Is it any wonder that anti-theism exists?

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

No Zeus was a mythological god. His divinity doesn't depend upon his existence. Frodo Baggins was a god in the mid to late 1960s when Zeppelin were writing all of those songs about the Misty Mountain and Gullum sneaking away with the girl. He didn't exist literally but was a god nonetheless.

Linguistic evasion won’t help you here. Either you think god(s) objectively exist, or they’re  just subjective beliefs. Which is it?

Atheism subscribes to the nonsensical nonexistence of gods so how could any god possibly exist to an atheist?

Again, you need to sort out your misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism doesn’t make claims about the “nonexistence” of gods; what it actually does is to find the arguments attempted to justify the belief “god(s)” to be wrong. I don’t know whether there are gods. Or unicorns. Or tapdancing pixies on the dark side of the moon. What I do know though is that the arguments I know of to justify such beliefs are logically false. That’s why I’m an atheist.           

Is that all the fashion now? I, a theist, am telling you what the word god means in ancient Hebrew, common Greek, Latin, English and any other language as given clearly in the English dictionary and you are telling me I'm wrong? Okay. What does the word god mean? What is a god?

No you’re not. What you’re actually doing is trying to elide the religious meaning (non-material, supernatural etc) with the prosaic, colloquial one (material, naturalistic etc).

Either your theism entails the former meaning (in which case, why not tell us what you think your god to be and why you believe it to exist?) or it’s the latter (in which case anything anyone feels like “venerating” thus becomes a god) and there’s nothing to talk about.     

Accepting good reason or being given good reason? How can the default position, the position at birth be atheist if no reason at all had been given to think either way?

As someone else said, the position at birth example isn’t helpful because (presumably) babies don’t have opinions about anything. You may as well call a table atheist. Atheism though is just the position you arrive at when you’ve been given no sound reason to be a theist – whether you’ve falsified the arguments theists have attempted or don’t know what they are makes no difference to that.     

Good is a subjective term. See above.

No it isn't. The advantage of logic and reason is that it's codified - an argument is either "good" according to its rules or it isn't. If you want to argue that logic itself is just subjective, then what is it you think you're using to make your case here?         

Yeah . . . so? You and I don't know that Jehovah of the Bible exists. We have faith that he does or he doesn't.

So everything. My “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start is reasoned; “faith” (religious sense) in the existence of “Jehovah” isn’t – it’s just guessing.   

It has nothing to do with magic. If there's no reasoning or evidence to justify theism then there can't be any to justify atheism. Science, for example, can't test the supernatural. Science is a method of investigation not a belief system. Atheism is a belief system.

There’s a lot of wrong there, so let’s unpack it:

It has nothing to do with magic.

Yes it has. When you assert a truth with no means of justifying it, what else would you call it?

If there's no reasoning or evidence to justify theism then there can't be any to justify atheism.

Nope. The reasoning or logic to justify atheism is the application of their methods to find the arguments attempted to justify theism to be false.

Science, for example, can't test the supernatural.

It’s only claims about the supernatural, and no it can’t. The problem with the claim "supernatural" though is that neither can anything else.   

Science is a method of investigation not a belief system. Atheism is a belief system.

No atheism isn’t – except the belief that reason is a more reliable way to establish truths than non-reason.

1. Belief in Jehovah God of the Bible is faith based. No need to be defensive.

But is also a claim of certainty (at least if the Bible is to be believed).

2. Religious faith pertains to a specific doctrine, i.e. Catholicism. Baptist. Faith is a) complete trust or confidence in someone or something, and b) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. So we have no real argument on faith.

Unless you accept that your “faith” is epistemically indistinguishable from just guessing, yes we have.       

No, I'm exposing the atheistic inability to comprehend the simple definition of the word god as I've given from the English dictionary due to ideological possession.

Not even close. There is no “the” definition – there are many definitions, and broadly the religious ones are in a different category to the non-religious ones.   

Let me ask you this. No gods exist?

I don’t know what you mean by “gods”, but in the religious sense I have no reason t think that they do.

Do lords exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

Ehhh ... sort of. Eric Clapton is considered a god because the definition of god includes an admired, skilled or influential person because god means anything or anyone venerated or attributed a might that is greater than the one attributing it. If you look at the dictionary definition of god it will give several examples. The Christian god, supernatural gods, mortal men as gods. Again: the Bible calls Moses, the judges of Israel, the Sumerian King Tammuz and Jesus gods. All mortal men.

