QuoteReplyTopic: Confronting Militant Atheism Posted: 29-Jan-2008 at 11:27
Heisenberg would suffice to question the level of certainty of any theory.
No, it wouldn't. Not all theories attempt to locate accurately an object in space and time.
That doesn't make electromagnetism questionable unless you really want it to describe the world with infinite accuracy.
But my objection is not one against accuracy, but one which claims there is no proof. Electromagneism is not proven, and no other scientific theory using empirical induction to reach a conclusion. Saying that 1^1-1+41=41 is prime, 2^2-2+41=43 is prime, etc. doesn't make x^2-x+41 prime (we'll find an exception for x=41, anyway). Such conjectures can have zillions of promising occurences before finding the exception which ruins the entire hypothesis. The insufficiencies of induction were long ago acknowledged so that Popper changed the focus of science from finding truths to avoiding falsehoods (the falsificationism as a method to keep away from obvious falsehoods).
However, irrefutable proofs are sufficiently accurate. You only need Newton's mechanics to safely travel in space.
No one can prove that if next day (tomorrow, the next day will be the day after tomorrow and so on) I'll fly in space I'll travel safely.
His theoremes are irrefutably proven so are his principles so unless you need a larger perspective than Newton's envelope there's noo need for Einstein.
Actually they are not, because he assumes mass to be a constant (from his experience) and now we know it is not. Please note I'm not disputing the accuracy (e.g. today we know that for small speeds the variation in mass is small enough to be discarded), but the proof, the validity of the premises and of the inferences.
So a PHC needs a different approach than a scientific theory. You speak of arguments. Are these similar with irrefutable/unquestionable proofs?
I have no idea what are you talking about. What is PHC?
Yet you drawn a parallel between them. To paraphrase you: "The parallels you draw between Richard Dawkins and Stalin only show how dangerous the former is".
But I haven't drawn any parallel between Dawkins and Stalin (I'd rather draw parallels between Darkins and Marx or Feuerbach or other 19th century ideologues which were mentioned in this discussion). Dawkins is an ideologue, we can metaphorically call him a "prophet", while Stalin was a tyrant, a dictator.
That's not the point. You stated that prevention is better. Since history shows what tragedies happened in the name of religion the obvious conclusion is that in order to prevent such things from happening again religion should be history. So should be atheism. What's left?
But that's exactly the point. You equivocate religion with fanatism and atheism with militant atheism. You can't show for whatever historical episode you choose (Inquisition, Crusades) that an atheistic mindset of those involved would have avoided that tragedy or wouldn't have caused an even greater tragedy. On the other hand the fanatism and the indoctrination (no matter if in a theistic or atheistic mindset) provoke tragedies or increase the dimension of the existing ones.
That doesn't make electromagnetism questionable unless you really want it to describe the world with infinite accuracy.
But my objection is not one against accuracy, but one which claims there is no proof. Electromagneism is not proven, and no other scientific theory using empirical induction to reach a conclusion. Saying that 1^1-1+41=41 is prime, 2^2-2+41=43 is prime, etc. doesn't make x^2-x+41 prime (we'll find an exception for x=41, anyway). Such conjectures can have zillions of promising occurences before finding the exception which ruins the entire hypothesis. The insufficiencies of induction were long ago acknowledged so that Popper changed the focus of science from finding truths to avoiding falsehoods (the falsificationism as a method to keep away from obvious falsehoods).
Oh, right, there's no such thing as electromagnetic force/field, mainly because noone waited enough time for an exception to occur. Einstein was in a hurry so he based his theory (special relativity) on assumptions. He should have first demolished electromagnetism. I don't know where you're getting at. Are you trying to imply that there cannot be an absolute proof of anything? I'm OK with that.
However, irrefutable proofs are sufficiently accurate. You only need Newton's mechanics to safely travel in space.
No one can prove that if next day (tomorrow, the next day will be the day after tomorrow and so on) I'll fly in space I'll travel safely.
That has nothing to do with my statement. I only stated that Newton is enough for space travel in order to calculate fuel, trajectory, etc. If you want to step into the realm of probability, that's something different.
His theoremes are irrefutably proven so are his principles so unless you need a larger perspective than Newton's envelope there's noo need for Einstein.
Actually they are not, because he assumes mass to be a constant (from his experience) and now we know it is not. Please note I'm not disputing the accuracy (e.g. today we know that for small speeds the variation in mass is small enough to be discarded), but the proof, the validity of the premises and of the inferences.
