Christopher Hitchens Dies

[saxon51]

This may seem a bit far-fetched to most on here, but I honestly have never heard of this bloke till I read this thread.

[flamingjimmy]

Anyone who pushed their views, secular/religious/anti-religious, in an aggressive or vehement fashion used to be described as 'militant'. As in 'militant feminists' etc, etc. You're maybe misunderstanding the context of the use of the word?

 

True, I am aware of that. I just want it to be applied equally, its the double standard I'm against, not that meaning.

 

It seems that people like Baz like to use the two different meanings when describing different groups of people.

 

If he's using it in the terms you have described, fine, then he should have no problem describing the various Christian, Muslim, and Jewish people that Hitchens' and co have debated with as militant also.

 

It could also be used to describe Baz1 as well, as he has often argued vehemently against other religions and in favour of Islam.

 

But I very much doubt he would be comfortable with that label, eh baz1, is it alright if I call you a militant muslim, and say you subscribe to militant islam?

 

And if he's using it in the 'commiting or advocating violence' sense then he shouldn't be labeling Hitchens as one.

 

All I ask for is consistency.

[flamingjimmy]

This may seem a bit far-fetched to most on here, but I honestly have never heard of this bloke till I read this thread.

 

He was a lot more famous in the US than over here.

[saxon51]

He was a lot more famous in the US than over here.

Thank (somebody else's) god for that. I thought I'd been in a coma for a few years. Mind you, the wife reckons I have.

[rubydazzler]

[snip] ... And if he's using it in the 'commiting or advocating violence' sense then he shouldn't be labeling Hitchens as one. All I ask for is consistency.

Ah, I see now what you were getting at. I couldn't see the connection with the term being defamatory towards the deceased, because I'd be more inclined to view it as a compliment.

[ANGELFIRE1]

On George Galloways Facebook page he's posted..."weeel ...he kens noo" What does it mean I don't understand Scottish...?

...

 

 

..."weeel ...he understands noo"

 

Angel.

[gularscute]

whatever one believes, let the dead rest.

 

They can't do much else can they? It's not like they're going to get up and tell us to keep the noise down.

[quisquose]

Anyone who pushed their views, secular/religious/anti-religious, in an aggressive or vehement fashion used to be described as 'militant'. As in 'militant feminists' etc, etc. You're maybe misunderstanding the context of the use of the word?

 

Well yes, you are right, to an extent:

 

mil·i·tant

adjective

1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.

2. engaged in warfare; fighting.

 

So flamingjimmy's point might seem like semantics, but it is not, and I fully support his argument.

 

It's precisely because of context that makes Baz1's use of the word so dishonest. He will refuse to use it to describe those that vigorously support his religion. Everyone else has to actually be violent to be called militant, whilst atheists get the label merely by making an unapologetic counter argument.

 

It is nothing more than a dishonest Ad Hominen attack which has been deliberately constructed against atheists, and there is a useful cartoon to illustrate it here:

 

http://www.atheistcartoons.com/?p=955

 

From now on I will refer to "Baz1" as "gay Baz1" in my posts, but only because of his lively personality you understand.

 

[Suffragette1]

Well yes, you are right, to an extent:

 

mil·i·tant

adjective

1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.

2. engaged in warfare; fighting.

 

So flamingjimmy's point might seem like semantics, but it is not, and I fully support his argument.

 

It's precisely because of context that makes Baz1's use of the word so dishonest. He will refuse to use it to describe those that vigorously support his religion. Everyone else has to actually be violent to be called militant, whilst atheists get the label merely by making an unapologetic counter argument.

 

It is nothing more than a dishonest Ad Hominen attack which has been deliberately constructed against atheists, and there is a useful cartoon to illustrate it here:

 

http://www.atheistcartoons.com/?p=955

 

From now on I will refer to "Baz1" as "gay Baz1" in my posts, but only because of his lively personality you understand.

 

 

Hahaha, love the cartoon. A propos feminism, the militant label has been liberally (and erroneously) applied as a means of undermining the entire cause. I've seen it used often with reference to any woman who does not conform to the Stepford wife ideal. I think that the adjective 'militant' seems to be applied generally to any atheist who is passionately and vociferously anti-religion. That makes me a militant feminist atheist.

 

Back to the OP, I am a huge admirer of Hitchens and love God is not Great. Very sad news.

[Bloomdido]

Hahaha, love the cartoon. A propos feminism, the militant label has been liberally (and erroneously) applied as a means of undermining the entire cause. I've seen it used often with reference to any woman who does not conform to the Stepford wife ideal. I think that the adjective 'militant' seems to be applied generally to any atheist who is passionately and vociferously anti-religion. That makes me a militant feminist atheist.

 

Back to the OP, I am a huge admirer of Hitchens and love God is not Great. Very sad news.

 

I have spent hours watching Hitchens debating people who believe in a god and he carried so much weight and gravitas in a way that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Myers et al just can't match up to.

 

As for the millitant label, atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. I call myself an anti-theist in that I oppose theism and its ingression into our supposedly secular society.