Angry atheists rant thread.

[quisquose]

My Bold=

I have yes and it's been in response to militancy by others, it's not double standards it's the way I am ie show respect get respect or show disrespect and expect it back.

 

Then, by your own standards, you are a militant Muslim and onewheeldave is a militant unicyclist.

[six45ive]

No, actually I'm really happy with my statement exactly as it's written, thanks don't really rate your version, as, for whatever reason, you introduce yet another variable (the secular/humanist).

 

Yes, because secular/humanism is what's being espoused when an atheist talks about the effect religion has on people and society in general and has an alternative world view that could come over as being aggressive (I'll use the word aggressive instead of militant from now on).

Atheism points to nothing other than a rejection/lack of a belief in god. Your claim that it does more than that is nothing more than a strawman which has been refuted by every atheist here.

 

Personally, I like to keep things simple.

 

Yeeeesssss.......I've noticed.

 

There's no need to bring militant humanists into this.

 

Well I'm afraid there is because all that an atheist is doing when they're 'aggressively' debating theists is using the tenets of humanism.

All of the principles found on this link can be used in an 'aggressive' manner.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism

 

 

It's essentially a tautology- true by definition. so, if you have a problem with that, then argue against it, rather than bringing in irrelevant entities which are dangerously close to being strawmen.

 

Once again the problem is with your strawman of trying to redefine what an atheist is to make it easier to attack. An attempted strawman that's been continually demolished numerous times by every atheist on this thread and yet you foolishly keep trying to resurrect it in the hope that we'll accept it which we're clearly not going to do.

After all we are atheists.....we don't accept things that don't exist.

 

Here it is again, in bold-

 

Basically, if an atheist, in expounding humanist principles in debating against religious belief, behaves militantly (e.g. by goading/insulting rather than reasoning), then what you have there, is a militant humanist.

 

go for it...

 

Have done.

Edited September 28, 2012 by six45ive

[RootsBooster]

This is my 1st post on this thread without a link, the one with a link came after and was a bit of a clanger. Trust me to link to a pro-Atheist site.

 

The Urban Dictionary isn't pro atheist, it clearly gives definitions also agreeing with what you said.

You already know this though, are you being deliberately militant?

 

Is that as a militant Muslim or a militant anti-atheist?

[onewheeldave]

The debate is not about the definition of the word 'militant', but about the relevance of attaching it to the word 'atheist'.

 

This is why some specific named examples would be useful to back up your arguments.

 

Not if we're using different defintions of 'militant'.

[RootsBooster]

Not if we're using different defintions of 'militant'.

 

Your definition is from Wikipedia though. If I log in and alter it to the accepted dictionary definition, will you accept that definition?

[onewheeldave]

My Bold=

I have yes and it's been in response to militancy by others, it's not double standards it's the way I am ie show respect get respect or show disrespect and expect it back.

 

To be fair, I'm going to have to point out that if people are being militant towards you, it's not going to be helpful to be militant back.

 

I agree with you that, in some cases, it's appropriate to refer to an atheist as being 'militant' (if they are being militant, that is), but sometimes it sounds like you're only using the term because you think it winds them up, i.e. as a form of revenge?

[onewheeldave]

Yes, because secular/humanism is what's being espoused when an atheist talks about the effect religion has on people and society in general and has an alternative world view that could come over as being aggressive (I'll use the word aggressive instead of militant from now on).

Atheism points to nothing other than a rejection/lack of a belief in god. Your claim that it does more than that is nothing more than a strawman which has been refuted by every atheist here.

 

 

 

Yeeeesssss.......I've noticed.

 

 

 

Well I'm afraid there is because all that an atheist is doing when they're 'aggressively' debating theists is using the tenets of humanism.

All of the principles found on this link can be used in an 'aggressive' manner.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism

 

 

 

 

Once again the problem is with your strawman of trying to redefine what an atheist is to make it easier to attack. An attempted strawman that's been continually demolished numerous times by every atheist on this thread and yet you foolishly keep trying to resurrect it in the hope that we'll accept it which we're clearly not going to do.

After all we are atheists.....we don't accept things that don't exist.

 

 

 

Have done.

 

Just to get things clear here- could you have a male atheist? or a black atheist? or an intelligent atheist? or a stupid atheist?

[onewheeldave]

Your definition is from Wikipedia though. If I log in and alter it to the accepted dictionary definition, will you accept that definition?

 

No. My definition of militant is not just from wiki, but from a range of definitions in various dictionaries and, observations of the common usage of the word.

[onewheeldave]

Atheism points to nothing other than a rejection/lack of a belief in god. Your claim that it does more than that is nothing more than a strawman which has been refuted by every atheist here.

 

A claim I've not made though. So your use of the term 'strawman' is somewhat ironic.

[RootsBooster]

No. My definition of militant is not just from wiki, but from a range of definitions in various dictionaries and, observations of the common usage of the word.

 

So you chose to give Wiki as your primary backup/example?