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

[plekhanov]

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.

"not hostile" If you aren't then no one is.

 

As for "not trying to advise" your recent posts are nothing but supposedly well meaning advice to atheists about how they should conduct themselves.

 

Anyway (and this is advice) if you really are determined to concern troll you really should:

1. take care not to establish an identity so obviously hostile to the group you later decide to try and sabotage
   
2. whilst concern trolling don't let the mask slip
   

[Alien]

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.

:

 

Seriously Wildcat..this is the first I've come across it. I really must concentrate more.

[plekhanov]

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.

Oh come off it you know very well that unlike "X" "militant" has extremely negative connotations , especially in the context of religious discussions, which have already been remarked upon several times in this very thread.

 

Even if your vocabulary is as impoverished as you now seem to be pretending after participating in a few of these threads you should be well aware that there are any number of far more neutral adjectives you could have chosen such as "active" or "new" for example.

 

You really are terrible at pretending not to be hostile to atheists.

[onewheeldave]

Atheist maybe?

 

No- I need to distiguish between pure atheism, which I have a lot of respect for, and the new atheists, like Dawkins et al, whose atheism goes beyond that, to something which is actively anti-religion.

 

Here's the wiki page for 'militant atheist'

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism

 

and a couple of quotes

 

The terms militant atheism and militant atheist are designations applied to atheists who are, or are perceived to be, hostile towards religion. The term has been used going back to at least 1894

 

Julian Baggini defines militant atheism as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion"

[plekhanov]

No- I need to distiguish between pure atheism, which I have a lot of respect for, and the new atheists, like Dawkins et al, whose atheism goes beyond that, to something which is actively anti-religion.

 

Here's the wiki page for 'militant atheist'

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism

 

and a couple of quotes

 

The terms militant atheism and militant atheist are designations applied to atheists who are, or are perceived to be, hostile towards religion. The term has been used going back to at least 1894

 

Julian Baggini defines militant atheism as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion"

Lots of terms have been pejoratively "applied to" groups "going back to at least 1894" a few such terms used to describe people with lots of melanin were discussed earlier in this thread, that's hardly evidence they aren't hostile terms now though is it?

 

Incidentally here's another quote from your source which you strangely omitted from your post:

 

Concerns about the use of the term

 

The term militant atheist is often used pejoratively by theists to describe people believed to campaign actively or outspokenly for atheism and against religion. Catherine Fahringer of the Freedom From Religion Foundation suggested that the label militant was often routinely applied to atheist for no good reason – "very much as was the adjective 'damn' attached to the noun 'Yankee' during the Civil War."[7]

 

The linguist Larry Trask suggests that the word militant "is used all too freely in the feebler sense of 'holding or expressing views which are unpopular or which I don't like'." He notes that Richard Dawkins is "accused by tabloid newspapers and other commentators of being a 'militant atheist'", although, according to Trask, the adjective is never used of Christian activity. Trask concludes, "if you find yourself writing this word, stop and think whether it has any clear meaning, or whether you are just using it as a swearword."[8]

[flamingjimmy]

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).

I'm not sure that we do. What's with the need to assign labels to everyone?

 

Why can't they just be atheists who happen to be vocal, or people who actively advocate atheism.

 

You wouldn't say that a preacher is a different kind of Christian to a quiet member of the congregation if they held identical beliefs.

 

You only want a label so you can deride us and try to make it a dirty word.

 

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

I would be amongst them.

 

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.

 

How strange, that's not what my OED says

 

The first meaning, in use for 600 years, is 'engaged in warfare'

 

The second meaning, in use for 550 years, is 'of a standard: Military'

 

The third usage, is 'combatative', in use for 400 years, which the very same dictionary defines simply as 'disposed or given to combat, fond of fighting'.

 

Perhaps in some socialist circles the meaning that you use does exist, that's perfectly believable, but lots of people, myself included, aren't even aware of the definition you are using.

 

Also, you don't hear of vocal proponents of Christianity labelled as 'militant Christians', Christians only get called militant when they are violent.

 

You don't hear of vocal proponents of Islam being called 'militant Muslims', they only get called militant when they are violent.

 

But for an atheist to be militant (according to you), all they have to do is use a relatively common abbreviation or call someone a 'fundy'

 

Seriously, you think that's appropriate?

 

You think that's diplomatic?

[onewheeldave]

Lots of terms have been pejoratively "applied to" groups "going back to at least 1894" a few such terms used to describe people with lots of melanin were discussed earlier in this thread, that's hardly evidence they aren't hostile terms now though is it?

 

Incidentally here's another quote from your source which you strangely omitted from your post:

Nothing 'strange' about it- I'm not going to copy-and-paste the entire page- I chose the selected parts that went with the point I was making.

 

Additionally, i posted the link to the page so anyone wanting to read the full thing could do so.

[onewheeldave]

How strange, that's not what my OED says

 

The first meaning, in use for 600 years, is 'engaged in warfare'

 

The second meaning, in use for 550 years, is 'of a standard: Military'

 

The third usage, is 'combatative', in use for 400 years, which the very same dictionary defines simply as 'disposed or given to combat, fond of fighting'.

 

 

my dictionary- the 'longman top pocket english dictionary'

 

'militant'- n,adj (person) taking a strong active part in a struggle

[flamingjimmy]

my dictionary- the 'longman top pocket english dictionary'

 

'militant'- n,adj (person) taking a strong active part in a struggle

 

I did not dispute that it could also mean that, however, you claimed, quite explicitly, that the word militant "does not mean taking an actual 'military' part in a struggle."

 

You were wrong about that, it has been used to mean that for just under 600 years, as you will find if you go check your OED. And continues to be used to mean that in mainstream publications and amongst the population at large, infact I would argue, is definitely the dominant meaning right now.

 

Also, you seem to've accidentally deleted the other points I made in my last post.

 

You wouldn't say that a preacher is a different kind of Christian to a quiet member of the congregation if they held identical beliefs.

 

you don't hear of vocal proponents of Christianity labelled as 'militant Christians', Christians only get called militant when they are violent.

 

You don't hear of vocal proponents of Islam being called 'militant Muslims', they only get called militant when they are violent.

 

But for an atheist to be militant (according to you), all they have to do is use a relatively common abbreviation or call someone a 'fundy'

 

Do you think that's really appropriate?

[plekhanov]

Nothing 'strange' about it- I'm not going to copy-and-paste the entire page- I chose the selected parts that went with the point I was making.

 

Additionally, i posted the link to the page so anyone wanting to read the full thing could do so.

Regardless of your attempts to excuse it cherry picking is dishonest and you know it.

 

my dictionary- the 'longman top pocket english dictionary'

 

'militant'- n,adj (person) taking a strong active part in a struggle

And that's the definition in full is it? You didn't conveniently leave any bits out?

 

Anyway are you seriously trying to deny that there are strong both negative definitions and connotations to the term 'militant' especially when applied to the subject of religion? Negative connotations which as I pointed out a few posts ago have already been remarked upon several times in this very thread. .

 

Do try to keep in mind that you are trying to to make this argument in the context of a thread where you have argued atheists shouldn't use the common abbreviation "X". Do you really not see the hypocrisy in attempting to argue that atheists shouldn't use a common abbreviation whilst simultaneously applying a pejorative term to them?