Athiest Evangelising?

King Mob

Glenster wrote: »

All I want is for people to use the right words, otherwise it gets confusing. Drawing artificial distinctions between identical statements gets us nowhere.

You mean artificial distinctions between identical statements like this:

Glenster wrote: »

lack of belief (i.e. not believeing one way or the other) is not the same as actively disbelieveing.

one is activity the other is inactivity.

Instead of telling us what we believe maybe you should actually listen to what people are saying.
You know like what you claimed you wanted to do at the start.

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

Just refer back to the start of the thread, militant athiesm and all that.

I was giving you an opportunity to reframe your question...

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

belief is a noun, so is bite as in "he took a bite" it refers to the verb to bite in the same way belief refers to the verb to believe.

Just like "belief", bite has many slightly different meanings depending on the context used - that's why you had to follow up your explanation with an example of the context you are referring to in this instance.

Glenster wrote: »

Thanks for the grammer lesson, I hope you dont mean that the status of the verb affects the validity of the action.

What has grammatical status got to do with validity? Grammar is not just nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc with one definition used in a single context. Some words have many completely different meanings and others have many similar but different meanings & unless you are aware of all the contexts in which a word can be used and what each mean, you cannot reject usage as categorically incorrect.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

All I want is for people to use the right words, otherwise it gets confusing. Drawing artificial distinctions between identical statements gets us nowhere.

Wow, talk about pot kettle and all that

The whole issue here is that you came on to this forum asking a fundamentally flawed question because you had an initial misunderstanding about the topic and terms you wanted to discuss

When this was pointed out to you instead of go "Oh right, didn't realise this, ok I guess my question is this then ..."

You instead proceeded to tell the rest of us that we we're in fact wrong.

You are simply confirming initial suspicions about you, that you have an agenda here and are trying to paint atheists in a certain light to confirm your own prejudices

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dades

OP, examples of this evangelising atheism if you would.

robindch

Glenster wrote: »

But what is it that athiest groups try to achieve by spreading a message of not-belief?

As doctoremma says, the right for me and my kid to remain free of the societal pressure to conform to a set of beliefs that are generally nonsensical, nasty, antisocial or just plain dumb. And not to be called "closed-minded" because I don't think that a dead jewish guy died and came back to life 2,000 years ago.

Glenster wrote: »

What is the endgame for militant athiests? [...] I'm not trolling, I'm just interested

If you're not trolling -- and I assume you're not -- then you should consider avoiding using terms like "militant atheists". We're just atheists. Militants are people like doctor-murdering-nutters, obscenity-screaming fools, and terrorists who fly planes into buildings.

Some atheists put up posters - is that "militant"? If so, are toothpaste ads "militant" too? All we do is we sit in a pub, have a few beers and a laugh. That's not a militant activity, but a social one -- do come along sometime!

Glenster

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah but people know that antibiotics make your bacteria....go.....down....or something, plenty of non religious people got caught up in the mmr vaccine scare.

Eliminating religion doesn't make everyone rational.

Spend your (filthy) atheist money promting the sciences not paying for bus ads that say there is no God

Glenster

robindch wrote: »

As doctoremma says, the right for me and my kid to remain free of the societal pressure to conform to a set of beliefs that are generally nonsensical, nasty, antisocial or just plain dumb. And not to be called "closed-minded" because I don't think that a dead jewish guy died and came back to life 2,000 years ago.If you're not trolling -- and I assume you're not -- then you should consider avoiding using terms like "militant atheists". We're just atheists. Militants are people like doctor-murdering-nutters, obscenity-screaming fools, and terrorists who fly planes into buildings.

Some atheists put up posters - is that "militant"? If so, are toothpaste ads "militant" too? All we do is we sit in a pub, have a few beers and a laugh. That's not a militant activity, but a social one -- do come along sometime!

We discussed the term militant athiests at the start (around page two) and we couldn't find a more accurate term (everything else had religious overtones; evangelising, missionary, zealous).

If you have a suggestion, please. I understand that the term is not ideal.