This is getting wearisome now. The colloquial definitions of “god” are in a different category to the religious ones. You can’t just bundle them as if there’s no difference. 

[Laughs] That is only an example of one god. That isn't a prerequisite for divinity. For being a god.

Yes it is. How many divinities settle for a material, naturalistic, subject to the universe’s laws and forces god?     

Why are you ignoring everything I say? Your pet rock can be a god. I hate to do this because I'm sick of it, but let me give my illustration of a god.

A tired hungry man stumbles across the cold dark prairieland, wolves following close behind. There's no fuel for fire until he stumbles upon a dried clump of bullshit. Bovine excrement. Feeling around in the dark he finds more. Gathering them he eats the bugs crawling underneath them and builds a fire. He makes that shit his god. It is a god. It exists and is his god. No one, no atheist can take that away.

I’m not ignoring it – I’m falsifying it. If you want to dilute the term “god” to mean literally anything at all provided people feel about it a certain way then you have a theology that’s all your own, and moreover one that has nothing interesting to say. It’s an odd tactic though just to throw away standard theologies by reducing the term "god" to meaninglessness.       

Another question; was Jehovah a god before he created anything?

I have no idea what you mean by “Jehovah”, not why you think he exists (existed?) other than as your subjective belief. I may as well ask you whether leprechauns were leprechauns before they started leaving pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.   
 
 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

TS,

Maybe.

No, he got bored with condensing words with multiple meanings into one so as to hide religious meanings behind prosaic ones. Your taxonomy suggests that anything someone “venerates” is thereby made a god. “How’s your cheesecake Darling?” “Divine”. Bingo, another god is made – albeit (presumably) destroyed shortly afterwards.

If you insist on diluting terms like “god”, “spiritual”, “faith”, “divine” etc that far though there’s nothing left of the religious meanings of them. Any theology I know of doesn’t do this though – it thinks the objects of its truth claims are other than cheesecake: they’re “supernatural”, able to operate outwith the laws of nature etc. They stand in a different category from the material and naturalistic.             

That’s cheating. There are various dictionary definitions of “god” – the traditional religious ones as well as the colloquial ones. You’re trying to elide them into one.   

Which he clearly is not. 

No, he (and I) are only “fundamentalist” in the sense that we fundamentally think reason is a more reliable way to establish truths than non-reason. 

I suppose if you rely on an online urban dictionary for your definitions you’re going to find things like this. More reputable sources though will tell you that “militant” means “favouring confrontational or violent methods”, “active, determined, and often willing to use force” etc.

This is the same trick you tried with religious terms: you’ve taken a word appropriate to describe, say, a Muslim beheading a French teacher for showing his pupils cartoons of Mohammed and diluted it to include academics who merely write books that falsify the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs. If you really want to use the term “militant” to describe the latter, what language have you left to describe the former? Or are you seriously suggesting an equivalence between them?           

BHS

Nice try. There are lots of definitions of militant. Being part of a forum you'll just have to get used to people disagreeing with your definitions. Are you seriously trying to suggest that militant is the only term available to describe a murderer or terrorist in the English language? Really? Really though? That's very disingenuous of you.

Militant Labour for example did not go around beheading people.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

TS,

Linguistic evasion won’t help you here. Either you think god(s) objectively exist, or they’re  just subjective beliefs. Which is it?

Again, you need to sort out your misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism doesn’t make claims about the “nonexistence” of gods; what it actually does is to find the arguments attempted to justify the belief “god(s)” to be wrong. I don’t know whether there are gods. Or unicorns. Or tapdancing pixies on the dark side of the moon. What I do know though is that the arguments I know of to justify such beliefs are logically false. That’s why I’m an atheist.           

No you’re not. What you’re actually doing is trying to elide the religious meaning (non-material, supernatural etc) with the prosaic, colloquial one (material, naturalistic etc).

Either your theism entails the former meaning (in which case, why not tell us what you think your god to be and why you believe it to exist?) or it’s the latter (in which case anything anyone feels like “venerating” thus becomes a god) and there’s nothing to talk about.     

As someone else said, the position at birth example isn’t helpful because (presumably) babies don’t have opinions about anything. You may as well call a table atheist. Atheism though is just the position you arrive at when you’ve been given no sound reason to be a theist – whether you’ve falsified the arguments theists have attempted or don’t know what they are makes no difference to that.     

