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

[flamingjimmy]

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.

 

Why not just go with 'active atheists' or 'anti-religious atheists'? I'm not sure that 'aggressive is particularly appropriate because very often the diatribes made by myself and others like me are in direct response to some action by religious groups somewhere, so by definition, a lot of the time at least, we are not being aggressive, though I will of course concede that sometimes we are.

 

I suspect I already know the answer to the question "Why not just go with 'active atheists' or 'anti-religious atheists'?"

 

Plekhanov's latest postPost 216 may not have been put very 'diplomatically' but it's spot on. You don't like us, and you want a pejorative label to use for us, so that you can use it as a dirty word and feel all superior.

[plekhanov]

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.

Yes it's such a tragedy there's no such word as "active" isn't it, if only someone would invent such a word then you wouldn't be forced to keep on slandering atheists

[onewheeldave]

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.

 

Nevertheless, the fact remains, that not all atheists are aggressively anti-religious- some atheists are simply atheists because they choose not to believe in God, and, they have no problem whatsoever with people who do believe in God (as long, obviously, as those believers aren't violent maniacs who wish to impose their luncay on others).

[onewheeldave]

Why not just go with 'active atheists' or 'anti-religious atheists'? I'm not sure that 'aggressive is particularly appropriate because very often the diatribes made by myself and others like me are in direct response to some action by religious groups somewhere, so by definition, a lot of the time at least, we are not being aggressive, though I will of course concede that sometimes we are.

 

'Active atheists' IMO, does not convey the meaning I'm looking for and, it sounds somewhat silly- conjures up, for me, the image of a jogging atheist.

 

For me 'actively anti-religious atheist' pretty much sums it up- but it's a bitch to type out

 

 

 

Plekhanov's latest postPost 216 may not have been put very 'diplomatically' but it's spot on. You don't like us, and you want a pejorative label to use for us, so that you can use it as a dirty word and feel all superior.

 

Who is 'us'? Do you mean atheists? I've no problem with atheists. Depending on which definition of atheist is in use, I'm one myself.

 

I've certainly no problem with you- otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time writing long posts in reply to you- I may disagree with you, but I don't dislike you.

 

I do dislike Plekhanov, purely cos he's a bit of a wind-up merchant, who is deliberatly and needlessly rude, who, has on more than one occasion, outright called me a 'liar'.

 

I don't dislike him cos he's an atheist, it's cos he's just plain rude

[plekhanov]

'Active atheists' IMO, does not convey the meaning I'm looking for and, it sounds somewhat silly- conjures up, for me, the image of a jogging atheist.

 

For me 'actively anti-religious atheist' pretty much sums it up- but it's a bitch to type out

Of course "active atheist" doesn't "convey the meaning you're looking for" that's because "active" is a neutral term and you wanted a negative one.

 

Who is 'us'? Do you mean atheists? I've no problem with atheists. Depending on which definition of atheist is in use, I'm one myself.

 

I've certainly no problem with you- otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time writing long posts in reply to you- I may disagree with you, but I don't dislike you.

 

I do dislike Plekhanov, purely cos he's a bit of a wind-up merchant, who is deliberatly and needlessly rude, who, has on more than one occasion, outright called me a 'liar'.

 

I don't dislike him cos he's an atheist, it's cos he's just plain rude

It isn't rude to call someone who demonstrably lies a liar.

 

However it is rude to conflate atheists with Stalinists, call active atheists "militant" just because they say things you don't like and of course lie. When you come out with all the holier than though stuff you do it's also really rather hypocritical.

[Grahame]

Of course "active atheist" doesn't "convey the meaning you're looking for" that's because "active" is a neutral term and you wanted a negative one.

 

 

It isn't rude to call someone who demonstrably lies a liar.

 

However it is rude to conflate atheists with Stalinists, call active atheists "militant" just because they say things you don't like and of course lie. When you come out with all the holier than though stuff you do it's also really rather hypocritical.

 

You have compared me with all sorts of odd-ball groups yet you, an atheist don't like being compared with other atheists. How about that for hypocrisy.

 

 

[Lucifer]

You have compared me with all sorts of odd-ball groups yet you, an atheist don't like being compared with other atheists. How about that for hypocrisy.

 

Within most religeous groups there sre zeleots whop believe that there religeonv is the best and everyone else should comply with their beliefs. As an atheist I do not believe in any unknown superior being or whatever, everyone to their own belief is ok by me, I don't try to influence people to how I think, unfortunately there a lot of people knock on my front door presching their beliefs. Why can't they leave people alone to make up there own mind.

Unfortunately there are always people who will not leave well alone.

[Grahame]

Within most religeous groups there sre zeleots whop believe that there religeonv is the best and everyone else should comply with their beliefs. As an atheist I do not believe in any unknown superior being or whatever, everyone to their own belief is ok by me, I don't try to influence people to how I think, unfortunately there a lot of people knock on my front door presching their beliefs. Why can't they leave people alone to make up there own mind.

Unfortunately there are always people who will not leave well alone.

 

It is a two way street as we can see from the forum with the atheist majority far outnumbering believers and then you say you feel persecuted. You ought to be in my shoes before you complain. You don't like it do you pal but you can do it and think it's OK. Just another example of atheist hypocrisy. So how about you leave well alone.

 

 

[milquetoast1]

I think the word that onewheeldave claims he is looking for is anti'theist.

 

However, I suspect that this word does not really represent what he claims because he really does want to include the negative offensive baggage that is associated with "militant" and "fundamentalist". Not forgetting the recent examples from spindrift of "shrill", "hysterical" and "thugs". It's difficult to imagine that the people that use these adjectives alongside the word a'theist are not knowingly doing so in an offensive manner, and I am pleased to see that onewheeldave's hypocrisy has been found out.

 

This just goes to prove that religion still has special, and undeserved, status. That people like Wildcat and Halibut, who seem to go out of their way to appear neutral and fair, can ignore the use of obvious offensive terms when attached to a'theists, but will criticise an innocuous and well established abbreviation because, well, err, it just doesn't seem right, it's religion, it's special.

 

Incidentally Wildcat, nice try with your Bert/Bertie example, and if Bert's request to be called Bert meant that every other Bertie must also be called Bert then your analogy might be okay, but in reality it is useless.

[milquetoast1]

Incidentally, I am once again reminded of my sliding scale of militancy:

 

1. Watch Songs Of Praise, or listen to Thought For The Day.

2. Attend a Church, Mosque, or Humanist meeting in the pub.

3. Disagree about the ontological question with friends in private.

4. Disagree about the ontological questions with strangers in a public forum.

5. Write books and articles about the ontological question.

6. Wander in public holding signs, or handing out pamphlets, that claim you have the answer to the ontological question.

7. Knock on the doors of strangers to claim that you have the answer to the ontological question.

8. Take actions to ensure that people you think share the same answer to the ontological question benefit from positive discrimination.

9. Take actions to ensure that people you think don’t share the same answer to the ontological question suffer from negative discrimination.

10. Use or threaten violence against people you think don’t share the same answer to the ontological question

 

It would seem that an a'theist only needs to climb to step 3 or 4 before it is justified to call them "militant", whilst a theist needs to climb to 9 or 10 and be, well actually militant, before it is justified to call them "militant".

 

This thread makes me now realise that I need to construct a similar scale of offensiveness. Where an a'theist is no doubt being offensive if he dares to breathe, or shock horror abbreviate a word that only special people are allowed to, whilst a theist is only offensive when they are actually offensive.

 

Quite honestly the double standards is quite gasting to any rational persons flabber.