

---

I just don't understand why someone who is not religious calls himself an atheist instead of just disregarding religions, Calling yourself an atheist is giving religion more credit than they are worth imho. I don't need to call myself an atheist I simply disregard religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I just don't understand why someone who is not religious calls himself an atheist instead of just disregarding religions, Calling yourself an atheist is giving religion more credit than they are worth imho. I don't need to call myself an atheist I simply disregard religion.

---

Because that someone does not believe in any god, unlike you and me who throw our arms into the air and say "Don't know, don't care".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Because that someone does not believe in any god, unlike you and me who throw our arms into the air and say "Don't know, don't care".

---

But can you see the ambigious it is, considering yourself to be an atheist is having an ideoligy yourself in the end as it's basicly making a point out of it. You don't have to be anti-religious to not be religious, and that is where it sometimes goes wrong as people who insist on being atheists can be just as evangelitically minded, and I see that as an act of hostility

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

But can you see the ambigious it is, considering yourself to be an atheist is having an ideoligy yourself in the end as it's basicly making a point out of it. You don't have to be anti-religious to not be religious, and that is where it sometimes goes wrong as people who insist on being atheists can be just as evangelitically minded, and I see that as an act of hostility

---

No I'm sorry, I cannot see how someone saying "I do not believe in what you believe" is by definition evangelical or hostile. I'm not sure how you define hostility to be honest...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

As the work of your specialist, I admit I never read it. I went for French Specialists at my times...

---

This is no great drawback. But if you claim to be an atheist marxist you should be more aware of the works by those who grounded and further shaped the ideologies in question (namely Lenin).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

No I'm sorry, I cannot see how someone saying "I do not believe in what you believe" is by definition evangelical or hostile. I'm not sure how you define hostility to be honest...

---

I am bad at making a point because it's never anything more than something that doesn'seem to be quit right to me. Calling yourself an atheist has this duality of both acknoweligment and rejection, making it an ideoligy of it's own. There is an ambigiouty to that imho, why take something serious that you don't? I can not shake the feeling that there is a certain need to rediculise people who are religious. I redicule them as well but why are we doing that really, it's no competition

"an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" I don't know who found this definition, but this can apply to every hobby... Ahhh, perhaps in figurative way, "I swim, this is my religion" kind of...

"But if you claim to be an atheist marxist you should be more aware of the works by those who grounded and further shaped the ideologies in question (namely Lenin)" :laugh4: So many of them, but no thank you. I like to have my own analyse. And the 2 are separated, I am atheist, I am Marxist in how to analyse facts, I am not a atheist Marxist or a Marxist atheist, as you choose. I was atheist much earlier than to be Marxist... And I don't share all Marx's point of view... Too dated, too many mistakes, I choose to like how he analysed.

"Calling yourself an atheist has this duality of both acknoweligment and rejection, making it an ideoligy of it's own" No. Calling myself an atheist is just telling I don't believe in God(s). Period. No ideology in this, just a simple fact. I don't believe in God(s).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" I don't know who found this definition, but this can apply to every hobby... Ahhh, perhaps in figurative way, "I swim, this is my religion" kind of...

---

This is what I've been trying to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"But if you claim to be an atheist marxist you should be more aware of the works by those who grounded and further shaped the ideologies in question (namely Lenin)" :laugh4: So many of them, but no thank you.

---

Lenin is not just one of them. To my mind, if you want to understand better the ways things worked in the USSR in the sphere of ideology (and not only), it is highly advisable to read some Lenin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

And I don't share all Marx's point of view... Too dated, too many mistakes, I choose to like how he analysed.

---

Then you can't claim to be a marxist. Analysing is the way of working with facts, not the system of views/ideology that marxism is. It is like calling someone a Christian because he likes the metaphors Christ used in his speeches.

Marxism is a believe in an invetable outcome, facts don't really matter as they are nothing but an indication of what might happen later. That's a rather radical thought for historians who insist there is nothing to learn from history, or predict

"not the system of views/ideology that marxism is" Hmm, not sure you read Marx, or you understand Marx.

"This is what I've been trying to say." Perhaps, but it not what the author you quote was saying, as he refers few times to religious vocabulary...

"To my mind, if you want to understand better the ways things worked in the USSR in the sphere of ideology (and not only), it is highly advisable to read some Lenin." Probably, but I was never really interested in the exercise. Facts are better, apparently, the USSR constitution was one of the best, was just not applied. So, speeches and books.... In my mind, Lenin was the guy who opened the door to Stalin (and Trotsky was not better). The Soviets killed the Revolution... But this is not based on knowledge, more on feelings backed-up by history of the Russian Revolution at university...

What you have to understand is, as French, we have our own socialist and anarchist thinkers and theoreticians. We don't really so heavily on others experience, and Marx stays what he was, a theorist who first explored history to try to explain how societies work. In it in this term I am a Marxist. Go from the fact and try to explain others facts. This help in order to understand deep movements in and of history. Of course, Marx being a man of the XIX century, was not aware of some facts, as sociology, demography and anthropology can now deliver. He was convinced the revolution would come from industrialised countries when in fact, both successful revolutions came from 2 countries deep in peasantry and politically unaware, Russia and China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"not the system of views/ideology that marxism is" Hmm, not sure you read Marx, or you understand Marx.

---

I read some, but more saw it related or interpreted by Lenin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"This is what I've been trying to say." Perhaps, but it not what the author you quote was saying, as he refers few times to religious vocabulary...

---

Once you broach a metaphor you may expand it. This is what the author did trying to explain the idelogy in the USSR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

In it in this term I am a Marxist. Go from the fact and try to explain others facts. This help in order to understand deep movements in and of history.

---

Taking a fact and trying to explain other facts by referring to it is called logics. You can apply it without being a marxist.

"You can apply it without being a marxist." Yes, you can. Ok, if you insist, I am not a marxist. However, I do apply the marxist's methods, going from facts and reading them from "historical" point. I oppose the "shock of civilisation" bits, and explain (or try) by more geo-political interests than ideological, in Ukraine, Kosovo or in Syria.
However, I do recognise Marxism's failure to take in account aspects of humanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I oppose the "shock of civilisation" bits, and explain (or try) by more geo-political interests than ideological, in Ukraine, Kosovo or in Syria.

---

Geopolitics goes hand in hand with ideology. Or vice versa.

Geopolitics doesn't really has anything to do with it, Marx thought that socialism in a society was inavitable after a hungry society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Geopolitics doesn't really has anything to do with it, Marx thought that socialism in a society was inavitable after a hungry society.

---

I don't mean Marx's views and geopolitics. I mean ideology adopted at a state level often influences a course the country takes, like the ideological background for Crusades. Or political considerations may result in adopting some ideology, like converting Kievan Rus to Christianity in 988.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

I don't mean Marx's views and geopolitics. I mean ideology adopted at a state level often influences a course the country takes, like the ideological background for Crusades. Or political considerations may result in adopting some ideology, like converting Kievan Rus to Christianity in 988.

---

Things are always really complicated (the crusades especially, the first especially), what I mean is that Marx was a philopher rather than a political theorisf some take him for, the term marxism is often used wrongly nowadays, words evolve of course, machivellian, sadism racism take your pick, marxism is an evolved word as well.