So now we do know something for sure? Anyway, do you think I should use relativity or quantum physics to estimate the trajectory of a stone I throw? The validity of the premises and the inferences - Newton's mechanics are a simplified version of a larger theory, if you like. For the apropriate necessities the theory works. And it's irrefutably proven. Do provide a valid doubt about universal attraction.
So a PHC needs a different approach than a scientific theory. You speak of arguments. Are these similar with irrefutable/unquestionable proofs?
I have no idea what are you talking about. What is PHC?
PHC=Phylosophical concept
Yet you drawn a parallel between them. To paraphrase you: "The parallels you draw between Richard Dawkins and Stalin only show how dangerous the former is".
But I haven't drawn any parallel between Dawkins and Stalin (I'd rather draw parallels between Darkins and Marx or Feuerbach or other 19th century ideologues which were mentioned in this discussion). Dawkins is an ideologue, we can metaphorically call him a "prophet", while Stalin was a tyrant, a dictator.
I asked if you think militant atheism is harmful. You replied with: "Did Marx saw the Stalinism coming". I think this is a parallel between militant atheism and stalinism therefore you must think Dawkins to be as bad as Stalin.
On the other hand, you might suggest that militant atheism would lead to something equivalent with stalinism. Why? Because Marx's communism lead to stalinism! I wonder where being just atheist must lead? Socialism?
That's not the point. You stated that prevention is better. Since history shows what tragedies happened in the name of religion the obvious conclusion is that in order to prevent such things from happening again religion should be history. So should be atheism. What's left?
But that's exactly the point. You equivocate religion with fanatism and atheism with militant atheism.
No Chilbudios, I'm only using your own statements. You definitely said that prevention is better. Inquisition was a religious product at least as much as stalinism was an atheist one. So for the sake of prevention both religion and atheism should be history.
You can't show for whatever historical episode you choose (Inquisition, Crusades) that an atheistic mindset of those involved would have avoided that tragedy or wouldn't have caused an even greater tragedy.On the other hand the fanatism and the indoctrination (no matter if in a theistic or atheistic mindset) provoke tragedies or increase the dimension of the existing ones.
I'm not even trying to say that if atheism/no-religion would have been, tragedies would have been avoided. I'm only pointing of what we know (relatively speaking, not absolutely ... see upstairs our talk about irrefutable proof) from history. And that is that both religion and atheism have been (ab)used and sometimes caused terrible events. I'm not OK with statements that depicts religion(s) as being absolutely bad yet I don't think of it/them as being reasonable enough. I think that organized religion is dangerous. If you like I can elaborate on this.
You used the term Stalinism. So why not call militant atheism according to this, for example Dawkinism?
Oh, right, there's no such thing as electromagnetic force/field, mainly because noone waited enough time for an exception to occur. Einstein was in a hurry so he based his theory (special relativity) on assumptions. He should have first demolished electromagnetism. I don't know where you're getting at. Are you trying to imply that there cannot be an absolute proof of anything? I'm OK with that.
You can mock it, but scientific method and the philosophy of science have this at its core. I'm implying there's no proof (as in mathematical or logical proof, as in deductions and complete inductions, as in 2+2=4), I'm implying scientific method does not prove (nor intends to prove) truths, only falsehoods.
That has nothing to do with my statement. I only stated that Newton is enough for space travel in order to calculate fuel, trajectory, etc. If you want to step into the realm of probability, that's something different.
It's no probability there, just unproven assertions, we choose to trust based on past experience (like we usually trust our daily experience, though sometimes it fails us).
So now we do know something for sure? Anyway, do you think I should use relativity or quantum physics to estimate the trajectory of a stone I throw? The validity of the premises and the inferences - Newton's mechanics are a simplified version of a larger theory, if you like. For the apropriate necessities the theory works. And it's irrefutably proven. Do provide a valid doubt about universal attraction.
I never said we do not know anything for sure (as long as we believe, it's for sure), I'm saying we don't have proofs. If you prefer to deceive yourself that your beliefs are actually proven ("irrefutably") while the beliefs of those "primitive theists" are not, you're deadly wrong.
Newton's premise that mass is constant was falsified, thus in the current theoretical approach (paradigm - Kuhn, programme - Lakatos), Newton's theory is refuted and replaced by another theory, more performant. That's the definition of scientific progress.
My earlier objection applies to all empirical claims (including the univeral attraction). As long as this is not solved, asking me for more doubts is a sign of monologue and disrespect.
PHC=Phylosophical concept
Being a concept, it does not necessarily address an empirical claim, so it's not subject to my current criticism. Thus all those questions miss the point.
