onewheeldave

Though it is in the Oxford English Dictionary

OK, so I'll assume that with this- which points to this- is your, reply? Unfortunately, it seems to muddy the waters further, as you say in that, that humanists/secularisits can be militant? So perhaps it might be best for you to address the actual question directly- and bite the bullet and state clearly, whether, in your opinion, stamp collectors, humanists etc, can be militant, or, are they immune from it, in the way you seem to be saying atheists are?

Let's keep it civil eh? Otherwise the mods will eat this thread, just like all the others I'm off to bed now- 6ers, any chance you could have a go at- So i can look forward to a response when I rise tomorrow?

Well, it does actually. It's a shorthand way of saying I'm not going to waste my time on that. Which frees you up to tackle my questions above, if you think you can usefully address them.

Good, so we have a starting point. So, if an atheist can't be militant, because it's actually the person that is militant: how do you get round the same thing being applied to, for example, a stamp collector? (just cos you seem to like stamp collectors in examples ) Supposing you had a stamp collector who was being sufficiently aggressive to be considered 'militant'. Could it not be argued that, even if brandishing a AK-47, he was not a 'militant stamp collector' but just a militant individual who happens to be a stamp collector?

No, it's cos I think it's a bad example.

Bear in mind Janie, that it's not the atheist being touchy- it's the person behind the atheist, because, the only characteristic an atheist can possess, is a 'lack of belief' In actual fact, Dawkins isn't an atheist, because, if he were, that would mean there was an atheist who was Dawkins, which is impossible, because the act of being Dawkins, is somehting other than a 'lack of belief': therefore no atheist could be a Dawkins.

What about them? Look matey it's been long established that you disagree with my definition of militant, yes? I've made it clear that I understand that you have a different understanding of the term. I've also made it clear that I'm happy with my understanding of it. So, let's just agree to dissagree, rather than you making your fingers sore with a load of typing that isn't going to make me change my view on the term.

So you'd agree then, that the term has aquired 'common usage'? If I do, it'll just spark off a long, tedious debate where some agree that Dawkins (in the example I'm not going to give) was being insulting, and, others say that he wasn't. I've got better things to do my my time especially given that I've got a perfectly good general case already.

Would that be a misuse of the term 'black atheist'?

I don't. i think it's a really bad example, and, even if unitentionally, is effectively a misdirection/distraction. So I'll refrain from commenting on it. But if, as you say, atheism is soley a lack of belief (in god), and, when an atheist is being militant, it's actually the person that is militant, and not the atheist: then, by the same reaoning, wouldn't it be the person, rather than the atheist, who felt that religion is harmful, and, the person (not the atheist), using what ever approach they feel necessary?

I've made ny understanding of 'militant' clear- if you have a different one, then fine. Obviously, when i use the term 'militant' it will be in the sense I understand it, and, so, I won't be considering the above as being militant.

I meant your point about the 'combatitive' thing?

So, waht's wrong with- ....an atheist, engaged in a discussion with a believer, who gives up on the reasoning approach, and resorts, as some atheists do, to using terms that are provocative, goading or insulting. It's not due to his/her lack of belief in God, but they are being militant, they are an atheist, and, they are being militant in a discussion about atheism/religious belief. So they shouldn't really be too upset if they get labelled as a 'militant atheist'. Any example I did give would merely be an instance of the above, so, if you disagree that the above constitutes a militant atheist, adding on real-world instances isn't going to change your mind is it? You need to state if the above constitutes a militant atheist, or not, and, if not, why not?

OK, cheers- So, what's your point?

This one, of course.

Did I? In what context? Could you quote the post, I wouldn't mind seeing it.

I gave one-

1. no I'm not (might be worth noting that what's happening here, is we're disagreeing. Either back up your claim, or let's just leave it, eh? 2. Like I've said many times now- I'm using 'militant' to mean 'insulting/goading' etc, which I don't consider that low a threshhold, as many many people are able to engage in a discussion without insulting and goading.

Only if you define 'militant' as being a 'one minded pursuit'. I don't, I understand it to mean things like 'aggressive, insulting, goading etc', in which case I'm not being militant.

What if he was an atheist being militant about athesim? Would he be a militant atheist then?

No, there's no militant in that. Would you say they were a 'black atheist'?

OK. Can you relate any of those into the discussion then?

I wasn't talking about you- you don't seem to be being particularly insulting/goading in this thread. I was talking about an atheist, engaged in a discussion with a believer, who gives up on the reasoning approach, and resorts, as some atheists do, to using terms that are provocative, goading or insulting. It's not due to his/her lack of belief in God, but they are being militant, they are an atheist, and, they are being militant in a discussion about atheism/religious belief. So they shouldn't really be too upset if they get labelled as a 'militant atheist'. It does serve a purpose, because there are plenty of atheists who can participate in a reasonable and rational discussion with believers, so it's just one way of distinguishing them from the others.

OK..... Would they be a militant atheist while they were being militant about something other than atheism? Or would they be a non-militant atheist being militant (about something else). Actually, could you even have a non-militant atheist? would they have to be being a non-militant atheist (about something else?).