No it isn't. The advantage of logic and reason is that it's codified - an argument is either "good" according to its rules or it isn't. If you want to argue that logic itself is just subjective, then what is it you think you're using to make your case here?         

So everything. My “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start is reasoned; “faith” (religious sense) in the existence of “Jehovah” isn’t – it’s just guessing.   

There’s a lot of wrong there, so let’s unpack it:

Yes it has. When you assert a truth with no means of justifying it, what else would you call it?

Nope. The reasoning or logic to justify atheism is the application of their methods to find the arguments attempted to justify theism to be false.
 

It’s only claims about the supernatural, and no it can’t. The problem with the claim "supernatural" though is that neither can anything else.   

No atheism isn’t – except the belief that reason is a more reliable way to establish truths than non-reason.

But is also a claim of certainty (at least if the Bible is to be believed).

Unless you accept that your “faith” is epistemically indistinguishable from just guessing, yes we have.       

Not even close. There is no “the” definition – there are many definitions, and broadly the religious ones are in a different category to the non-religious ones.   

I don’t know what you mean by “gods”, but in the religious sense I have no reason t think that they do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

This is getting wearisome now. The colloquial definitions of “god” are in a different category to the religious ones. You can’t just bundle them as if there’s no difference. 

Yes it is. How many divinities settle for a material, naturalistic, subject to the universe’s laws and forces god?     

I’m not ignoring it – I’m falsifying it. If you want to dilute the term “god” to mean literally anything at all provided people feel about it a certain way then you have a theology that’s all your own, and moreover one that has nothing interesting to say. It’s an odd tactic though just to throw away standard theologies by reducing the term "god" to meaninglessness.       

I have no idea what you mean by “Jehovah”, not why you think he exists (existed?) other than as your subjective belief. I may as well ask you whether leprechauns were leprechauns before they started leaving pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.   
 

I would say theists believe a Creator interventionist god exists but as it is also believed to be supernatural there can be no method to test for its existence or to detect or measure its interventions. It then becomes an idea that has different meanings to different people. Much like "good" and "bad".

Merriem-Webster defined theists as believing in gods. Specifically a God that is the creator of the universe.

The Collins dictionary has 2 meanings - the One God Creator meaning and then a gods no Creator meaning. 

The Britannia article by a Philosophy professor defines theism to be belief in the existence of an interventionist creator God that is separate from its creation.

So an atheist lacks belief in a creator interventionist god.

Belief in a creator interventionist god isn't based on arguments or objective evidence - I would say a large part of beliefs, morals and values is an emotional response to people's perceptions of their environments based on their interpretations of ideas that others have had throughout history.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

This is simply not true. There is a world of difference between anything anybody refers to as 'god', no matter how colloquially, is a god and thinking about just one example.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "is a god and thinking about just one example."

Here is the definition of atheism: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

I object to the bold. It doesn't really matter to me if someone disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of gods, but to suggest that no gods exist in any way, shape or form isn't accurate. You can't pick and choose which gods are in question and which gods aren't. It plainly states or gods with no distinction.   

You seem to be doing a motte-and-bailey fallacy here.

I'm not doing that. 

You're trying to undermine atheism by using a very broad definition of 'god' (which really has nothing to do with atheism)

I'm not trying to do that.

and then introducing this idea of "Jehovah", which you haven't defined (unless I missed it), which (assuming it's defined in a broadly similar way to the way other people who use the same word) actually would be a supernatural creator.

Jehovah is a name which means He causes to become. Supernatural? Yes. Creator? Yes. That doesn't mean all gods are supernatural creators. If I say that man is a genius that doesn't mean all men are geniuses. It isn't a difficult concept. 

As I said before, you're just playing word games - you are trying to conflate two different senses of the word god (senses 1 and 2, with sense 3). What's the point?

The point is all 3 are different senses of the same word. All are gods. Some are believed to exist, some there is no doubt of their existing. Believing that something doesn't exist when it does just because you don't believe another sense of the same thing exists is folly. Atheism isn't defined as a disbelief or lack of belief in God and some gods that haven't been proven to exist or have existed or may exist blah, blah, blah. It's just God or gods.   

Theism: the belief in God or gods.
Atheism: the disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.

It isn't a proposition from Wittgenstein. It isn't complicated.

It's just childish and silly. In order to have any sort of sensible discussion, we'd have then to come up with some other word for all the 'supernatural' beings people actually worship (or did historically worship) as part of their religions: godchecker.

