Angry atheists rant thread.

[quisquose]

Just in case anyone thinks i was making it up.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html

 

I never thought that you were making it up, but you have fallen for the dishonesty of the Christian publicity machine which resulted in the many headlines like the one you have linked to.

 

Dawkins is, like myself, flamingjimmy, six45ive, and EVERY atheist I know, also agnostic. We have frequently identified ourselves as agnostic atheists on this very forum. Dawkins went to great lengths to describe himself as an agnostic as well as an atheist in his book.

 

Yet, when he mentions this in a debate with Rowan Williams it is dishonestly picked on like it's some sort of softening in his disbelief of gods. It isn't.

 

What these headlines told me is that Christians seem to be more obsessed with Dawkins, and hang on his every word, than any atheists are. It's as if they think they can destroy Dawkins then they can destroy atheism. They can't.

 

In 2007, when the God Delusion was published, I happened to be going to church for a while. Dawkins name got more mentions in the sermons than that of Jesus. Obsessed I tell you.

[RootsBooster]

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.

You've made it clear that you get your definition from Wikipedia. Then you also mentioned that it's from some other sources, as well as observing common usage.

Well, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, your other sources have so far not been cited, and common usage is the thing we're actually discussing. Just because many people say "innit" instead of "yes, I agree", doesn't mean it is correct terminology.

 

As it is, the Oxford World Dictionary definition of militant means that people debating anything are being militant.

Would that be a misuse of the term 'black atheist'?

If the term "black atheist" was brought into a discussion, the relevance of it to the discussion would be questionable, as with the term "militant atheist".

[RootsBooster]

Just in case anyone thinks i was making it up.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html

 

I thought it was common knowledge that Dawkins was an agnostic atheist.

[RootsBooster]

 

Yet, when he mentions this in a debate with Rowan Williams it is dishonestly picked on like it's some sort of softening in his disbelief of gods. It isn't.

Yes, too many people still think that agnosticism is a 3rd option to atheism or theism, when it's not. It's on a parallel playing field, not the same one.

Agnosticism is to gnosticism as atheism is to theism. Gnosticism meaning that we know, or that we have the knowledge, while the "a" prefix in agnosticism means "without" or "lack of". In my opinion, any theist or atheist who doesn't count themselves as agnostic (if they understand the term) is either showing ignorance or selfishness (by not sharing their knowledge and it's source).

What these headlines told me is that Christians seem to be more obsessed with Dawkins, and hang on his every word, than any atheists are. It's as if they think they can destroy Dawkins then they can destroy atheism. They can't.

 

In 2007, when the God Delusion was published, I happened to be going to church for a while. Dawkins name got more mentions in the sermons than that of Jesus. Obsessed I tell you.

I agree, I'll bet there are a great deal more theists who know who Dawkins is than atheists.

[onewheeldave]

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?

 

OK, so I'll assume that with this-

 

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.

 

which points to this-

 

The problem with your line of 'reasoning' is that a militant stamp collector could only be described as such if he was being aggressive while in the process of stamp collecting or performing a task that is related to/influenced by his stamp collecting. In other words there has to be some tenet or tangibility to what you're hanging the label 'militant' onto.

To further use the analogy of a coat hanger. The hanger is the dogma (religion, political ideology, etc) and militant is the garment hanging from it. Atheism is the rejection of one particular hanger (the religious one) but is not a hanger in itself meaning that there is nothing to hang the militant label on to.

Now atheists may also be humanists or secularists or hold other positions (hangers) that you can attach militant to but to call somebody a militant atheist is like calling somebody a militant non stamp collector.

It simply doesn't make any sense.

 

is your, reply?

 

Unfortunately, it seems to muddy the waters further, as you say in that, that humanists/secularisits can be militant?

 

So perhaps it might be best for you to address the actual question directly-

 

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?

 

and bite the bullet and state clearly, whether, in your opinion, stamp collectors, humanists etc, can be militant, or, are they immune from it, in the way you seem to be saying atheists are?

[six45ive]

Just in case anyone thinks i was making it up.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html

 

It's very simple really, agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism deals with belief.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=agnostic+atheist+diagram&hl=en&client=safari&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Dq5mUNnrJ5PL0AXKpoDIBQ&ved=0CCEQsAQ&biw=480&bih=210#p=0

Edited September 29, 2012 by six45ive

[onewheeldave]

You've made it clear that you get your definition from Wikipedia. Then you also mentioned that it's from some other sources, as well as observing common usage.

Well, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, your other sources have so far not been cited, and common usage is the thing we're actually discussing. Just because many people say "innit" instead of "yes, I agree", doesn't mean it is correct terminology.

 

Though it is in the Oxford English Dictionary

[onewheeldave]

Originally Posted by janie48 View Post

Just in case anyone thinks i was making it up.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html

 

This latest admission by Professor Dawkins comes after he was left lost for words name the full title of his scientific hero’s most famous work during a radio discussion last week in which he accused Christians of being ignorant of the Bible.

 

In his frustration, he resorted to a helpless: ‘Oh God.’

[janie48]

I never thought that you were making it up, but you have fallen for the dishonesty of the Christian publicity machine which resulted in the many headlines like the one you have linked to.

 

Dawkins is, like myself, flamingjimmy, six45ive, and EVERY atheist I know, also agnostic. We have frequently identified ourselves as agnostic atheists on this very forum. Dawkins went to great lengths to describe himself as an agnostic as well as an atheist in his book.

 

Yet, when he mentions this in a debate with Rowan Williams it is dishonestly picked on like it's some sort of softening in his disbelief of gods. It isn't.

 

What these headlines told me is that Christians seem to be more obsessed with Dawkins, and hang on his every word, than any atheists are. It's as if they think they can destroy Dawkins then they can destroy atheism. They can't.

 

In 2007, when the God Delusion was published, I happened to be going to church for a while. Dawkins name got more mentions in the sermons than that of Jesus. Obsessed I tell you.

Another promotion for the book, that will go down well with the fan club.

[quisquose]

Another promotion for the book, that will go down well with the fan club.

 

I'm not a fan, and disagree with many things he says.

 

To think I'm promoting his book, ahead of the real point that he is treated like some cleric for atheism more by theists than atheists, seems a bit snide to me.

 

Just another militant Christian I guess.