Militant Atheism?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's a KC-135 fuel tanker doing an emergency dump prior to a very very less than satisfactory landing. Might have been out of Chanute.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a 747, and not doing a fuel dump -- which don't happen from nacelles anyway. That's water vapor condensing from the exhaust of the engines.

IIRC the KC-135 dumps wing tanks from tip vents, and fuselage tanks from the boom. It's all kept well away from exhaust.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's a 747, and not doing a fuel dump -- which don't happen from nacelles anyway. That's  water vapor condensing from the exhaust of the engines.

IIRC the KC-135 dumps wing tanks from tip vents, and fuselage tanks from the boom. It's all kept well away from exhaust.

Never watched them do it, Bro was the Air Farce boy. I worked for a living.

[Anomalocaris]

but that’s a militant atheist 747

[LinuxGal]

As of right now, 22 of 50 American states have reached points where, if you're young and trans, things are explicitly in the "You may not live among us (as trans folk)" stage. And the lawmakers who passed these laws are chomping at the bit to expand these policies as far as they can get away with. 

[Sheldon]

Let's set aside God for a while and talk atheism. 

Atheism does set god aside, by definition. 

Debate requires argument, again by definition, I would assert that for a debate to be of any use, it requires reciprocity, and is more useful if all participants are honest, though of course dishonesty in debate could just be seen as poor argument. 

Civility is often subjective of course, as some people are more easily offended by words than others, but other than pure ad hominem, I don't see a problem with vituperation for example, or what others consider discourteous observations about their claims. I think everyone is obliged to respect the fact that anyone can believe whatever they want, or disbelieve whatever they want, this does not mean anyone is obliged to respect the belief itself of course, I find that notion absurd. It just sounds like people are trying to ringfence beliefs from critical scrutiny, because they are emotionally invested in them. If someone expressed a belief that were deeply racist or misogynistic or espoused bigotry and intolerance, then I would not respect such beliefs, at all.  

If anyone holds a belief they don't want subjected to critical scrutiny or even ridicule where they invite it, then I can only suggest they don't seek out public debate forums to discuss those beliefs, unless those forums are only an echo chamber of others who share that view and that belief. Atheists on the whole seem a lot less militant than theists, when we here of violence against religious people, it is almost always by someone from a competing religion. FWIW I would decry violence and terrorism regardless of the beliefs or aims of the perpetrators. 

Since militant is defined as "[url=https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=ae8254747580b79a&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILmLnfarIQbUlxRwcH8E7UAgLc2pA:1720778412995&q=favouring&si=ACC90nytWkp8tIhRuqKAL6XWXX-NorzzuLO1gzzJ1wnJhIV9K5lnCh73gNJskzbmfx1CVGDlrZ2wRbjOjhhmmcQFInYiIImv-UHTxSGkGNkgoTrpjOoXNgE%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPsayQn6GHAxUCaEEAHQvJAWwQyecJegQIFxAO][/url]favouring confrontational or violent methods", and violence is impossible in an internet chat forum, I can only assume you find some atheists confrontational, so I am wondering why you think being confrontational in a debate is necessarily a bad thing?

[arewethereyet]

Administrator Notice
Necropost closed. Please read and follow the rules of the forum.

[arewethereyet]

Closed now

I will also add that links aren't allowed till you have been here 30 days AND made 30 posts.