Why? There is already a word for those. Gods.

In any case, you've said Jehovah is your god, so how do you define it and what reasons do you have to believe it?

What difference does that make? Jehovah is my God. How do I define Jehovah? That's an odd question, isn't it? Would you ask how I define my grandfather? Jehovah is the name of the supernatural creator of the heavens and earth. Names are translated so would vary according to language. He is Sovereign Lord. A highly intelligent sentient being. Existing without beginning or end. A spiritual being without gender though referred to in the masculine sense. He created male and female in his image, meaning with his characteristics, personality and qualities. The physical heavens, that is the material universe can not contain him so he doesn't exist in this universe. A spirit being in a spirit realm. Spirit means unseen by human eyes but producing visible results. Wind, breath, mental inclination, are examples of spiritual things. That doesn't mean that Jehovah is the wind, breath or mental inclination it just means that they are all examples of spiritual things as I've defined them.

God sends his representative, spokesperson or word to interact with mankind. So, when the Bible talks of Jehovah God doing that it is always through Michael, his firstborn only begotten son or some other angel. The word angel means "messenger." In these cases the spirit creature Michael will usually take human form so that we can see them. In this state they may be referred to as angels, men, God or Jehovah because they speak on his behalf.

The word holy or sacred means belonging to God. So God's holy spirit is his invisible active force, sometimes referred to in the figurative sense as his fingers or hand.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

BHS

Nice try. There are lots of definitions of militant. Being part of a forum you'll just have to get used to people disagreeing with your definitions.

They’re not my definitions. Rather I’m suggesting that the charge of militancy against various atheists is an attempt at false equivalence: “OK, religious fundamentalists blow people up, but atheists are militant too. Therefor they’re as bad as each other.”

Two problems with that:

1. It’s whataboutism – a wrong defence of anything.

2. It’s not true.   

Are you seriously trying to suggest that militant is the only term available to describe a murderer or terrorist in the English language? Really? Really though? That's very disingenuous of you.

Not a disingenuous as you as telling me I suggest something I don’t suggest at all. Yes there probably are other words – “murdering” for example – but as statement of fact “militant” is the word generally used for such people. Using the same word to describe people who write books is called poisoning the well.     

Militant Labour for example did not go around beheading people.

Bad example. Militant was a Trotskyist organisation, and Trotskyism calls for permanent revolution. Whether or not they actually stormed the houses of parliament is secondary issue – the ideology was front and centre nonetheless. What equivalence do you think there to be with academics who write books about the inadequacy of theological argument?     

[Gordon]

I object to the bold. It doesn't really matter to me if someone disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of gods, but to suggest that no gods exist in any way, shape or form isn't accurate. You can't pick and choose which gods are in question and which gods aren't. It plainly states or gods with no distinction.   

Nope - if the arguments made for 'God(s)', all or them any of of them, are incoherent or fallacious then they can be dismissed as failed arguments.

Moreover your constant equivocation regarding the term 'God(s)' to cover anything from Eric Clapton to Minerva just renders the term meaningless, since not only do these 'God(s)' then become subjective opinion as opposed to objective fact, there is also a category error there: good guitar players and supernatural agents that can work miracles are not one and the same.

I suspect you have put far too much effort into compiling your bespoke personal narrative that you can no longer see the wood because all the trees are in your way.

btw atheism isn't a belief system.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I would say theists believe a Creator interventionist god exists but as it is also believed to be supernatural there can be no method to test for its existence or to detect or measure its interventions. It then becomes an idea that has different meanings to different people. Much like "good" and "bad".

Well, fine if you like but what then are we to make of the intrusion into public life of the various theologies that each claim to have “the” truth?  If you want to relegate “god” to a branch of aesthetics – a matter of taste and opinion rather than a claim of objective fact (and you’ll get no argument from me if you do by the way) – then that’s out of the window isn’t it?   

Merriem-Webster defined theists as believing in gods. Specifically a God that is the creator of the universe.

The Collins dictionary has 2 meanings - the One God Creator meaning and then a gods no Creator meaning.

The Britannia article by a Philosophy professor defines theism to be belief in the existence of an interventionist creator God that is separate from its creation.

So an atheist lacks belief in a creator interventionist god.

Yes.

Belief in a creator interventionist god isn't based on arguments or objective evidence - I would say a large part of beliefs, morals and values is an emotional response to people's perceptions of their environments based on their interpretations of ideas that others have had throughout history.

