onewheeldave Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Because you can't comment on it. Because you know that I, and the other atheists here, have got your number on this. We understand perfectly what you're trying to do and it's not working. It's not working because it's clearly fallacious as well as troll like but it's nice to give a troll a good kicking now and again. Or am I being too militant now? No, it's cos I think it's a bad example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 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? There's no 'as I say' about it but yes, the rest of your post is correct as I understand it. My atheism is just a small part of me and of my secular humanist, antitheist, sceptic, freethinking ideology. Good, so we have a starting point. So, if an atheist can't be militant, because it's actually the person that is militant: how do you get round the same thing being applied to, for example, a stamp collector? (just cos you seem to like stamp collectors in examples ) Supposing you had a stamp collector who was being sufficiently aggressive to be considered 'militant'. Could it not be argued that, even if brandishing a AK-47, he was not a 'militant stamp collector' but just a militant individual who happens to be a stamp collector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 What about them? Look matey it's been long established that you disagree with my definition of militant, yes? I've made it clear that I understand that you have a different understanding of the term. I've also made it clear that I'm happy with my understanding of it. It's more to do with how you want to apply the term rather than your definition of it. But yeh.....I have a problem with that as well. So, let's just agree to disagree, rather than you making your fingers sore with a load of typing that isn't going to make me change my view on the term. Oooooh dave!!! I'm not here to change your mind I'm just telling you how it is. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant to me. I'm just having fun seeing you getting tied up in knots and obsfuscating like a li'l ol' obsfuscating thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 No, it's cos I think it's a bad example. In case you hadn't noticed, simply saying it's a bad example doesn't quite cut the mustard. You have to kind o' say why you think so if you want to remain even remotely credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 In case you hadn't noticed, simply saying it's a bad example doesn't quite cut the mustard. You have to kind o' say why you think so if you want to remain even remotely credible. Well, it does actually. It's a shorthand way of saying I'm not going to waste my time on that. Which frees you up to tackle my questions above, if you think you can usefully address them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 Bear in mind Janie, that it's not the atheist being touchy- it's the person behind the atheist, because, the only characteristic an atheist can possess, is a 'lack of belief' In actual fact, Dawkins isn't an atheist, because, if he were, that would mean there was an atheist who was Dawkins, which is impossible, because the act of being Dawkins, is somehting other than a 'lack of belief': therefore no atheist could be a Dawkins. I mentioned he was an agnostic before,because thats what i read in the press a short time ago,he admitted himself which surprised me because had been led to believe the term agnostic was meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 It's more like a wallpaper term, used to cover a huge gaping crack in your argument that you hope people won't notice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Let's keep it civil eh? Otherwise the mods will eat this thread, just like all the others I'm off to bed now- 6ers, any chance you could have a go at- Good, so we have a starting point. So, if an atheist can't be militant, because it's actually the person that is militant: how do you get round the same thing being applied to, for example, a stamp collector? (just cos you seem to like stamp collectors in examples ) Supposing you had a stamp collector who was being sufficiently aggressive to be considered 'militant'. Could it not be argued that, even if brandishing a AK-47, he was not a 'militant stamp collector' but just a militant individual who happens to be a stamp collector? So i can look forward to a response when I rise tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) Good, so we have a starting point. So, if an atheist can't be militant, because it's actually the person that is militant: how do you get round the same thing being applied to, for example, a stamp collector? (just cos you seem to like stamp collectors in examples ) Supposing you had a stamp collector who was being sufficiently aggressive to be considered 'militant'. Could it not be argued that, even if brandishing a AK-47, he was not a 'militant stamp collector' but just a militant individual who happens to be a stamp collector? You really do need to step out of the mindset that you've created for yourself and take on board clear information I've been giving you throughout this thread. None more clearer than this. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9218998#post9218998 Please do try to keep up. Edited September 28, 2012 by six45ive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Well, it does actually. It's a shorthand way of saying I'm not going to waste my time on that. Which frees you up to tackle my questions above, if you think you can usefully address them. Very easily as I'm sure you've just seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts