Is it any wonder that anti-theism exists?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

TS,

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?     

Supernatural means (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

god means anything or anyone deified, that is attributed might that is greater than the one attributing it and / or venerated.

I think it possible for the supernatural to exist because I don't need science to tell me if something can exist or not. That doesn't mean that I subscribe to any supernatural claim. Some gods exist, some don't. Atheists and probably most theists confuse the concept of god as being exclusively applied to the Abrahamic gods. That's nonsense. 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Really?!?

News to me - I certainly have no recollection of making any comment indicating that you were/are violent. I suggest you dig out the evidence or retract please.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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.

There are millions of gods because a god is anything or anyone that is attributed might inasmuch as the might is greater than that of the one attributing it and or is venerated. I don't know what else I can say to help you understand this simple concept that has been accurate for thousands of years without repeating myself. A child could get it. The only reason atheists can't is that it challenges their uninformed preconceptions that the Christian gods are the only gods. Every other application, they seem to think, would be metaphoric. That isn't the case. 

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

It's not a word game, it's what the fucking word means.

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

Irrelevant. Most people are idiots.

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.

There's no such thing as a meaningless word that I'm aware of. Look it up in your adult dictionary. Look at any example of any god ever known to mankind in any language. It's not a word game it's what the word god in any language has always and will always mean. If I'm wrong show me only one example ever of that not being the case. Read the dictionary listing of god, deity and deify and stop saying it isn't true. SHOW ME.

Be the first atheist I've ever presented with this challenge to tell me what it means to be a god. What it requires to be deified, what a god is. How the word is used. Stop dismissing me and present an argument. 

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".

Always involving him as being mighty and venerated.

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

The Bible.

[ProfessorDavey]

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 think you are missing the point, which is about who is coining and attributing the term and for what reason.

An individual can choose to use any term about themselves and assuming they are comfortable about that term and do not find it demeaning, derogatory or pejorative (which if they've chosen to use it presumably they don't), then all well and good. Thats doesn't mean that someone else should use that term about a person who doesn't think the term is reasonable and considers it demeaning, derogatory or pejorative.

So as an example - imagine a person called Pat - used to be really overweight, but not anymore - choses to call herself Fat Pat as a light-hearted joke linked to her previous weight. No great problem.

Image on the other hand a person called Pat who is overweight and has significant anxiety over her body image - would be mortified if someone described her as Fat Pat and sees that term as demeaning, derogatory and pejorative. Would it be appropriate for other people to call her Fat Pat?

And of course we see this in the use of racially abusive language - it is considered OK for a black person to use the N-word about themselves, however it is not acceptable for a white person to use it about a black person, unless that black person has clearly indicated they are happy to be described in that manner by a white person (which is unusual).

So back to the matter in hand - look up 'Militant Christian' - there are very few hits in the first place but most are from christian organisations (or books about christian organisations) that appear to have coined that term and are happy about it.  Look up 'Militant atheism' and there are huge numbers of hits, and in its modern context mostly from non atheists coining the term about atheism and using it in a pejorative manner and to try to undermine the arguments of those atheists by portraying the individuals as extreme and, let's face it, dangerous.

That's the difference.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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.

I dispise organized religion. Like the "militant" or "radical" fundamentalist "new" atheists, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and in the past Christopher Hitchens, I think we would be better off without organized religion. I would like to see it destroyed as the book of Revelation has it destroyed, represented as the whore of Babylon. I loath Christian Nationalists and think they are ignorant hypocrites. I despise their self appointed policing of the globe, although it is that which will lead to their destruction. I can't wait for it. Christ's true followers, according to Christ himself, will be no part of the world. That means voting, serving in the armed forces as hired murderers or influencing legislation.

However, having said that, I don't understand why atheists object to those hypocritical ignorant so called Christians doing just that.

I don't think in God we trust belongs on money or the 10 commandments or nativity scene at the courthouse. I don't want "teachers" who are nothing more than underpaid public propaganda peddlers, teaching the Bible. The clergy and false religion has done enough damage. Prayer doesn't belong in the school and no religious organization should get any financial incentive like tax relief.

However, being myself apolitical, and thinking Christendom founded on a river of blood nothing to do with Christ, why shouldn't they be able to play the political game as they seem terribly capable of doing? And why can't atheists organize themselves? They always say stupid shit like "we have nothing in common." Neither did the women, blacks, gays or other minorities who managed to organize themselves and influence the world into accepting their demands to the extent they have done so.

Are atheists just stupid and lazy or are there not as many of them as I think or is it like I think that they are so apathetic they aren't ever going to make that sort of move? I don't think they're stupid. I guess it must be the latter. 

   

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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.

I've presented my case. I've said enough to demonstrate my point and I've had not one single argument. Until someone comes up with an argument that can define a god or that can give me some real reason for me to think I'm the one making the error I don't see any point in laboring the subject. I usually do this right off when joining a new forum. No one has ever presented any real argument or even came forward to define god other than to give an abridged dictionary listing which excludes most of the examples of gods given without reason.

[Stranger]

The only reason atheists can't is that it challenges their uninformed preconceptions that the Christian gods are the only gods. Every other application, they seem to think, would be metaphoric. That isn't the case. 

This is total nonsense, I'm just making the distinction between "god" the colloquial sense and "god" in the religious sense, the difference between senses 1 and 2, and 3: God.

It's not a word game, it's what the fucking word means.

...

There's no such thing as a meaningless word that I'm aware of. Look it up in your adult dictionary. Look at any example of any god ever known to mankind in any language. It's not a word game it's what the word god in any language has always and will always mean. If I'm wrong show me only one example ever of that not being the case. Read the dictionary listing of god, deity and deify and stop saying it isn't true. SHOW ME.

I already did reference a dictionary, and if you don't understand that a word can have different senses (that were clearly listed in said dictionary) and mean different things in different contexts, then you need to go back to primary school. When you said "it's what the fucking word means", did you think the word was literally engaged in sexual intercourse?

Honestly, this is the most dimwitted attempt to attack atheism I've ever come across in my life.

The Bible.

In what way does an incoherent, often contradictory collection of old books lead you to believe that the being you described exists?

[Gordon]

I've presented my case. I've said enough to demonstrate my point and I've had not one single argument. Until someone comes up with an argument that can define a god or that can give me some real reason for me to think I'm the one making the error I don't see any point in laboring the subject. I usually do this right off when joining a new forum. No one has ever presented any real argument or even came forward to define god other than to give an abridged dictionary listing which excludes most of the examples of gods given without reason.

I think you are mistaken in thinking that it is the responsibility of those who aren't proposing 'God(s)' to offer you a definition: the burden of proof is on those advocating the proposition. All that your interlocutors here can do is respond to what you propose and point out when what you propose contains issues, such as when you commit a category error (as I noted in the post you were replying to).

For my part, on the basis of how I've seen 'God(s)' argued for to date, such as your use of equivocation and category error, or the incoherent or fallacy-laden attempts that we've regularly encountered in this wee Forum (see 'Searching for God' for multiple examples), I'd say that the term 'God(s)' is just meaningless white noise that doesn't merit being taken seriously.     

[Gordon]

I dispise organized religion. Like the "militant" or "radical" fundamentalist "new" atheists, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and in the past Christopher Hitchens, I think we would be better off without organized religion. I would like to see it destroyed as the book of Revelation has it destroyed, represented as the whore of Babylon. I loath Christian Nationalists and think they are ignorant hypocrites. I despise their self appointed policing of the globe, although it is that which will lead to their destruction. I can't wait for it. Christ's true followers, according to Christ himself, will be no part of the world. That means voting, serving in the armed forces as hired murderers or influencing legislation.

However, having said that, I don't understand why atheists object to those hypocritical ignorant so called Christians doing just that.