Fine, provided such people don’t also claim (their) god to be an objective, “out there” fact of something existing in the world and thus insist that the rest of us take the claim seriously, have privileged positions in the legislature, special schools, open door access to the media etc.

[Stranger]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "is a god and thinking about just one example."

There probably should have been a comma. I meant that not distinguishing between gods the colloquial and gods in the religious sense sense and using only using one example, are not the only two options.

The point is all 3 are different senses of the same word.

And, like it or not, they refer to different categories of things. Again, this is nothing but a childish word game.

Theism: the belief in God or gods.
Atheism: the disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.

And how many people who think Eric Clapton is "a god" but have no other "gods", would call themselves a "theist", do you think?

Why? There is already a word for those. Gods.

A word that you keep on insisting refers to lots of other things too - so it would become useless for this purpose. Sorry, but this nonsense about the senses of the word 'god' just isn't a grown up conversation - it's just utterly foolish.

What difference does that make? Jehovah is my God. How do I define Jehovah? That's an odd question, isn't it?

Why?

Would you ask how I define my grandfather?

I know what grandfather means. On the other had, I've met multiple people (both in life and online) who have very different ideas about "Jehovah".

Jehovah is the name of the supernatural creator of the heavens and earth. Names are translated so would vary according to language. He is Sovereign Lord. A highly intelligent sentient being. Existing without beginning or end. A spiritual being without gender though referred to in the masculine sense. He created male and female in his image, meaning with his characteristics, personality and qualities. The physical heavens, that is the material universe can not contain him so he doesn't exist in this universe. A spirit being in a spirit realm. Spirit means unseen by human eyes but producing visible results. Wind, breath, mental inclination, are examples of spiritual things. That doesn't mean that Jehovah is the wind, breath or mental inclination it just means that they are all examples of spiritual things as I've defined them.

God sends his representative, spokesperson or word to interact with mankind. So, when the Bible talks of Jehovah God doing that it is always through Michael, his firstborn only begotten son or some other angel. The word angel means "messenger." In these cases the spirit creature Michael will usually take human form so that we can see them. In this state they may be referred to as angels, men, God or Jehovah because they speak on his behalf.

The word holy or sacred means belonging to God. So God's holy spirit is his invisible active force, sometimes referred to in the figurative sense as his fingers or hand.

OK, so why do you think such a being really exists?

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Supernatural? Yes.

Hold that thought. So you believe there to be a “supernatural” god. Fine. A supernatural god is a different category of god from a natural one colloquially described as such (Clapton, cheesecake, whatever). Rather than lump them together and pretend they’re epistemically the same type of claim, why not instead just tells us what you mean by “supernatural” and by “god”, and then set out why you think such a thing objectively exists at all?     

[Outrider]

Note to Self - Must get out my Sisters of Battle and start painting again!"

)O(

3rd Edition combined Inquisition player at heart, waiting for the 9th edition ruleset to settle down so I can decide which mid-table force I'm going to favour now that Imperial Soup seems to have lost its appeal...

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

They’re not my definitions. Rather I’m suggesting that the charge of militancy against various atheists is an attempt at false equivalence: “OK, religious fundamentalists blow people up, but atheists are militant too. Therefor they’re as bad as each other.”

Two problems with that:

1. It’s whataboutism – a wrong defence of anything.

2. It’s not true.   

BHS - you seem to be having a conversation with yourself and making generalisations in the process. The word militant has various meanings - it can mean violent or hostile or confrontational or all three. And no there is no equivalence between violent murderers people and confrontational or hostile people having a debate about ideas. Do you have a link to show where someone on this forum has tried to draw such an equivalence?

Not a disingenuous as you as telling me I suggest something I don’t suggest at all. Yes there probably are other words – “murdering” for example – but as statement of fact “militant” is the word generally used for such people. Using the same word to describe people who write books is called poisoning the well.     

Bad example. Militant was a Trotskyist organisation, and Trotskyism calls for permanent revolution. Whether or not they actually stormed the houses of parliament is secondary issue – the ideology was front and centre nonetheless. What equivalence do you think there to be with academics who write books about the inadequacy of theological argument?     

Nope - disagree. If the organisation acted politically rather than violently then the meaning of the word is linked to confrontation but not necessarily violence.

