'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[Hairyloon]

In the sense that if the aim of a discussion is genuine communication, then using terms that some find derogatory or insulting, is counter to that aim...

I'd put it like this- if the aim of the discussion is genuinely to pursue truth, via communication, then it has to be a priority to avoid unnecessary derogatory terms.

Well put.

I think it fair to concluder that those that persist in using such terms are clearly not in pursuit of that aim.

[Alien]

A big difference between 'xmas' and 'xtian' is that the former is a well-established, non controversial term used in common language by pretty much everyone- the latter is a term primarily used by militant atheists in arguments (as opposed to constructive debates) with or against fundamentalists.

 

Only if you believe the right wing Christian fundamentalist rhetoric. In my opinion those that use this tend to lose or are losing the debate hands down.

 

 

 

It's really, really not about one or two SF posters this is not an issue that only relates to SF- internet wide, terms like those being discussed are considered, by some, to be either counter productive, or derogatory.

 

The word is only counter productive if the perceived insult is used as a distraction from the actual debate..in fact the distraction can be seen as a saving grace considering the intellectual hammering Christians get.

 

 

 

Atheists are subject to the same human frailities as anyone- becoming an atheists by no means automatically means a person is immune to irrationality- it certainly does not make a person immune to having a big ego

 

When it comes to ego one has only to look up...if you believe that stuff that is.

 

I've seen plenty of atheists using petty and/or irrational arguments- just as I've seen many non-atheists using petty and/or irrational arguments.

 

Agreed

 

What makes a persons arguments/reasoning rational, is the fact that they are themselves rational and, there are rational atheists, rational non-atheists, as well as irrational atheists and irrational non-atheists.

 

Agreed

 

Personally, it seems to me, that it makes good, rational sense, if engaged in a debate, to stick to making good, sound, rational statements, in a way that the person you're discussing with, has a chance of appreciating what you're trying to get across: as opposed to wrecking any chance of them appreciating the points you're making by using terms you know full well will just wind them up.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that militant atheists do not have a right to use terms they know that their opponent will find insulting- we live in a free-speech culture.

 

But clearly, if the stated intention is communication and genuine discussion, use of terms seen as derogatory by the other person, is deeply counter-productive.

 

If the intention is to wind up the other person, or inflame the debate beyond the point at which rational, calm discussion is possible, then use of such terms is a good move.

 

Why a rational atheist with a love of truth, reasoned debate and sincere communication would wish to inflame the debate beyond the point at which rational, calm discussion is possible, is, for me, a little confusing.

 

It borders on irrational behaviour

 

 

Some may say religion/atheism is an irrational behaviour. Hence within debate you will get irrational behaviour.

[Hairyloon]

There are Christians within Christian circles who do not believe that other Christians are Christian, because they don't follow precisely the same rules as they do...

There are nutters in any group.

[onewheeldave]

Oh how surprising you consider your behaviour and the extent to which it digresses from your preaching 'off topic' yet strangely you never seem to find the behaviour of the atheists you so like to lecture 'off topic' just the opposite in fact.

 

You know if you really want atheists to take your advice about how they conduct themselves maybe you should have 1st taken the precaution of not making your hostility to atheism so clear. I'd no more take your advice about how to conduct myself in a debate than I would a bookies about where to place my bets with him.

 

I'm not hostile to atheism: according to one of the two current definitions of 'athiest' I am an atheist.

 

How you conduct yourself in a debate is down to you, I'm not trying to advise you of anything.

[flamingjimmy]

A big difference between 'xmas' and 'xtian' is that the former is a well-established, non controversial term used in common language by pretty much everyone- the latter is a term primarily used by militant atheists in arguments (as opposed to constructive debates) with or against fundamentalists.

 

Are you serious?

 

I was with you on the last page, but you've just lost all credibility by using the term I've put in bold.

 

I find that offensive, because you're putting people like me and Plekhanov up next to people who bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings. Which, to be honest, is total nonsense. And you know damn well that a lot of people feel that way because I've objected to you using the term before. Also, unlike 'xtian', it has some serious negative connotations.