Turtwig

Glenster wrote: »

Eliminating religion doesn't make everyone rational.

No but it takes away one of the largest accepted societal norm that encourages irrational behaviour.

Looks at the polls around here :

The majority here are pro vaccinations, pro evolution, anti homoeopathy, anti pseudo climatology, anti all anti science rubbish. The majority of atheists worldwide are the same. Yes there are dissenting atheists, but they are, by and large, in a minority atheist proportion compared with the situation among the general religious populations.

But that's not because of the their "atheism".

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

Wow, talk about pot kettle and all that

The whole issue here is that you came on to this forum asking a fundamentally flawed question because you had an initial misunderstanding about the topic and terms you wanted to discuss

When this was pointed out to you instead of go "Oh right, didn't realise this, ok I guess my question is this then ..."

You instead proceeded to tell the rest of us that we we're in fact wrong.

You are simply confirming initial suspicions about you, that you have an agenda here and are trying to paint atheists in a certain light to confirm your own prejudices

An actual quote of what I said would help, how do I respond to an accusation like that?

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

Spend your (filthy) atheist money....

Not trolling?! :pac:

Dades

Glenster wrote: »

Spend your (filthy) atheist money promting the sciences not paying for bus ads that say there is no God

Watch your tone, or this filthy atheist will eject you.

Seriously, I referred to the Atheist Bus ad campaign here. Either respond to people's replies or stop repeating yourself.

King Mob

Glenster wrote: »

Yeah but people know that antibiotics make your bacteria....go.....down....or something, plenty of non religious people got caught up in the mmr vaccine scare.

You mean that atheists only share one opinion on one question?
Oh wait we've told you this at least twice.

It's almost like your not reading any of the replies.

Glenster wrote: »

Eliminating religion doesn't make everyone rational.

And who's saying anything about eliminating religion?

Most atheists are just working towards not having government policy etc. is not influenced by silly superstitions.

Glenster wrote: »

Spend your (filthy) atheist money promting the sciences not paying for bus ads that say there is no God

But it didn't say "there is no God" it says "there probably is no God".
And why do you get to tell us what to spend our money on?
I have a feeling you'd get pissy with us if we did the same.
Like you already did.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

An actual quote of what I said would help, how do I respond to an accusation like that?

Say sorry?

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

Spend your (filthy) atheist money promting the sciences not paying for bus ads that say there is no God

Oh dear. Filthy atheist money? Lol. And I think you'll find that you've misquoted the bus ads...

Glenster

Malty_T wrote: »

No but it takes away one of the largest accepted societal norm that encourages irrational behaviour.

Football encourages irrational behaviour. True love encourages irrational behaviour. Sometimes irrational behaviour is the best. Purely rational behaviour all the time would be a bit Vulcan.

Not that Vulcans are lame or anything. I'd just rather be a Wookie.

Glenster

doctoremma wrote: »

Oh dear. Filthy atheist money? Lol. And I think you'll find that you've misquoted the bus ads...

Seriously?

Clearly a joke.

Get a sense of humour.

King Mob

Glenster wrote: »

We discussed the term militant athiests at the start (around page two) and we couldn't find a more accurate term (everything else had religious overtones; evangelising, missionary, zealous).

If you have a suggestion, please. I understand that the term is not ideal.

Active?
Vocal?
Famous?
Published Writers?

The militant only draws negative conatations, usually purposefully.

Militant Muslims commit suicide bombings.
Militant Christians shoot doctors.
Militant Atheists write books.

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

Seriously?

Clearly a joke.

Get a sense of humour.

Indeed.

Glenster

doctoremma wrote: »

Oh dear. Filthy atheist money? Lol. And I think you'll find that you've misquoted the bus ads...

But yes the ad said probably there is no god, presumably it was calculated.

Turtwig

Glenster wrote: »

Football encourages irrational behaviour. True love encourages irrational behaviour. Sometimes irrational behaviour is the best. Purely rational behaviour all the time would be a bit Vulcan.