I asked if you think militant atheism is harmful. You replied with: "Did Marx saw the Stalinism coming". I think this is a parallel between militant atheism and stalinism therefore you must think Dawkins to be as bad as Stalin.
This logic is flawed, I already pointed out that the parallelism was between Dawkins and Marx, we don't have yet a Stalin of Dawkinsism and my preventive attitude is to avoid such a thing to happen.
On the other hand, you might suggest that militant atheism would lead to something equivalent with stalinism. Why? Because Marx's communism lead to stalinism! I wonder where being just atheist must lead? Socialism?
The same fallacy as above.
No Chilbudios, I'm only using your own statements.
You are not using my own statements because I neither say that nor such a conclusion follows from them. You build a straw man over my statements, but that's something else.
Inquisition was a religious product at least as much as stalinism was an atheist one. So for the sake of prevention both religion and atheism should be history.
I have never claimed that Inquisition follows with necessity from religion (theism), nor that Stalinism follows with necessity from atheism. What I have said is that Stalinism (actually the Stalinist anti-religious persection, discussed earlier in the thread) followed from militant atheism and if you want a parallel, the Inquisition follows from religious extremism, from an impulse to control what people believe.
I'm only pointing of what we know (relatively speaking, not absolutely ... see upstairs our talk about irrefutable proof) from history. And that is that both religion and atheism have been (ab)used and sometimes caused terrible events. I'm not OK with statements that depicts religion(s) as being absolutely bad yet I don't think of it/them as being reasonable enough. I think that organized religion is dangerous.
Let me continue this paragraph: "and organized 'anti-religion' is dangerous".
You used the term Stalinism. So why not call militant atheism according to this, for example Dawkinism?
You can call it like that, but the analogy is flawed, like I already shown.
My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] thats going to make him blind. And [I ask them], Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent childs eyeball? Because that doesnt seem to me to coincide with a God whos full of mercy.
I'm implying there's no proof (as in mathematical or logical proof, as in deductions and complete inductions, as in 2+2=4), I'm implying scientific method does not prove (nor intends to prove) truths, only falsehoods.
I consider myself pretty much a Popper follower, and therefore I agree with most of what you've been saying, but even Popper had to accept eventually that hypothesies cannot be conclusively falsified either (unless they are universal hypotheses).
Thus, how do you falsify the assertion that there is an equal chance of the next spin of a roulette wheel being black or red?
I think it is more accurate and satisfactory to say that Popper was advocating (at least ended up advocating) an attitude of mind in which the scientist attempts to falsify rather than attempting to prove.
I consider myself pretty much a Popper follower, and therefore I agree with most of what you've been saying, but even Popper had to accept eventually that hypothesies cannot be conclusively falsified either (unless they are universal hypotheses).
Thus, how do you falsify the assertion that there is an equal chance of the next spin of a roulette wheel being black or red?
I think it is more accurate and satisfactory to say that Popper was advocating (at least ended up advocating) an attitude of mind in which the scientist attempts to falsify rather than attempting to prove.
I agree. We could open a new discussion on what kind of hypotheses are falsifiable, but my objection was against non-mathematical induction as a way to infer truths (and this is exactly where Popper's method aims at).
My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] thats going to make him blind. And [I ask them], Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent childs eyeball? Because that doesnt seem to me to coincide with a God whos full of mercy.
David Attenborough
Well put. I would ask any creationist to respond to this charge. Doubtless, there is a response, but it seems to be a bit feeble and inconsistent with the idea of an all-powerful deity concerned primarily with human affairs and supremely benevolent.
Also, the claim that science proves or disproves anything is I believe invalid. Science shows things to be unlikely or true beyond reasonable doubt (so very likely). Nothing, if it gets down to it, can be proven "absolutely". There can only be the computation of probabilities and decisions based on those computations.
My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] thats going to make him blind. And [I ask them], Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent childs eyeball? Because that doesnt seem to me to coincide with a God whos full of mercy.
