(September 18, 2023 at 11:41 pm)Foxaèr Wrote: Have you tried not being an asshole?

Yes, actually, and I prefer not to be, but it isn't as conducive to civil discourse as one might think. It's like being pristine and proper to a biker or trucker. You aren't communicating with them. They will set you right in a heartbeat. They don't care how nice you are. Nice is subjective. 

I'm no angel. What you see is me, and I can be polite, but sometimes, when in Rome. And sometimes the situation calls for a more, shall we say, aggressive disposition. Someone here posted a meme of Jesus chasing out the money changers when I gave a scriptural reference to him as prophetically Prince of Peace. I gave them a kudos. It was a good meme. Not many of those. Jesus chasing the moneychangers with a whip and Elijah insulting the followers of Baal weren't examples of diplomacy.

(September 18, 2023 at 5:52 pm)Data Wrote:

(September 18, 2023 at 1:40 pm)FrustratedFool Wrote: Why should I not object if someone of a different ideology does the same?

Because it isn't fair. It's hypocritical. It's usually tyrannical and myopic.

(September 18, 2023 at 1:40 pm)FrustratedFool Wrote: I think I'm right, doesn't mean I think they also are.

They think they're right. Live and let live.

(September 18, 2023 at 1:40 pm)FrustratedFool Wrote: I think it's sensible that people who think harm bad monitor what people do with kids, I don't think it sensible that people who love harm have the same rights.

Actual harm? You may think a parent is doing harm to their children while being so stupid and unfair that you can't see someone might think the same about you. It's like banning people from a forum using the rules to silence the opposition. That's what the law is for. And yes, the law can be fucked with just like the rules, and yes the law and the rules seem more kind to some than others, but ultimately if you want to object you have to allow for others to.

(September 18, 2023 at 1:40 pm)FrustratedFool Wrote: I prefer my ideology over other people's.

Everyone does that, dear.

It would only be hypocritical if I acted against my own professed ideology. It isn't hypocritical to think my opinion is best and others not. That's not hypocrisy. It may be other things, but it's not hypocritical.

I agree it's not fair. I put murderers behind bars and allow non-murderers to walk free. It's not equal.

They think they're right, but they are wrong. I don't believe in live and let live. I don't want to ignore my neighbour molesting his kids. I won't just let him have his opinion and lifestyle.

Actual harm. Yes, that's what we are talking about. I totally understand someone might think the same about me, but I would think they are wrong. A Nazi thinks they're in the right. I don't. That's not stupidity or hypocrisy. That's a difference of opinion. Yes,everyone prefers their own beliefs. So I'm no different. And if I'm a hypocrite so is everyone and it's moot.

In short, then, I reject your claim I'm being hypocritical.

So, again, why should I not object to religion? I think religion is harmful. I don't want it in society. If religionists don't want my ideology in society they're wrong. That's not hypocritical, it's ethnocentric perhaps, but not hypocritical.

(September 18, 2023 at 5:20 pm)Data Wrote:

(September 17, 2023 at 2:43 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Do you consider catholics posting on a catholic forum to be militant catholics?

Militant isn't a derogatory term for me.

That was not an answer to my question.
You consider atheists posting on atheist forums as militant atheists. Do you consider catholics posting on a catholic forum to be militant catholics as well?

(September 18, 2023 at 5:20 pm)Data Wrote:

(September 17, 2023 at 2:43 am)Deesse23 Wrote: A personal insult, but you want people to refrain from personal insults in their responses?

No, I think personal insults are a natural result of frustration in an ideological debate/discussion. What I don't want is so many personal insults there isn't any real substance or it makes it difficult for me to follow a thread and respond to as many people as may be engaging me. I like rolling up my sleeves and getting down and dirty with the unwashed heathen. Clears the sinuses.

Another non answer.
Please read my question (again) before you respond.

(September 18, 2023 at 5:20 pm)Data Wrote:

(September 17, 2023 at 2:43 am)Deesse23 Wrote: If i was a militant atheist, i would call you a bigot.

Oh my goodness! Ouch! You don't pull any punches, little britches. Let's get out the dictionary for clarification. Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

I like that. But it sounds to me like you and I are in the same boat,

We are not

You are a bigot who considers atheists posting on atheist forums to be militant, and who does not consider catholics posting on catholic forums militant.
I gave a hypothetical scenario in which i would call you a bigot if i were militant. Am i militant?

(September 18, 2023 at 5:20 pm)Data Wrote: and that som'bitch has BIGOT written in huge letters on the stern. Can I get an amen! brothers and sisters! A yea us a. That's the best spelling of a parody of a televangelist I could do - look what I have to work with here!

You really ned to upgrade your trolling. Its boring.

(September 18, 2023 at 9:57 pm)Data Wrote:

(September 18, 2023 at 8:22 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Of course he doesn’t. What a stupid question.

Boru

Opinion. Can't prove it.

I don't have to. Can you prove leprechauns don’t exist? What about goblins?

Boru

I oppose religion in the same way I oppose fascism and spitting in the street. I'd prefer they weren't.
Is that militant?

Or is it a question of methodology, rather than attitude, that makes something militant or not?

(September 19, 2023 at 4:14 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: I oppose religion in the same way I oppose fascism and spitting in the street.  I'd prefer they weren't.
Is that militant?  

Or is it a question of methodology, rather than attitude, that makes something militant or not?

I think, definitionally, it would have to be methodology. It needn’t be violent, though, as long as it’s aggressive and confrontational.

Writing/publishing long diatribes about a cause is just as militant as throwing rocks through windows. As regards atheism, I don’t think anyone could sensibly deny that Christopher Hitchens was militant.

Boru

Ah, if it doesn't include violence then sure, Hitchems and many others would be militant. Perhaps I would be too.

(September 19, 2023 at 6:39 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Ah, if it doesn't include violence then sure, Hitchems and many others would be militant.  Perhaps I would be too.

And I think militancy can’t be qualified by attitude alone. If you’re not actively doing something about the cause you’re for/against, I don’t see how that can be militant. 

Boru

Actively doing something is very broad, but sure.

“militant” as meant by theists in complaints against atheists simply means confrontational.

militant theists have no concern for atheist souls whatever their sanctimonious protestations. so they don’t care if your soul is not theirs so long as you don’t stand in their way as they try to aggrandize their temporal influence and powers using their theistic bullshit as weapon and as lure.

what vex militant theists is when atheists publically confront their theistic bullshit so that it impedes their quest for more temporal influence and power.