I don't think in God we trust belongs on money or the 10 commandments or nativity scene at the courthouse. I don't want "teachers" who are nothing more than underpaid public propaganda peddlers, teaching the Bible. The clergy and false religion has done enough damage. Prayer doesn't belong in the school and no religious organization should get any financial incentive like tax relief.

However, being myself apolitical, and thinking Christendom founded on a river of blood nothing to do with Christ, why shouldn't they be able to play the political game as they seem terribly capable of doing? And why can't atheists organize themselves? They always say stupid shit like "we have nothing in common." Neither did the women, blacks, gays or other minorities who managed to organize themselves and influence the world into accepting their demands to the extent they have done so.

Are atheists just stupid and lazy or are there not as many of them as I think or is it like I think that they are so apathetic they aren't ever going to make that sort of move? I don't think they're stupid. I guess it must be the latter. 
 

I suspect your outlook is coloured by where you are in the world: my impression is, and I may have the wrong impression, is that where you are cultural religiosity is the norm and that is reflected in routinely social discourse, public policy and political exchanges - in essence organised religion is an overt phenomenon in America and that atheists there maybe aren't challenging this.

Here in Scotland, where I am, organised religion isn't similarly overt: for example, our politicians don't mention 'God' or suggest that it would be useful if we indulged in prayer (unless of course they wanted a career change). Here, for those not involved in it, organised religion can be ignored since it has no real clout either socially or politically, as we've seen with Same Sex Marriages legislation, so apathy is perfectly fine since there is nothing really to oppose, and since here religiosity is decline generally.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40467084       

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Supernatural means (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

But they’re very different things. Thunder was once “beyond scientific understanding” but wasn’t beyond the laws of nature. Which meaning are you attempting here? 

god means anything or anyone deified, that is attributed might that is greater than the one attributing it and / or venerated.

That’s nonsense. Like many other words, “god” has various – and qualitatively very different – meanings. The “supernatural” god is a claim about the existence of a non-material “something” outwith the laws and properties of nature. The colloquial “god” on the other hand is just a description of the way people feel about known, material entities. Simply lumping the two meanings together as if they were the epistemically the same is ludicrous.     

I think it possible for the supernatural to exist because I don't need science to tell me if something can exist or not.

That’s called a non sequitur – another logical fallacy. What you happen to “need” science to tell you tells you nothing about the existence or otherwise of a “supernatural”.
 

That doesn't mean that I subscribe to any supernatural claim.

And yet only a few posts ago you said the opposite of that – that you do believe there to be a supernatural god. Which is it?

Some gods exist, some don't.

Oh dear. If by “gods” you mean the supernatural meaning, how do you know that? If though all you intend is the meaning of material phenomena some people think to be fab, so what? 

Atheists and probably most theists confuse the concept of god as being exclusively applied to the Abrahamic gods. That's nonsense.

And untrue. There’s no such thing as “atheists” as a collective position, but in general atheism is the absence of belief any gods no matter the religious tradition.

[ProfessorDavey]

The only reason atheists can't is that it challenges their uninformed preconceptions that the Christian gods are the only gods. Every other application, they seem to think, would be metaphoric. That isn't the case.

I disagree entirely.

I think atheists are just that, atheist, because they do not believe, not just in the christian god but all other purported gods currently considered to exist by some people (e.g. Vishnu) or once considered to exist by some people but largely no longer considered to exist (Thor, Odin etc etc). In fact one of the major arguments made by atheists to theists is literally that - effectively that atheists are consistent, on the basis that they apply the same standards to each god - they see no credible evidence that Thor exists, similarly no credible evidence that Vishnu exists, no credible evidence that the christian god exists etc etc and on that basis do not believe in the existence of any of them. By contrast it is often theists who seem fixated in their god alone - happily dismissing the existence of other gods yet choosing to believe in their god despite their being no greater evidence for the existence of their god than, say Thor.

