It is never Ok, OP/ED

[Brian37]

I think it's one of those terms which is having its meaning twisted, as is so common with language. Personally I would have understood militant to mean very strong feelings and a proactive approach. I wouldn't automatically equate this with violence. I hope the term does not get hijacked, but if that's where society takes it then that's how it goes.

You may not see it, but I do. And I have had that word aimed at me by PC atheists on top of mostly theists.

[jesus_wept]

dictionary.com's first hit for militant is

A bit off topic but what's the deal with dictionary.com? Fundies quote it at me like its the be all and end all of dictionaries but many of its definitions are subtly different from other dictionaries and tend to be biased towards theists, and once they've quoted it they won't accept any other definition, is dictionary.com made by theists for theists or something? I'd never heard of it until a theist started quoting it to me like it was the written word of god.

[robvalue]

Words are really defined by their use, the dictionary is more like a "recommended serving suggestion" :p

[Brian37]

dictionary.com's first hit for militant is

A bit off topic but what's the deal with dictionary.com? Fundies quote it at me like its the be all and end all of dictionaries but many of its definitions are subtly different from other dictionaries and tend to be biased towards theists, and once they've quoted it they won't accept any other definition, is dictionary.com made by theists for theists or something? I'd never heard of it until a theist started quoting it to me like it was the written word of god.

It isn't that words don't have meaning or power, they certainly do. But humans sometimes put far too much magic into the power of words. It is why theists get bent out of shape when you pick on their claims. I've had Jews demand on websites they do not own that I don't spell out Yahweh as if their privates would magically burst into flames upon reading it.

I think the only power of words that matter to me, are those that promote the value of questioning and inquiry and are evidence based. Anything outside that while still valued as a human right, should never be given blanket taboos.

[jesus_wept]

I'm not hung up on words, as long as people get the gist of what I mean I'm fine, but you know what some of these apologists can be like for playing word games. I just wondered why they always like to use dictionary.com, it's like it's been specially made for them at times. Perhaps the confusion is caused because I use British dictionaries and dic.com is in American English, so there is a difference in meaning between some words, either way it's a crap dictionary..

[wiploc]

dictionary.com's first hit for militant is

A bit off topic but what's the deal with dictionary.com?

It's really handy, being right there on the internet.

It has the easiest name to remember.

Fundies quote it at me like its the be all and end all of dictionaries but many of its definitions are subtly different from other dictionaries and tend to be biased towards theists,

Biased how? I'd like some examples.

and once they've quoted it they won't accept any other definition, is dictionary.com made by theists for theists or something? I'd never heard of it until a theist started quoting it to me like it was the written word of god.

I'm an atheist, and I'm not aware of the bias. It has often been useful to me as I argued against theists.

either way it's a crap dictionary..

How do you figure?

On two occasions it's come thru for me when nothing else (including the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary) did.

Once, I was studying "The South," by Emma Lazarus. I could not make sense of the word "creole" in that context, until dictionary.com---and only dictionary.com---offered a meaning I was unfamiliar with: A creole is something transplanted, and that grows differently in the new location.

The other time was Shakespeare's Sonnet 29. I hadda look up "lark," and the various dictionaries, including the OED were not helpful. Here's Merriam Webster: "any of a family (Alaudidae) of chiefly Old World ground-dwelling songbirds that are usually brownish in color; especially : skylark — compare meadowlark." That sheds no illumination; it doesn't unlock the metaphor.

But dictionary.com, ah. After checking dictionary.com, I was able to write:

Dictionary.com tells us that "The European skylark, or lark of the poets (Alauda arvensis), is of a brown mottled color, and is noted for its clear and sweet song, uttered as it rises and descends almost perpendicularly in the air." In this tiny gem of an image, Shakespeare manages to convey the shift from earth to heaven; from the dark and drab ("sullen") colors of the lark's ground-nest shrouded still in night, to the bright colors of the already lighted sky; from the silence of the bird nesting, to the joyous song of bird in flight—and all in the time it takes the bird to burst vertically from the ground into the air. We even, by harking back to line three, get to go from crying to hymn singing, and from the hopeless ("bootless") position of one confronted with a distant and unresponsive heaven, to that of one who has approached heaven and finds that it has a gate (is enterable). How does this affect my reading of the poem? When the lark bursts from cover and our eyes follow it upwards from darkness to light, we find that how the world looks depends on how you look at it. Shakespeare may be suggesting that, regardless of our fortune, our fate, our regard in the eyes of men or heaven, we can make our own happiness in the blink of an eye by changing our approach to life.

So I'm curious as to what your complaint about dictionary.com is. For me it is the dictionary of first resort, and sometimes uniquely helpful.

---

I've had Jews demand on websites they do not own that I don't spell out Yahweh as if their privates would magically burst into flames upon reading it.

Is that what it was? The time I ran across this, the Jew couldn't even use the word himself, so we couldn't figure out which word we were forbidden to use.

[jesus_wept]

I've no wish to get into word games but, if we compare a definition of atheism from dictionary.com with oxford we can see why theists like to use it as their go to dictionary to cherry pick meanings.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...sh/atheism

Like I said, its almost as if dictionary.com has been made to help theists bullshit everyone. And its a crap dictionary for this reason.

Edit. This was an easy example because I've had so many theists try to dishonestly pretend this narrow definition is the only definition, because dictionary.com says so, so many times in the past.

[robvalue]

Yeah, that first definition is terrible. The second one is either misleading or redundant depending on how you interpret it. If disbelief means "a belief that there is no..." then it's wrong, and if it means a lack of belief, it is redundant.

Sure, if theists think that is a victory they are idiots. A dictionary doesn't tell me my beliefs, or lack thereof. If you're halfway honest, you want to know what my beliefs actually are or are not, and agree on the meanings of words.

[wiploc]

the doctrine or belief that there is no God. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...sh/atheism

You gave the first definition from dictionary.com, and it's certainly a good definition; that's a common usage.

Dictionary.com follows up that first definition with a second definition quite similar to the one from the OeD: "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

So any theist arguing that dictionary.com provides the single definition of "atheism" should be made to face the fact that dictionary.com itself offers the alternative definition that you and I prefer.

[robvalue]

How weasely can you get (no disrespect to weasels)? Trying to win an argument with a dictionary sideswipe. Telling you what you really believe.

A Webster's Strawman. Such utter desperation. Where is there God, that they need to go sniffing around to try and twist the meanings of every word to try and feel like they "win". Man!