There are atheists who live their lives without feeling the need to confront religious ideas in public arenas or write books that are hostile to religion . The atheists that do feel the need to do this could be described as militant. That you as an atheist don't like the term is fine but it's not really up to you is it as other people use the English language and words have multiple meanings. When I read the term militant atheist I did not link it to violent atheism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Well, fine if you like but what then are we to make of the intrusion into public life of the various theologies that each claim to have “the” truth?  If you want to relegate “god” to a branch of aesthetics – a matter of taste and opinion rather than a claim of objective fact (and you’ll get no argument from me if you do by the way) – then that’s out of the window isn’t it? 

Yes.

Fine, provided such people don’t also claim (their) god to be an objective, “out there” fact of something existing in the world and thus insist that the rest of us take the claim seriously, have privileged positions in the legislature, special schools, open door access to the media etc.

If people can intrude into public life trying to tell people about their ideas of what is good and bad and to try to get public and political support for these ideas and to pass legislation to privilege these ideas above other people's ideas of good and bad, I'm not really seeing the problem of the god idea.

The god idea caught on spectacularly for a while, and worked so well that people linked it to other ideas to try and leverage off the popularity of the god idea and that led to different factions fighting it out - bit like the different factions in politics or tribal warfare or civil war or international wars. But now a lot of people have lost interest because they prefer other ideas, and these ideas have gained traction and are used to captivate and manipulate. Anyone who has seen The Social Dilemma on Netflix will know what I am referring to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

BHS - you seem to be having a conversation with yourself and making generalisations in the process. The word militant has various meanings - it can mean violent or hostile or confrontational or all three. And no there is no equivalence between violent murderers people and confrontational or hostile people having a debate about ideas. Do you have a link to show where someone on this forum has tried to draw such an equivalence?

You've missed the point. Using the same terminology to describe murderous fundamentalists and academic authors with whom you happen to disagree is an attempt at equivalence. How successful it is at doing that is a secondary issue.
 

Nope - disagree. If the organisation acted politically rather than violently then the meaning of the word is linked to confrontation but not necessarily violence.

Of course you do. Either you think the word mean what the say or you don't. Trotskyism called for permanent revolution, but Militant never had the numbers to act on it. Academic authors writing about atheism on the other hand rarely call for revolution, permanent or otherwise.     

There are atheists who live their lives without feeling the need to confront religious ideas in public arenas or write books that are hostile to religion .

Not all are "hostile" as such - they just explain where its proponents are wrong. You're thinking of anti-theism perhaps.

The atheists that do feel the need to do this could be described as militant. That you as an atheist don't like the term is fine but it's not really up to you is it as other people use the English language and words have multiple meanings. When I read the term militant atheist I did not link it to violent atheism.

Still not getting it. Yes they could just about be described as "militant" if you want to use one narrow sense of that term - as in "feels strongly" or similar. The identical term also though has much darker, more violent meanings so if you're not just engaged in poisoning the well and in an ad hom to boot then why not either use a more appropriate term or instead add the rider "militant atheists, by which of course I don't for one moment mean to imply any similarity with the more common usage of that term when applied in the context of violent people. Oh no guv'nor, wot me, never.." etc?         

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

If people can intrude into public life trying to tell people about their ideas of what is good and bad and to try to get public and political support for these ideas and to pass legislation to privilege these ideas above other people's ideas of good and bad, I'm not really seeing the problem of the god idea.

The HoL is unelected. 

The god idea caught on spectacularly for a while, and worked so well that people linked it to other ideas to try and leverage off the popularity of the god idea and that led to different factions fighting it out - bit like the different factions in politics or tribal warfare or civil war or international wars. But now a lot of people have lost interest because they prefer other ideas, and these ideas have gained traction and are used to captivate and manipulate. Anyone who has seen The Social Dilemma on Netflix will know what I am referring to.

And yet religious thinking and institutions still enjoy a privileged position in various areas of public life.

[SusanDoris]

I liked Prof D's point about 'muscular Christians' and 'militant atheists'. What a pity the adjectives are not swapped over.

[ProfessorDavey]

I liked Prof D's point about 'muscular Christians' and 'militant atheists'. What a pity the adjectives are not swapped over.

Maybe they would be if they were both being coined by atheists, but both sets of terms are typically coined by christians about their 'own' (muscular, robust etc - pick a positive term) and about 'the enemy' (militant, aggressive - pick a negative term).

But it is bizarre as the people christians apply this term to 'people like Dawkins, Harris, Grayling' are largely about as militant as the next old-school academic. No more 'militant' than the Archbishop of Canterbury or David Attenborough.