Not that Vulcans are lame or anything. I'd just rather be a Wookie.

Rational behaviour in the sense of the Vulcan is not possible given human biology. Our brain makes decisions based on emotion, it is not possible to make complex decision without such a faculty in our brains. I'll agree that gaelic football encourages indiscipline. True love, what is that? Irrational behaviour is a detriment to society, always was, always will be.
Love how you dodge stuff, btw.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

Football encourages irrational behaviour. True love encourages irrational behaviour. Sometimes irrational behaviour is the best. Purely rational behaviour all the time would be a bit Vulcan.

Not that Vulcans are lame or anything. I'd just rather be a Wookie.

We don't legislate based on the most popular football team & school pupil selection isn't based on love. Ironically, if the schools refused entry to pupils based on either of the reasons you give, they would be breaking the law. The crazy bit is it is perfectly acceptable & legal to discriminate against kids based on faith - mad, irrational, crazy, huh?

You are taking the points people are taking the time and effort to point out to you and trying to establish a connection with something wholly unrelated to their objections.

Glenster

King Mob wrote: »

Active?
Vocal?
Famous?
Published Writers?

The militant only draws negative conatations, usually purposefully.

Militant Muslims commit suicide bombings.
Militant Christians shoot doctors.
Militant Atheists write books.

Quit comparing yourselves to terrorists! we all know you're better than terrorists! Sheesh!

Active would do I suppose but it's very vague, ditto with vocal. For the sake of keeping people happy we lose the essense of what we mean.

Peter Tatchel doesn't have a problem with being called a militant gay

King Mob

Glenster wrote: »

But yes the ad said probably there is no god, presumably it was calculated.

Yea calculated to accurately reflect the opinion of the people who paid for it.
Crafty bastards.

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

But yes the ad said probably there is no god, presumably it was calculated.

Yes, as all things are. A 50/50 position in response to the god/no god is not my position. Maybe it is for some. But I veer towards improbability. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean you can't make an assessment of likelihood.

Mark Hamill

Glenster wrote: »

Quit comparing yourselves to terrorists! we all know you're better than terrorists! Sheesh!

Then why imply we are the same as terrorist by saying we are militant?

Glenster wrote: »

Active would do I suppose but it's very vague, ditto with vocal. For the sake of keeping people happy we lose the essense of what we mean.

Only if you mean that atheists are violent.

Glenster wrote: »

Peter Tatchel doesn't have a problem with being called a militant gay

He probably needed to think more about the implications of the insult then.

Glenster

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

We don't legislate based on the most popular football team & school pupil selection isn't based on love. Ironically, if the schools refused entry to pupils based on either of the reasons you give, they would be breaking the law. The crazy bit is it is perfectly acceptable & legal to discriminate against kids based on faith - mad, irrational, crazy, huh?

You are taking the points people are taking the time and effort to point out to you and trying to establish a connection with something wholly unrelated to their objections.

I hope that sometimes we legislate based on love.

The school baptism thing is about being resident in the area though isn't it?

Religious schools dont blanket ban people without birth certs from attending, I would have heard about that. Unless the media are in cahoots with the bishops......:eek:

Popular schools defer to those people who can trace their residence in the community.

King Mob

Glenster wrote: »

Quit comparing yourselves to terrorists! we all know you're better than terrorists! Sheesh!

That's kinda the point we are making.
The word militant doesn't work in that context.
It's only used by people who wish to disingenuously associate atheism with fundamental religious folk.

Glenster wrote: »

Active would do I suppose but it's very vague, ditto with vocal. For the sake of keeping people happy we lose the essense of what we mean.

So why exactly do you keep using the term "militant" when it was pointed out to you that it wasn't a acurate term?

Glenster wrote: »

Peter Tatchel doesn't have a problem with being called a militant gay

And?
Unless he goes about shooting people it's probably not an accurate representation of his position.

Glenster

Mark Hamill wrote: »

He probably needed to think more about the implications of the insult then.

Theres nothing wrong with being Gay.
Homophobe.