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

[plekhanov]

Incidentally onewheeldave I just googled "longman top pocket english dictionary" entered 'militant' into the dictionary which came up and this is what came up:

 

mil‧i‧tant

a militant organization or person is willing to use strong or violent action in order to achieve political or social change:

militant political activists

a militant animal rights group

After the assassination of Martin Luther King, black leaders became more militant.

—militant noun [countable]

right-wing militants

—militancy noun [uncountable]

an increase in trade union militancy

—militantly adverb:

a militantly anti-communist group

 

Incidentally how often do you hear people use the term 'militant' in a neutral or positive sense? Because in my experience at least it's overwhelmingly used negatively.

[onewheeldave]

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

 

I didn't 'accidently' do anything of the kind- I responded to the point/s I wanted to: writing on this thread is not my full-time job

 

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?

 

You make a good case for 'militant atheist' having some negative connotations.

 

I still need a term to distinguish between a simple atheist and the actively anti-religious type of atheist (like Dawkins etc).

[onewheeldave]

 

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

 

 

 

Yes, that's the full definition- nothing left out.

[flamingjimmy]

I still need a term to distinguish between a simple atheist and the actively anti-religious type of atheist (like Dawkins etc).

 

sorry for the broken record, but...

 

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, would you?

 

You wouldn't say Spindrift is a different kind of Christian to one of the friendlier ones just because he throws insults around at atheists would you?

[onewheeldave]

 

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?

 

I've not argued that atheists shouldn't use the term 'xtian'- I've specifically said that they have the right to use whatever tersm they want, including terms that are inflammatory or offensive.

 

Unless, they wish to have a rational, non-inflamatory debate - in that case use of inflamatory terms would be ill-advised (though they would still have the right to do so, of course).

[plekhanov]

I didn't 'accidently' do anything of the kind- I responded to the point/s I wanted to: writing on this thread is not my full-time job

 

 

 

You make a good case for 'militant atheist' having some negative connotations.

 

I still need a term to distinguish between a simple atheist and the actively anti-religious type of atheist (like Dawkins etc).

Yes if only there was an adjective form of the word "actively" or indeed so much as a single synonym for "active" you wouldn't be forced to keep on calling active atheists "militant"

 

I do wish people would get round to inventing words like: "aggressive, agile, alert, alive, animated, assiduous, bold, brisk, bustling, busy, chipper, daring, dashing, determined, dexterous, diligent, dynamic, eager, energetic, engaged, enlivened, enterprising, enthusiastic, eventful, fireball, forceful, forcible, fresh, frisky, hard-working, high-spirited, hyper, industrious, intense, inventive, jumping, keen, lively, nimble, on the move, perky, persevering, purposeful, pushing, quick, rapid, ready, resolute, sharp, sprightly, spry, whiz*, zealous"

 

Then people who like you who like you are totally "not hostile to atheism" wouldn't be forced to describe active atheists with nasty words like "militant"

[onewheeldave]

sorry for the broken record, but...

 

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, would you?

 

You wouldn't say Spindrift is a different kind of Christian to one of the friendlier ones just because he throws insults around at atheists would you?

 

I do though, want to distinguish between atheist, in the sense of one who simply does not believe in God, and, the Dawkins-style actively, aggressively anti-religious type of atheist.

[onewheeldave]

I do wish people would get round to inventing words like: "aggressive, agile, alert, alive, animated, assiduous, bold, brisk, bustling, busy, chipper, daring, dashing, determined, dexterous, diligent, dynamic, eager, energetic, engaged, enlivened, enterprising, enthusiastic, eventful, fireball, forceful, forcible, fresh, frisky, hard-working, high-spirited, hyper, industrious, intense, inventive, jumping, keen, lively, nimble, on the move, perky, persevering, purposeful, pushing, quick, rapid, ready, resolute, sharp, sprightly, spry, whiz*, zealous"

 

Then people who like you who like you are totally "not hostile to atheism" wouldn't be forced to describe active atheists with nasty words like "militant"

 

 

Choices, choices, choices- 'militant atheist' vs 'frisky atheist'

 

Dawkins, the 'dashy atheist'

[plekhanov]

I've not argued that atheists shouldn't use the term 'xtian'- I've specifically said that they have the right to use whatever tersm they want, including terms that are inflammatory or offensive.

 

Unless, they wish to have a rational, non-inflamatory debate - in that case use of inflamatory terms would be ill-advised (though they would still have the right to do so, of course).

strawman; I never said you've argued atheists should be forbidden from abbreviating "christ", I said you'd been arguing that atheists shouldn't do so. Aside from feigning ignorance of the definition of "militant" are you now also going to claim you think "shouldn't" is the same as "mustn't"?

 

Incidentally good job on yet again deleting and studiously ignoring most of the content of the post you quoted.

[Alien]

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"

 

Personally I think you are wrong Dave..it's the perception. Debate concerning religion has been suppressed by the church for thousands of years..no one dare speak out. Religion only has the foothold it does because the suppressive way it conducted itself in the past. It's only perceived as hostile because the church doesn't have the answers to the creation and when questioned every answer is contradictory...and that really pi55es em off...although in a genteel pious way. The argument today is that the Church and or all religions are still suppressive it's just that now they don't use the rack...It must be very frustrating to have to live in times where you can't beat/torture a man into submission. So yes..religion has an appalling violent history to answer to..still does, it's just now that some are screaming from the rooftops and saying no more of this crap and actually using words, and to their credit not the heretics fork to get an overdue point across. One final point, the reason for actively anti-religion is because the church is just as actively anti-atheism...in fact the church is actively anti many things which go against it's teachings to the point of pure hypocrisy.