David Attenborough
When the creation was finished it was perfect, at least that's what we believe. But when Eve obeyed Satan, instead of God, she gave the Earth, and it's controll, to Satan because God had originally given it to us, mankind, but we only kept it through obedience, and when we failed, we gave it to the person that we had served, being Satan. May seem unfair, but that's how it worked. The system that God has set up is sowing what you reap, sometimes people dont get what they deserve, but could we really know what they deserve on that point? Sin affects everyone. If i'm invited to a friends house for a great party or something, and i dont do something that my parents tell me to do and tell them to get over it, ect... (basically, sin, disobedience) and i get grounded, my choice has now affected my friends because now they're bummed because i cant go to this party. In Africa, diplomacy is often "Tomorrow will be here soon enough, let us do it then" - I'm very agitated by the evangelical christians who are trying to spout "American can feed the world! Why aren't we!!??" - Well it doesn't matter if we were to feed them, if they dont fix they're own countries for their people they'll still be hungry! It's cause and effect, and although this child may not have done anything, he is effected by the choices of those above him.
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
I've been too busy these days, didn't had access to a PC. I'm sorry.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
I'm implying there's no proof (as in mathematical or logical proof, as in deductions and complete inductions, as in 2+2=4), I'm implying scientific method does not prove (nor intends to prove) truths, only falsehoods.
How can one prove a falsehood? Maybe you want to say that scientific method identifies seeks for false/flawed statements, inferences, conclusions or whatever in order to evaluate the consistency/accuracy and the oposable realm (my term, don't know exactly what the appropriate English designation must be) of a theory. Newton is consistent and accurate as long as you stay confined into it's realm.
I never said we do not know anything for sure (as long as we believe, it's for sure), I'm saying we don't have proofs. If you prefer to deceive yourself that your beliefs are actually proven ("irrefutably") while the beliefs of those "primitive theists" are not, you're deadly wrong.
I don't consider theists as primitive. I'm using the word "immature" because I have found none better. My set of values places people on top of everything. Though I cannot think/praise everyone the same, off course. I doubt I'm the best and I've encountered faithul that I like a lot. I don't like their belief so you might say that I don't like them regarding this aspect. Anyway I don't expect "my beliefs" to be proven. This piece of discussion started from the fact that I used the words "irrefutable proof" in relation with the existence God. Some believers state that "faith"/"belief" is a proof of God. I say that's not "irrefutable proof" and a better one is necessary.
Newton's premise that mass is constant was falsified, thus in the current theoretical approach (paradigm - Kuhn, programme - Lakatos), Newton's theory is refuted and replaced by another theory, more performant. That's the definition of scientific progress.My earlier objection applies to all empirical claims (including the univeral attraction). As long as this is not solved, asking me for more doubts is a sign of monologue and disrespect.
Yet everything post Newton is consistent with Newton's theory. Variation of mass only showed that Newton didn't covered all aspects. Newton's premise was not falsified it was reshaped to cover new empirical observations. Anywy, I got your point and I guess I understand now what you mean by falsifying a theory. Can we move on?
PHC=Phylosophical concept
Being a concept, it does not necessarily address an empirical claim, so it's not subject to my current criticism. Thus all those questions miss the point.
But you did criticized militant atheism as if it were a scientific theory! Or, at least that's how I got your reply. That's why I asked you to clarify me.
I asked if you think militant atheism is harmful. You replied with: "Did Marx saw the Stalinism coming". I think this is a parallel between militant atheism and stalinism therefore you must think Dawkins to be as bad as Stalin.
This logic is flawed, I already pointed out that the parallelism was between Dawkins and Marx, we don't have yet a Stalin of Dawkinsism and my preventive attitude is to avoid such a thing to happen.
Well, militant atheism derives from atheism so cutting down the root of evil.... It's as easy as that. Simple and efficient. No atheism=no militant atheism. Now, if that's too radical a scale is needed to estimate the point where atheism turns into militant atheism and maybe where the latter get's nasty. Who's gone provide such an instrument?
Inquisition was a religious product at least as much as stalinism was an atheist one. So for the sake of prevention both religion and atheism should be history.
I have never claimed that Inquisition follows with necessity from religion (theism), nor that Stalinism follows with necessity from atheism. What I have said is that Stalinism (actually the Stalinist anti-religious persection, discussed earlier in the thread) followed from militant atheism and if you want a parallel, the Inquisition follows from religious extremism, from an impulse to control what people believe.
I'm only pointing of what we know (relatively speaking, not absolutely ... see upstairs our talk about irrefutable proof) from history. And that is that both religion and atheism have been (ab)used and sometimes caused terrible events. I'm not OK with statements that depicts religion(s) as being absolutely bad yet I don't think of it/them as being reasonable enough. I think that organized religion is dangerous.
Let me continue this paragraph: "and organized 'anti-religion' is dangerous".
I can be OK with that since I do consider that anti religion is rather a stance or attitude than a purpose. Making it a defined objective is really cutting choices and I'm definitely against such a thing.
