onewheeldave

You've made it clear that you get your definition from Wikipedia. Then you also mentioned that it's from some other sources, as well as observing common usage.

Well, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, your other sources have so far not been cited, and common usage is the thing we're actually discussing. Just because many people say "innit" instead of "yes, I agree", doesn't mean it is correct terminology.

 

Though it is in the Oxford English Dictionary

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?

 

OK, so I'll assume that with this-

 

You really do need to step out of the mindset that you've created for yourself and take on board clear information I've been giving you throughout this thread. None more clearer than this.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9218998#post9218998

Please do try to keep up.

 

which points to this-

 

The problem with your line of 'reasoning' is that a militant stamp collector could only be described as such if he was being aggressive while in the process of stamp collecting or performing a task that is related to/influenced by his stamp collecting. In other words there has to be some tenet or tangibility to what you're hanging the label 'militant' onto.

To further use the analogy of a coat hanger. The hanger is the dogma (religion, political ideology, etc) and militant is the garment hanging from it. Atheism is the rejection of one particular hanger (the religious one) but is not a hanger in itself meaning that there is nothing to hang the militant label on to.

Now atheists may also be humanists or secularists or hold other positions (hangers) that you can attach militant to but to call somebody a militant atheist is like calling somebody a militant non stamp collector.

It simply doesn't make any sense.

 

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-

 

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?

 

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-

 

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?

 

So i can look forward to a response when I rise tomorrow?

In case you hadn't noticed, simply saying it's a bad example doesn't quite cut the mustard. You have to kind o' say why you think so if you want to remain even remotely credible.

 

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.

 

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?

 

 

There's no 'as I say' about it but yes, the rest of your post is correct as I understand it.

My atheism is just a small part of me and of my secular humanist, antitheist, sceptic, freethinking ideology.

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?

Because you can't comment on it. Because you know that I, and the other atheists here, have got your number on this. We understand perfectly what you're trying to do and it's not working. It's not working because it's clearly fallacious as well as troll like but it's nice to give a troll a good kicking now and again. Or am I being too militant now?

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

Why be so touchy about being called a militant atheist Richard Dawkins doesn't seem to mind it.

 

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.

If we're talking about combative, aggressive, goading and insulting as being militant, what about all those militant football fans that are on the terraces every Saturday afternoon? Damn militant football fans, who do they think they are?

 

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.

 

The fact remains that the term 'militant atheist' has been established as a derogatory term to equate internet discussion with fanatical religionists. It's even acquired an urban dictionary reference.

 

So you'd agree then, that the term has aquired 'common usage'?

 

 

 

 

This is why I am asking for a specific example of somebody (not anonymous) doing precisely what you claim happens, so we might debate the relevance of your label. Since you have claimed the label is relevant for "people like Dawkins" why not pick an example of when the label can be applied to him.

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.

 

 

Personally no. I'd say he was a black man who's also an atheist. Although in general conversation I may refer to him as a black atheist for brevity.

 

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

 

 

But I'm not accepting your clearly false position that, just because the debater is an atheist, he is arguing an atheist 'ideology' and therefore you're justified in calling him a militant atheist.

The non stamp collector is a good analogy. If a non stamp collector was attacking a stamp collector for collecting stamps and insulted him in an aggressive, bullying manner for doing so then you wouldn't call him a militant non stamp collector. That would be ridiculous. Only an idiot would do that. You would just call the guy out on what he's actually doing (being aggressive and a bully) and not looking to enflame the situation or troll him by claiming that he's something he's clearly not.....or, in other words, a strawman.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My bold.

But I'll say it again. That's the only tenet of atheism, so the rest of the above comment is a complete misdirection of where the term militant is aimed at (and that's putting aside whether it's applicable at all in even the most heated debate).

 

 

 

Who decides what's reasonable? If an atheist (as an antitheist) believes that religion does a huge amount of harm in the world then isn't it reasonable to use whatever approach they feel has the best chance of success in relieving mankind of that harm?

 

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?

This also means that two people debating the pros and cons of eating out or staying in for a take-away are being militant.

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.

Everybody is militant on occasion by your own low threshold definition. Even you with respect to your public claims about the competence of your GP.

 

I meant your point about the 'combatitive' thing?

I'm asking for examples of that, not just a repetition of that. Specific examples, people and actions, so that we might rationally debate the validity of your claim that the use of the term 'militant atheist' is valid.

 

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?

Here:

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9218378#post9218378

 

OK, cheers-

 

On the contrary, no I don't, as, by definition, a 'miltant' is 'Having a combative character; aggressive, insulting etc', and, if a particular atheist happens to be 'Having a combative character; aggressive, insulting etc', then, said atheist is a militant one.

 

We don't need to know his/her name etc, an atheist behaving militantly, is, by definition, a 'militant atheist'.

 

(Similarly, a stamp collector behaving militantly, would be a 'militant stamp collector').

So, what's your point?

Which discussion?

 

This one, of course.

You said 'combative' earlier, dropped that one now you realise it sort of applies.

 

 

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

How can somebody be militant about a lack of belief in something?

 

This is why I keep asking for examples.

 

I gave one-

 

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.

1. Yes you are dodging.

 

2. I have already said that everybody is militant on occasion, especially with respect to the low threshold of militancy which you and mafya seem to subscribe to, which makes everybody a 'militant theist' or 'militant atheist' and makes the use of the term meaningless.

 

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.

IT does rather seem to me though that you are being somewhat dogmatic in your insistence about what you think atheism is. One would possibly even class your behavior as being militant in it's one minded pursuit...

 

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.

No, six45ive is making perfect sense to me, it's you that isn't.

 

You can have an agnostic who is militant about gay rights, but you wouldn't call him a militant agnostic. It simply doesn't add meaning like militant gay activist would.

 

The only reason that the word militant is being so readily added to the word atheist is to equate all atheists with the most unpleasant extremes of religion.

 

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

If they chose to identify themselves as a black atheist then of course but all that it would say about them is that they are a black man that doesn't believe in god. Where's the militant in that?

 

No, there's no militant in that.

 

Would you say they were a 'black atheist'?

I know it's not aimed at me but,

 

An atheist not being militant;

 

"I like zombie novels"

 

"It's amazing how cheap second hand digital guitar equipment is these days, I've just grabbed myself a real bargain on an unlimited track recorder!"

 

"I wonder if telekinesis is possible?"

 

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

So please explain how my lack of belief in a god manifests itself in an 'aggressive' manner without using any tenets from established ideologies/world views.

 

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.

You could have an atheist who's militant about something, but I doubt it would be about his/her atheism.

 

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?).