[Owlswing]

3rd Edition combined Inquisition player at heart, waiting for the 9th edition ruleset to settle down so I can decide which mid-table force I'm going to favour now that Imperial Soup seems to have lost its appeal...

O.

I regret to say that I have not painted any of my army for far too long and my Rulebook is so out of date that it is written in hieroglyphics! My Nuns with Guns have taken a back-seat to Yugioh and are, at the present moment in storage with about 50% of my personal possessions and likely to stay that way for a while.

  )O(

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe they would be if they were both being coined by atheists, but both sets of terms are typically coined by christians about their 'own' (muscular, robust etc - pick a positive term) and about 'the enemy' (militant, aggressive - pick a negative term).

But it is bizarre as the people christians apply this term to 'people like Dawkins, Harris, Grayling' are largely about as militant as the next old-school academic. No more 'militant' than the Archbishop of Canterbury or David Attenborough.

As far as I know Harris is gun lobby and I believe suggested preemptive nuclear attack on theocracies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hey Vladdo – welcome back,

As far as I know Harris is gun lobby and I believe suggested preemptive nuclear attack on theocracies.

Not sure about the gun lobby part but, as the risk of giving you a coronary, I agree. So far as I’m aware SH is the exception who has proposed at least pre-emptive action. Let’s hope we never have to find out whether he was right about that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You've missed the point. Using the same terminology to describe murderous fundamentalists and academic authors with whom you happen to disagree is an attempt at equivalence. How successful it is at doing that is a secondary issue.
 
Of course you do. Either you think the word mean what the say or you don't. Trotskyism called for permanent revolution, but Militant never had the numbers to act on it. Academic authors writing about atheism on the other hand rarely call for revolution, permanent or otherwise.     

Not all are "hostile" as such - they just explain where its proponents are wrong. You're thinking of anti-theism perhaps.

Still not getting it. Yes they could just about be described as "militant" if you want to use one narrow sense of that term - as in "feels strongly" or similar. The identical term also though has much darker, more violent meanings so if you're not just engaged in poisoning the well and in an ad hom to boot then why not either use a more appropriate term or instead add the rider "militant atheists, by which of course I don't for one moment mean to imply any similarity with the more common usage of that term when applied in the context of violent people. Oh no guv'nor, wot me, never.." etc?         

I did not say all books written by atheists are hostile - I'll leave the generalisations to you. Atheists are not a homogenous group so there is a need to be able to differentiate them in discussions.

Your perspective on why someone would use the term "militant" is just that - it's your perspective on people's motives and the meaning of the words. Other people use words differently and if you can't believe that they can have different motives from the ones you suspect them of having - I guess that's up to you. People can't choose their beliefs. Some people take a more literal meaning than others.

Militant Christianity http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/militant.htm
Are you tired of a dead church existence? Are you sick of the once a week, song and dance routine? Are you being told the TRUTH by those who call themselves "Men of God"? Why not get bold, why not get radical, why not go ALL THE WAY FOR JESUS!! We offer a wide range of newspapers, booklets, tracts and tapes to equip the Christian soldier in the war for souls. Write us today for more information about how you can join the SPIRIT REVOLUTION!

ETA: By the way your speculation that Militant Labour would have carried out violent revolution if they had more numbers isn't very convincing without some evidence to back it up. Especially given that you brought up a violent act carried out by an individual - a Muslim. How many numbers do you believe that Militant Labour needed to become violent - is there a magic number that leads to violent revolution?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

The HoL is unelected. 

And yet religious thinking and institutions still enjoy a privileged position in various areas of public life.

Well, maybe enough people will get behind the idea that the voters can be trusted to make the right decision, or that it doesn't matter if they make crap decisions so long as unelected people are not part of the legislature. How about the judiciary - should they be elected too?

As I've said before, religious institutions can only enjoy privileges in this country while the majority of people allow them to. It's not as if religious institutions have an army that is holding a gun to anyone's head.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I did not say all books written by atheists are hostile - I'll leave the generalisations to you. Atheists are not a homogenous group so there is a need to be able to differentiate them in discussions.

Your perspective on why someone would use the term "militant" is just that - it's your perspective on people's motives and the meaning of the words. Other people use words differently and if you can't believe that they can have different motives from the ones you suspect them of having - I guess that's up to you. People can't choose their beliefs. Some people take a more literal meaning than others.