I've been too busy these days, didn't had access to a PC. I'm sorry.
No problem. I'm still here.
Originally posted by Cezar
How can one prove a falsehood? Maybe you want to say that scientific method identifies seeks for false/flawed statements, inferences, conclusions or whatever in order to evaluate the consistency/accuracy and the oposable realm (my term, don't know exactly what the appropriate English designation must be) of a theory. Newton is consistent and accurate as long as you stay confined into it's realm.
When I say "falsehood" I'm saying a sentence of the type ~P where P is something we currently claim it's true and "~" is a logical "not". And let's say we know also that P -> ~Q (an event which we know it couldn't happen if P is true). By modus tollens if we have Q then also we must have ~P. In other words once that event occurred, the claim we initially held true it was proven to be false. This is the logical essence of Popperian falsfiability.
In this way Newton's mechanical theory was proven false (we have noticed on big objects, it's also false on small objects but simply escapes our perception or it doesn't bother us in some calculations which can be off by some small percentual value - however that doesn't make it accurate).
This piece of discussion started from the fact that I used the words "irrefutable proof" in relation with the existence God. Some believers state that "faith"/"belief" is a proof of God. I say that's not "irrefutable proof" and a better one is necessary.
But this is a double standard. I have showed some time ago (and you have replied with Goedel's Ontological argument, basically agreeing and supporting my point) that a theist belief can be justifiable enough to be considered knowledge. Like I've said you can't ask for a better proof as long as everything you hold true does not have any kind of better proofs.
Yet everything post Newton is consistent with Newton's theory. Variation of mass only showed that Newton didn't covered all aspects. Newton's premise was not falsified it was reshaped to cover new empirical observations. Anywy, I got your point and I guess I understand now what you mean by falsifying a theory. Can we move on?
We can - stop replying to everything you consider a case closed. However, you're wrong. Newton's law of motion says F = m*a. It is false. A part of Netwon's theoretical frameork (and implicitely his premise that mass is a constant of the object - as long as it doesn't gain/lose substance) was falsified because the observed trajectory of Mercury wasn't the one which was expected to be. What could be saved formed the new relativistic mechanics.
For didactical purposes, for engineering calculations, Newton's theory seems to work. For physics claiming to be science and give us knowledge of the universe it doesn't.
But you did criticized militant atheism as if it were a scientific theory! Or, at least that's how I got your reply. That's why I asked you to clarify me.
I didn't. There were two different threads of discussion - one was initiated when you asked for irrefutable proofs from theists (and here all the paranthesis on science and what's really proven developed), the other was the old discussion on militant atheism. My criticism on militant atheism were that it is a doctrine like any other.
Well, militant atheism derives from atheism so cutting down the root of evil.... It's as easy as that. Simple and efficient. No atheism=no militant atheism. Now, if that's too radical a scale is needed to estimate the point where atheism turns into militant atheism and maybe where the latter get's nasty. Who's gone provide such an instrument?
The only way to eradicate evil is to eradicate consciousness, but this was not my point, nor my crusade.
Well, militant atheism derives from atheism so cutting down the root of evil.... It's as easy as that. Simple and efficient. No atheism=no militant atheism. Now, if that's too radical a scale is needed to estimate the point where atheism turns into militant atheism and maybe where the latter get's nasty. Who's gone provide such an instrument?
The only way to eradicate evil is to eradicate consciousness, but this was not my point, nor my crusade.
Wel, discussions have their value but in the end actions are what matter. One cannot spend all the time analyzing, eventually a course of action is necessary. If I go in a restaurant and keep on discussing the recipes I'll starve. I have to make a choice though in the end I could get an indigestion.
Militant a&theism are both looking nasty for you. Atheism and religion are exclusive. Yet if an -ism exludes another -ism does that mean that the coresponding -ists are excusive? And act accordingly?
I consider my stance as agnosticism because the central point of my attitude is not believing. On the other hand I need consistency to exist, or at least I don't know of another way. Not that I'm always consistent but that's another thing. So I've built (not created) a set of rules - "my belief/doctrine" - and act according to them. Call it cezarism if you like. Now, since I act based upon an -ism that makes me militant or not?
One other thing. My job is to ensure that rules/laws are respected. Some of these rules are not quite OK. Yet I'm shoving them down the throat of those I'm inspecting. You and I quarelled upon "irefutable proof" here and could go on indefinitely unless the mods decide they had enough and ban one or both of us. A person I'm inspecting has not much of a choice when I'm giving him a ~1000E fine. He can pay or contest it. But I based my action on the law, though the law is not fair, and according to it my proof of his guilt is irrefutable. That person is certainly out of options/choices. I'm not into politics yet I'm doing what politicians decided. So I act according to some kind of -ism. Now that makes me militant again.