And I think you may also be confusing atheism with secularism - the former is god 'agnostic' so to speak, it applies the same approach to each and every god. Secularism on the other had is largely about political and societal influence of religion, and not unreasonably in the UK (and I guess in the US too) secularism will focus its concerns on the religion with the most influence and special privileges which is likely to be the dominant religion in that country - in both examples I've use that is christianity.

For a secularist, on a fundamental basis, there is no difference between opposing special privileges for christianity than for buddhism or for Thor-ism. But the reality is that there are either no or fewer special privileges for buddhism or Thorism compared to christianity and/or their influence on society is minimal compared to the special privileges for christianity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

I dispise organized religion. Like the "militant" or "radical" fundamentalist "new" atheists, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and in the past Christopher Hitchens, I think we would be better off without organized religion.

RD & CH are/were none of these things. SH’s militancy is debatable.

I would like to see it destroyed as the book of Revelation has it destroyed, represented as the whore of Babylon. I loath Christian Nationalists and think they are ignorant hypocrites. I despise their self appointed policing of the globe, although it is that which will lead to their destruction. I can't wait for it. Christ's true followers, according to Christ himself, will be no part of the world. That means voting, serving in the armed forces as hired murderers or influencing legislation.

“Christ’s true followers” eh? That’s another logical fallacy known as the “no true Scotsman”. As you seem to be falling into fallacies quite a lot, perhaps some rhetorical logic 101 would help you? 

However, having said that, I don't understand why atheists object to those hypocritical ignorant so called Christians doing just that.

Why don’t you understand that – it’s obvious I’d have thought.

I don't think in God we trust belongs on money or the 10 commandments or nativity scene at the courthouse. I don't want "teachers" who are nothing more than underpaid public propaganda peddlers, teaching the Bible. The clergy and false religion has done enough damage. Prayer doesn't belong in the school and no religious organization should get any financial incentive like tax relief.

Some of the language aside, fine.

However, being myself apolitical, and thinking Christendom founded on a river of blood nothing to do with Christ, why shouldn't they be able to play the political game as they seem terribly capable of doing?

Because it’s a rigged game for the reasons you just set out.
 

And why can't atheists organize themselves? They always say stupid shit like "we have nothing in common." Neither did the women, blacks, gays or other minorities who managed to organize themselves and influence the world into accepting their demands to the extent they have done so.

It's secularists, not atheists and again it’s rigged game – especially in your country. How many potential congress people or senators would get elected do you think if they declared their atheism on the ballot paper (even though many of them probably are)?   

Are atheists just stupid and lazy or are there not as many of them as I think or is it like I think that they are so apathetic they aren't ever going to make that sort of move? I don't think they're stupid. I guess it must be the latter.

See above. You’re from a country that voted in Trump as president remember. Where would you begin to undo that level of state-induced credulity? By playing the long game with the education system I guess, but it’s a long and bumpy road.       

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

I've presented my case. I've said enough to demonstrate my point and I've had not one single argument.

Clearly not true. Ignoring arguments isn’t the same as not having them presented to you. Why not start with the argument that your collapsing of the multiple meanings of some terms into one is unsustainable?

Until someone comes up with an argument that can define a god or that can give me some real reason for me to think I'm the one making the error I don't see any point in laboring the subject.

Shifting of the burden of proof again – anther logical error. If you think there to be such a thing as a “supernatural” god, then it’s your job to tell us what you mean by it. Just now you’re in not even wrong territory.

I usually do this right off when joining a new forum. No one has ever presented any real argument or even came forward to define god other than to give an abridged dictionary listing which excludes most of the examples of gods given without reason.

I’m reluctant to accuse you of lying, but c’mon on now – really?   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Really?!?

News to me - I certainly have no recollection of making any comment indicating that you were/are violent. I suggest you dig out the evidence or retract please.