 

Try practising what you preach, it's not very diplomatic to equate the people you're arguing with to Al Qaeda.

[Wildcat]

I would agree with that but the word xian as an insult is the first I've come across on this forum..and I do tend to read the religious debate threads..unless of course we have many offended who've all a sudden woke to the idea.

 

I don't think it is a huge issue, but I have seen people question its use plenty of times before, for them to be told it has long established usage, and then them saying they still take offence and often as not leaving the thread soon after.

 

There is a time and a place to use emotive language.

 

Simply put, unless you want to start out a debate with an "unintentional" insult then avoid using the abbreviated version.

 

If you want be the one to start with the insults then fine.. but if you do expect people reading your posts to think you are a bit childish.

 

That said some posts require the use of emotive language to properly express your frustration or anger at what garbage they posted

[onewheeldave]

Are you serious?

 

I was with you on the last page, but you've just lost all credibility by using the term I've put in bold.

 

I find that offensive, because you're putting people like me and Plekhanov up next to people who bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings. Which, to be honest, is total nonsense. And you know damn well that a lot of people feel that way because I've objected to you using the term before.

 

Try practising what you preach, it's not very diplomatic to equate the people you're arguing with to Al Qaeda.

 

Suggest a term then- we need a term to distinguish the simple atheist (one who either withholds belief in God, or, one who actually believes God not to exist), from the newer breed of more aggressive atheist (e.g. the ones who use terms they know to be inflammatory).

 

Some use the term fundamentalist atheist- which is objected to on the grounds that atheists can't be fundamentalist (according to some).

 

I used 'militant'- i disagree that it puts anyone in the same category as terrorists- 'militant' means 'to take a strong active part in a struggle': it does not mean taking an actual 'military' part in a struggle.

 

For that reason, it seemed to me to be an appropriate term to refer to those atheists who do take a strong and active part in their struggle to promote atheism.

 

If you still have an issue with the term 'militant atheist' then suggest an alternative- if I think it's a better term, i'll start using it.

[Alien]

Are you serious?

 

I was with you on the last page, but you've just lost all credibility by using the term I've put in bold.

 

I find that offensive, because you're putting people like me and Plekhanov up next to people who bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings. Which, to be honest, is total nonsense. And you know damn well that a lot of people feel that way because I've objected to you using the term before. Also, unlike 'xtian', it has some serious negative connotations.

 

Try practising what you preach, it's not very diplomatic to equate the people you're arguing with to Al Qaeda.

 

I think Dave is trying to wind the atheists up...

 

Sorry Dave, couldn't resist.

[Alien]

Suggest a term then- we need a term to distinguish the simple atheist (one who either withholds belief in God, or, one who actually believes God not to exist), from the newer breed of more aggressive atheist (e.g. the ones who use terms they know to be inflammatory).

 

Some use the term fundamentalist atheist- which is objected to on the grounds that atheists can't be fundamentalist (according to some).

 

I used 'militant'- i disagree that it puts anyone in the same category as terrorists- 'militant' means 'to take a strong active part in a struggle': it does not mean taking an actual 'military' part in a struggle.

 

For that reason, it seemed to me to be an appropriate term to refer to those atheists who do take a strong and active part in their struggle to promote atheism.

 

If you still have an issue with the term 'militant atheist' then suggest an alternative- if I think it's a better term, i'll start using it.

 

 

Atheist maybe?

[Wildcat]

Are you serious?

 

I was with you on the last page, but you've just lost all credibility by using the term I've put in bold.

 

I find that offensive, because you're putting people like me and Plekhanov up next to people who bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings. Which, to be honest, is total nonsense. And you know damn well that a lot of people feel that way because I've objected to you using the term before.

 

Try practising what you preach, it's not very diplomatic to equate the people you're arguing with to Al Qaeda.

 

I think by militant I read him as referencing Trotskyist evangelist type behaviour, not some sort of terrorist. Not such a bad insult, some of them are even nice people