Debating upon what, why or who is good but in the end a decision and a course of action must be taken. That makes any person more or less militant. Not every religious person is a missionary but they obey both to identic rules. Not the whole set they act but some of them. So is the case of a miltant atheist and a communist. The former might be a liberal yet he shares the same rule(s) with the red regarding divinity.
Instead of focusing on the -isms we should focus on the -ists. After all it's the people who are doing it.
Why going up to fanatism? It's not that all militants are fanatics. If some supporters of a footbal team get fanatic what is the fanatism that is needed to be fought?
Cezar, please move to AE tavern and talk there about fanatic soccer supporters. Or maybe you want to talk about fanclubs or even cooling fans! I'm no longer in mood to counter every mockery which is served as reply.
Cezar, please move to AE tavern and talk there about fanatic soccer supporters. Or maybe you want to talk about fanclubs or even cooling fans! I'm no longer in mood to counter every mockery which is served as reply.
You stated that in order to fight fanatics fanatism should be fought too. While I was pointing that no matter how a person does try to be non militant it is impossible to respect everyone and everything when acting. Therefore in some stances anyone is acting for an -ism. The "mockery" was intended to highlight the fact that fanatism might not be connected to a doctrine (it ends in -ism though). If you make sweeping statements or generalizations without elaborating a bit I can't comprehend your idea or I might not get your point. Don't be so touchy! Use a cooling fan!
The discussion being about confronting militant atheism I wonder if there can be militant atheism without militant atheists. And what is actually the militant atheism. Could there be militant atheisms? In this is it necessary to establish a system to determine the militant atheism that causes trouble or just fight the corespondent militant atheists? And how would you see the confrontation?
Cezar, many words are actually polysemantic, that is their meaning can change in context. If I'm using the word fanatic (or fanaticism or any derivate) when discussing about doctrines, I'm obviously not refering to fanatic supporters on a stadium. If I'm using the word militant in the same discussion, I'm obviously not refering to minorities militating for rights. Repeatedly you have chosen the wrong meanings in order to belittle some (perhaps incovenient) arguments, to raise straw men, in other words, to troll. That's why I consider your replies mocking and your attempts to tell me they are not only aggravate the insult.
The discussion being about militant atheism and my position being that this militant atheism is actually a doctrine I expect you to be able to talk about one of the two.
Most of your questions have been answered already. In case you have doubts try to replace in your last paragraph "militant atheism" with "Nazism" and say it on a public radio channel in a Western European country (eventually one where Holocaust Denial is a crime). Good luck!
Cezar, many words are actually polysemantic, that is their meaning can change in context. If I'm using the word fanatic (or fanaticism or any derivate) when discussing about doctrines, I'm obviously not refering to fanatic supporters on a stadium. If I'm using the word militant in the same discussion, I'm obviously not refering to minorities militating for rights.
The words being polysemantic so are the statements. I never said that you were refering to suporters or minorities. Since we seem not to share similar opinions regarding militant atheism I was only attempting to show that the kind of generalization you use is not clearly defined and can be quite misunderstood. You did provided links to a lot of sites but you're not Google obviously so I wanted to know what your opinion is, meaning your own words. Plus, what was on those sites is not absolute and is interpretable.
Repeatedly you have chosen the wrong meanings in order to belittle some (perhaps incovenient) arguments, to raise straw men, in other words, to troll. That's why I consider your replies mocking and your attempts to tell me they are not only aggravate the insult.
I don't have a guide to properly choose the significance of your statements. I'm not telepathic either. This is a discussion forum so maybe some of my questions are not exactly serious and perhaps I'm bad at making jokes yet I don't see any of my posts as being an insult. I too may think of some of your posts as being offensive but I let the mods decide since these are the rules.
The discussion being about militant atheism and my position being that this militant atheism is actually a doctrine I expect you to be able to talk about one of the two.
Most of your questions have been answered already. In case you have doubts try to replace in your last paragraph "militant atheism" with "Nazism" and say it on a public radio channel in a Western European country (eventually one where Holocaust Denial is a crime). Good luck!
Chilbudios, no matter how hard I try to view it different, your last phrases only mean that you consider militant atheism and nazism to be equally bad. Therefore militant atheists should be treated like nazists.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Confronting Militant Atheism
!