Militant Christianity http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/militant.htm
Are you tired of a dead church existence? Are you sick of the once a week, song and dance routine? Are you being told the TRUTH by those who call themselves "Men of God"? Why not get bold, why not get radical, why not go ALL THE WAY FOR JESUS!! We offer a wide range of newspapers, booklets, tracts and tapes to equip the Christian soldier in the war for souls. Write us today for more information about how you can join the SPIRIT REVOLUTION!

You’re still not getting it. You have children. Let’s say, just for fun, that at some time in a moment of exhausted, frazzled, long ago desperation you shouted at one or both of them. Some people would call shouting at children a form of violence. Should I henceforward therefore call you “violent Gabriella”? After all, the word “violent” has various meanings - it can mean one-time shouting or sustained physical attack or both. And no there is no equivalence between violent murderers and parents shouting at children. So, you should have no problem with being called violent Gabriella right?

If not though, why not? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You’re still not getting it. You have children. Let’s say, just for fun, that at some time in a moment of exhausted, frazzled, long ago desperation you shouted at one or both of them. Some people would call shouting at children a form of violence. Should I henceforward therefore call you “violent Gabriella”? After all, the word “violent” has various meanings - it can mean one-time shouting or sustained physical attack or both. And no there is no equivalence between violent murderers and parents shouting at children. So, you should have no problem with being called violent Gabriella right?

If not though, why not?

I seem to recall you, Susan and possibly PD writing a few posts a while back about how you thought my posts to you were ... I can't quite remember the exact words used...it could have been violent or menacing or threatening and I seem to recall you imagining me shaking a fist. Given we were on an online forum your impression of me was based on your interpretation of my posts. I had not used any offensive words or bad language but I had contradicted you in a manner you clearly did not seem to appreciate. If you want to think me violent - that's your perspective. Given my enjoyment of participating in martial arts, I quite like a bit of violence myself.

Why is it so surprising to you that different people could have different perspectives about the use of words? Some people clearly take a more literal meaning than others. Some people see being a militant Christian as a good thing - but clearly don't associate it with carrying out physical violence on their fellow humans. You've made your point that you personally don't like to be described as militant. Shall we move on from this point? Maybe discuss the OP's point about anti-theism?

I am not any more surprised that anti-theism exists than I am about theism existing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I seem to recall you, Susan and possibly PD writing a few posts a while back about how you thought my posts to you were ... I can't quite remember the exact words used...it could have been violent or menacing or threatening and I seem to recall you imagining me shaking a fist. Given we were on an online forum your impression of me was based on your interpretation of my posts. I had not used any offensive words or bad language but I had contradicted you in a manner you clearly did not seem to appreciate. If you want to think me violent - that's your perspective. Given my enjoyment of participating in martial arts, I quite like a bit of violence myself.

Why is it so surprising to you that different people could have different perspectives about the use of words? Some people clearly take a more literal meaning than others. Some people see being a militant Christian as a good thing - but clearly don't associate it with carrying out physical violence on their fellow humans. You've made your point that you personally don't like to be described as militant. Shall we move on from this point? Maybe discuss the OP's point about anti-theism?

I am not any more surprised that anti-theism exists than I am about theism existing.

So, you’re fine with “Violent Gabriella” then as your sobriquet – after all, “different people could have different perspectives about the use of words”.

The point you keep avoiding is that routinely attaching the lazy epithet “militant” before the word “atheists” badly devalues what that word means in the context of people who actually are militant. It’s just an attempt at false equivalence – atheists and people who put bombs on buses? Meh, they’re just the same – militant right?

PS I don’t remember calling you any of those things.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

So, you’re fine with “Violent Gabriella” then as your sobriquet – after all, “different people could have different perspectives about the use of words”.

It's an obscure online forum of anonymous posters. Of course I'm fine with it. I've actually been meaning to change my name on here to something a bit less boring.

The point you keep avoiding is that routinely attaching the lazy epithet “militant” before the word “atheists” badly devalues what that word means in the context of people who actually are militant. It’s just an attempt at false equivalence – atheists and people who put bombs on buses? Meh, they’re just the same – militant right?

No it doesn't badly devalue anything because there are lots of other words used to describe violent people, no one has drawn an equivalence on here and the word "militant" gets used in other ways apart from sometimes being used to describe terrorists. But yes you can interpret the use of the word that way if you like.

PS I don’t remember calling you any of those things.     

Ok - it's not important.