At the time I posted I thought there was a possibility rather than any certainty it was you. I tried having a look for the post but there are too many threads to go through and I can't remember the words that were used. I did a search on "aggressive" and found a comment made by Ippy about my posts being "somewhat aggressive" but that was not what I was possibly mistakenly remembering and the search results showed that Ippy says that about a few posters. As there are so many posts to look through, I've given up and so have not find anything related to BHS or SD (other than commenting on derision and sneering in my posts rather than aggression). So I will retract in relation to all the people I mentioned, with my apologies.

[ProfessorDavey]

At the time I posted I thought there was a possibility rather than any certainty it was you. I tried having a look for the post but there are too many threads to go through and I can't remember the words that were used. I did a search on "aggressive" and found a comment made by Ippy about my posts being "somewhat aggressive" but that was not what I was possibly mistakenly remembering and the search results showed that Ippy says that about a few posters. As there are so many posts to look through, I've given up and so have not find anything related to BHS or SD (other than commenting on derision and sneering in my posts rather than aggression). So I will retract in relation to all the people I mentioned, with my apologies.

Apology accepted.

[SusanDoris]

There are millions of gods because a god is anything or anyone that is attributed might inasmuch as the might is greater than that of the one attributing it and or is venerated. I don't know what else I can say to help you understand this simple concept that has been accurate for thousands of years without repeating myself. A child could get it. The only reason atheists can't is that it challenges their uninformed preconceptions that the Christian gods are the only gods. Every other application, they seem to think, would be metaphoric. That isn't the case. 

That is rather idiosyncratic I think  and  your theme seems to be getting somewhat bizarre. All gods are human ideas, including the capitalised ones, any Hindu mystical spirit and so on.  If you can clearlydemonstrate otherwise, plese try to do so.

Most people are idiots.

What an arrogant statement. In any case, the posters here are most certainly not. Some post some consistently daft ideas, but they are not idiots.

There's no such thing as a meaningless word that I'm aware of. Look it up in your adult dictionary. Look at any example of any god ever known to mankind in any language. It's not a word game it's what the word god in any language has always and will always mean. If I'm wrong show me only one example ever of that not being the case. Read the dictionary listing of god, deity and deify and stop saying it isn't true. SHOW ME.

Be the first atheist I've ever presented with this challenge to tell me what it means to be a god. What it requires to be deified, what a god is. How the word is used. Stop dismissing me and present an argument. 

That's rather smug in my opinion.

The Bible.

What?!!! You think that is a rational, answers-every-query- solution?! The Bible, you must surely know, is a set of stories thought of by humans, embellished, varied and a hundred other verbs over the years and in which every thought, every word, every idea is a human one - unless of course you have proof (the 99.99recurring% type) to the contrary.
[/quote]

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think you are missing the point, which is about who is coining and attributing the term and for what reason.

An individual can choose to use any term about themselves and assuming they are comfortable about that term and do not find it demeaning, derogatory or pejorative (which if they've chosen to use it presumably they don't), then all well and good. Thats doesn't mean that someone else should use that term about a person who doesn't think the term is reasonable and considers it demeaning, derogatory or pejorative.

So as an example - imagine a person called Pat - used to be really overweight, but not anymore - choses to call herself Fat Pat as a light-hearted joke linked to her previous weight. No great problem.

Image on the other hand a person called Pat who is overweight and has significant anxiety over her body image - would be mortified if someone described her as Fat Pat and sees that term as demeaning, derogatory and pejorative. Would it be appropriate for other people to call her Fat Pat?

And of course we see this in the use of racially abusive language - it is considered OK for a black person to use the N-word about themselves, however it is not acceptable for a white person to use it about a black person, unless that black person has clearly indicated they are happy to be described in that manner by a white person (which is unusual).

So back to the matter in hand - look up 'Militant Christian' - there are very few hits in the first place but most are from christian organisations (or books about christian organisations) that appear to have coined that term and are happy about it.  Look up 'Militant atheism' and there are huge numbers of hits, and in its modern context mostly from non atheists coining the term about atheism and using it in a pejorative manner and to try to undermine the arguments of those atheists by portraying the individuals as extreme and, let's face it, dangerous.

