Angry atheists rant thread.

[RootsBooster]

This one, of course.

 

Then no, I didn't know you wanted examples from within any discussions.

Most examples from this discussion are debating, which by the Oxford World Dictionary's definition of the word "militant" means that they are indeed militant because they are confronting an issue or topic.

I choose not to rely on Wikipedia (which you quoted) and have no knowledge of any of your other definition sources.

[RootsBooster]

Then no, I didn't know you wanted examples from within any discussions.

Most examples from this discussion are debating, which by the Oxford World Dictionary's definition of the word "militant" means that they are indeed militant because they are confronting an issue or topic.

I choose not to rely on Wikipedia (which you quoted) and have no knowledge of any of your other definition sources.

 

This also means that two people debating the pros and cons of eating out or staying in for a take-away are being militant.

[Obelix]

Only if you define 'militant' as being a 'one minded pursuit'.

 

I don't, I understand it to mean things like 'aggressive, insulting, goading etc', in which case I'm not being militant.

 

It's easy to avoid a definition if you keep redefining it though. I'd have to say though you do seem to be doing that rather aggressively. Perhaps we could say you are being militant in your evasiveness... as well as being militant in your pursuit of a definition.

[six45ive]

I wasn't talking about you- you don't seem to be being particularly insulting/goading in this thread.

 

I'm liking the back handed compliment.

I'd like it even more if you'd actually answer my question.

 

I was talking about an atheist, engaged in a discussion with a believer, who gives up on the reasoning approach, and resorts, as some atheists do, to using terms that are provocative, goading or insulting.

 

But I'm not accepting your clearly false position that, just because the debater is an atheist, he is arguing an atheist 'ideology' and therefore you're justified in calling him a militant atheist.

The non stamp collector is a good analogy. If a non stamp collector was attacking a stamp collector for collecting stamps and insulted him in an aggressive, bullying manner for doing so then you wouldn't call him a militant non stamp collector. That would be ridiculous. Only an idiot would do that. You would just call the guy out on what he's actually doing (being aggressive and a bully) and not looking to enflame the situation or troll him by claiming that he's something he's clearly not.....or, in other words, a strawman.

 

It's not due to his/her lack of belief in God, but they are being militant, they are an atheist, and, they are being militant in a discussion about atheism/religious belief. So they shouldn't really be too upset if they get labelled as a 'militant atheist'.

 

My bold.

But I'll say it again. That's the only tenet of atheism, so the rest of the above comment is a complete misdirection of where the term militant is aimed at (and that's putting aside whether it's applicable at all in even the most heated debate).

 

It does serve a purpose, because there are plenty of atheists who can participate in a reasonable and rational discussion with believers, so it's just one way of distinguishing them from the others.

 

Who decides what's reasonable? If an atheist (as an antitheist) believes that religion does a huge amount of harm in the world then isn't it reasonable to use whatever approach they feel has the best chance of success in relieving mankind of that harm?

[Obelix]

It does serve a purpose, because there are plenty of atheists who can participate in a reasonable and rational discussion with believers, so it's just one way of distinguishing them from the others.

 

Translation: It's one way of being abusive about them, whilst dressing it up in the thin veneer of civility.

 

What one person considers to be pointing our some of the more obvious fallacies in the Bible will be abuse and name calling to another. That's understandable as people have different levels of tolerance for "robust" debate but that doesn't mean you get to slap a pejorative on them and call it OK

[quisquose]

So, waht's wrong with-

 

....an atheist, engaged in a discussion with a believer, who gives up on the reasoning approach, and resorts, as some atheists do, to using terms that are provocative, goading or insulting.

 

It's not due to his/her lack of belief in God, but they are being militant, they are an atheist, and, they are being militant in a discussion about atheism/religious belief. So they shouldn't really be too upset if they get labelled as a 'militant atheist'.

 

Any example I did give would merely be an instance of the above, so, if you disagree that the above constitutes a militant atheist, adding on real-world instances isn't going to change your mind is it?

 

You need to state if the above constitutes a militant atheist, or not, and, if not, why not?

 

Well they do, which automatically means the person using it is a militant [insert irrelevant adjective here].

 

It's just irrelevant.

 

Besides, I'm not referring to the jungle of internet forums where anonymous combative behaviour and insults are commonplace, irrespective of the beliefs, or lack of, of the apes involved.

 

The fact remains that the term 'militant atheist' has been established as a derogatory term to equate internet discussion with fanatical religionists. It's even acquired an urban dictionary reference.

 

This is why I am asking for a specific example of somebody (not anonymous) doing precisely what you claim happens, so we might debate the relevance of your label. Since you have claimed the label is relevant for "people like Dawkins" why not pick an example of when the label can be applied to him.

[onewheeldave]

Everybody is militant on occasion by your own low threshold definition. Even you with respect to your public claims about the competence of your GP.

 

I meant your point about the 'combatitive' thing?

[six45ive]

No, there's no militant in that.

 

Thank you. It looks like you might be getting it at last by jove!

 

Would you say they were a 'black atheist'?

 

Personally no. I'd say he was a black man who's also an atheist. Although in general conversation I may refer to him as a black atheist for brevity.

[onewheeldave]

This also means that two people debating the pros and cons of eating out or staying in for a take-away are being militant.

I've made ny understanding of 'militant' clear- if you have a different one, then fine. Obviously, when i use the term 'militant' it will be in the sense I understand it, and, so, I won't be considering the above as being militant.

[onewheeldave]

 

 

But I'm not accepting your clearly false position that, just because the debater is an atheist, he is arguing an atheist 'ideology' and therefore you're justified in calling him a militant atheist.

The non stamp collector is a good analogy. If a non stamp collector was attacking a stamp collector for collecting stamps and insulted him in an aggressive, bullying manner for doing so then you wouldn't call him a militant non stamp collector. That would be ridiculous. Only an idiot would do that. You would just call the guy out on what he's actually doing (being aggressive and a bully) and not looking to enflame the situation or troll him by claiming that he's something he's clearly not.....or, in other words, a strawman.

 

 

 

I don't. i think it's a really bad example, and, even if unitentionally, is effectively a misdirection/distraction. So I'll refrain from commenting on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My bold.

But I'll say it again. That's the only tenet of atheism, so the rest of the above comment is a complete misdirection of where the term militant is aimed at (and that's putting aside whether it's applicable at all in even the most heated debate).

 

 

 

Who decides what's reasonable? If an atheist (as an antitheist) believes that religion does a huge amount of harm in the world then isn't it reasonable to use whatever approach they feel has the best chance of success in relieving mankind of that harm?

 

But if, as you say, atheism is soley a lack of belief (in god), and, when an atheist is being militant, it's actually the person that is militant, and not the atheist: then, by the same reaoning, wouldn't it be the person, rather than the atheist, who felt that religion is harmful, and, the person (not the atheist), using what ever approach they feel necessary?