That's the difference.

Ok yes I acknowledged that I understood that BHS does not consider himself a militant atheist and does not like the term to be applied to himself. I was disagreeing with his generalisation that if a theist uses the term about an atheist that they are trying to poison the well.

Richard Dawkins has a TED talk entitled Militant Atheism and states "it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war." and "Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism, and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as this one, that would be preaching to the choir. Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism." and " My approach to attacking creationism is -- unlike the evolution lobby -- my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole."

It is therefore conceivable that theists will use the term without implying any equivalence to terrorists or trying to poison the well.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Ok yes I acknowledged that I understood that BHS does not consider himself a militant atheist and does not like the term to be applied to himself. I was disagreeing with his generalisation that if a theist uses the term about an atheist that they are trying to poison the well.

Richard Dawkins has a TED talk entitled Militant Atheism and states "it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war." and "Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism, and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as this one, that would be preaching to the choir. Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism." and " My approach to attacking creationism is -- unlike the evolution lobby -- my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole.

I really think you’re sick. I’m going to ask the mods to sanction you.

(Naturally by “sick” I mean the urban slang sense of “cool”, and by “sanction” I mean the sense of “permit”. I’d hate for you to think that I was attaching these terms in a pejorative way. Wot me? Never!)   

It is therefore conceivable that theists will use the term without implying any equivalence to terrorists or trying to poison the well.

Of course it's conceivable - that's the defence to the charge of poisoning the well. Something being conceivable though doesn't imply its intent.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

At the time I posted I thought there was a possibility rather than any certainty it was you. I tried having a look for the post but there are too many threads to go through and I can't remember the words that were used. I did a search on "aggressive" and found a comment made by Ippy about my posts being "somewhat aggressive" but that was not what I was possibly mistakenly remembering and the search results showed that Ippy says that about a few posters. As there are so many posts to look through, I've given up and so have not find anything related to BHS or SD (other than commenting on derision and sneering in my posts rather than aggression). So I will retract in relation to all the people I mentioned, with my apologies.

Not necessary for me, but thank you.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok yes I acknowledged that I understood that BHS does not consider himself a militant atheist and does not like the term to be applied to himself. I was disagreeing with his generalisation that if a theist uses the term about an atheist that they are trying to poison the well.

I think that the coining the term to apply to modern atheists and their approach to discourse and attaining their objectives is most definitely 'poisoning the well'. It is clearly an attempt to portray individuals and/or their view as extreme and dangerous when there is no indication that they are. Indeed, certainly in the UK most of the 'wants' of those accused of being 'militant' atheists align with mainstream popular opinion - e.g. only teaching science as science, not wanting Bishops having automatic places in the HoLs, opposing state funded faith schools, etc etc - these views are in the mainstream not the extreme. Nor are their proposed methods for attaining their objectives in any way 'militant' as they entirely work via debate, discussion, changing minds by argument and democratic means. Where exactly is the 'militia' to go along with these 'militant' atheists. There isn't one.

Richard Dawkins has a TED talk entitled Militant Atheism and states "it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war." and "Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism, and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as this one, that would be preaching to the choir. Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism." and " My approach to attacking creationism is -- unlike the evolution lobby -- my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole."

You don't have to be 'militant' to be in a state of war do you - often wars involve an aggressor and a non aggressor. That the non aggressor may choose to defend themselves in a 'war' doesn't mean they are in any way militant.

And you are simply taking words, selectively and out of context no doubt (your Dawkins quote) and potentially twisting them for an agenda. We currently talk about being in a state of war with the coronavirus - does that mean we are somehow all 'militants' in some respect - I don't think so, we are simply using that term to talk about a threat that we are defending ourself against.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

I really think you’re sick. I’m going to ask the mods to sanction you.

(Naturally by “sick” I mean the urban slang sense of “cool”, and by “sanction” I mean the sense of “permit”. I’d hate for you to think that I was attaching these terms in a pejorative way. Wot me? Never!)   

Of course it's conceivable - that's the defence to the charge of poisoning the well. Something being conceivable though doesn't imply its intent.     

How do you propose to establish the intent of the person using the term?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think that the coining the term to apply to modern atheists and their approach to discourse and attaining their objectives is most definitely 'poisoning the well'. It is clearly an attempt to portray individuals and/or their view as extreme and dangerous when there is no indication that they are. Indeed, certainly in the UK most of the 'wants' of those accused of being 'militant' atheists align with mainstream popular opinion - e.g. only teaching science as science, not wanting Bishops having automatic places in the HoLs, opposing state funded faith schools, etc etc - these views are in the mainstream not the extreme. Nor are their proposed methods for attaining their objectives in any way 'militant' as they entirely work via debate, discussion, changing minds by argument and democratic means. Where exactly is the 'militia' to go along with these 'militant' atheists. There isn't one.
You don't have to be 'militant' to be in a state of war do you - often wars involve an aggressor and a non aggressor. That the non aggressor may choose to defend themselves in a 'war' doesn't mean they are in any way militant.

And you are simply taking words, selectively and out of context no doubt (your Dawkins quote) and potentially twisting them for an agenda. We currently talk about being in a state of war with the coronavirus - does that mean we are somehow all 'militants' in some respect - I don't think so, we are simply using that term to talk about a threat that we are defending ourself against.

You suggested I look up 'militant atheism' so I assumed you already had. When I looked up the term at your suggestion, in order to try to see your perspective, the Dawkins Ted Talk came up on the 1st page so I assumed you would be able to find it and read it in context yourself rather than making assumptions about what I had quoted.

If you haven't done that, then to make your life easier here's the link and you can tell me why you think it is out of context or where Dawkins disapproves of the label "militant atheist" or thinks it is poisoning the well

https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_militant_atheism

[ProfessorDavey]

Richard Dawkins has a TED talk entitled Militant Atheism and states "it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war." and "Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism, and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as this one, that would be preaching to the choir. Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism." and " My approach to attacking creationism is -- unlike the evolution lobby -- my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole."

This is the most amazing bit of quote mining I've seen in quite a while - trying to imply that these highly selected quotes taken entirely put of context suggest Dawkins to be aggressively whipping up a militant atheist agenda (whatever that means).

Read the entire talk:

https://ted2srt.org/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism

Dawkins only uses the word 'militant' twice - once for a laugh (which is your selected quote, but you failed to indicate it was meant to be humorous), and secondly as part of an anecdote about a person who lived in the 19thC.

And most of the rest of the talk is about levelling the playing field - in other words creating a society in which being atheist is no more or less acceptable than being christian or republican or a Windows user.

[ProfessorDavey]

You suggested I look up 'militant atheism' so I assumed you already had. When I looked up the term at your suggestion, in order to try to see your perspective, the Dawkins Ted Talk came up on the 1st page so I assumed you would be able to find it and read it in context yourself rather than making assumptions about what I had quoted.

If you haven't done that, then to make your life easier here's the link and you can tell me why you think it is out of context or where Dawkins disapproves of the label "militant atheist" or thinks it is poisoning the well

https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_militant_atheism

Already replied to you - and already linked to it.

Where exactly does Dawkins espouse militant atheism except to get a laugh from his audience, who of course know his opponents regularly accuse him of being a 'militant' atheist and in the context of the anecdote about Darwin and Aveling.

Where does Dawkins describe himself as militant atheist - answer he doesn't.

Somehow I suspect you haven't actually read the text of his talk - but hey how much easier to take a couple of quotes out of context and create an impression that the overall talk doesn't give.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

How do you propose to establish the intent of the person using the term?

I don't need to - the damage is already done. How would you intend to establish my intent when I call you sick and call for you to be sanctioned?