The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:You have an answer to everything! What a surprize!

Whatever, terrorist.

What if the children are evil like in that movie Village of the Damned??

mil·i·tant    [mil-i-tuhnt]
adjective
1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.

On dictionary.com, this is the first definition for militant. Now I do not consider Christianity a cause, nor atheism for that matter, but both of them can be "vigorously active and aggressive". Christians are encouraged to "spread the Word" but not by force. Apparently atheists feel the need to spread their word as well.


ter·ror·ism    [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Today, the underlined portion of the above definition, is the most common understanding of the word terrorism and the intent of a terrorist. This clearly does not describe a Christian.

Good Grief! What does any of this have to do with the original post?

Should you be so militant in your adherence to dictionary definitions? It's not like it's the Bible.

qmark wrote:Good Grief! What does any of this have to do with the original post?

Greeney rarely likes to discuss things pertaining to the OP.

I don't really think the average Christians are terrorists, by the way, but by some definitions of "terrorism" it can be made to fit. I also don't think atheists or Christians should be referred to as "militant" just because they are passionate about their beliefs.

I will continue to call Christians militant as long as they continue to call me militant, however. The term "militant atheist" has become a thing used to describe the unbeliever who doesn't shut his mouth, so out of fairness the term "militant Christian" will be used to describe Christians who express their beliefs with some passion also.

"vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers."

Aggressive? Certainly doesn't match anyone on this board. I don't think any threats have been made by either side. I don't think passionate support for your own side is "aggression".

Vigorously active? Again, doesn't seem to match anyone on this board. Making a few posts a day about atheism or Christianity is not "vigorously active", and most believers are usually happy to leave you alone once its clear you don't share their beliefs (in the real world, anyway, bit different on a discussion forum).

I would say "militant" is not an appropriate term to describe a single person I know of who post here, according to the definition you gave, but I doubt greeney will see fit to stop using it, as I say, he sees militants as "atheists who don't keep their damn mouths shut"

I did not make up the term Militant atheist, as you very well know. It is a term worn proudly by many of your fellow atheists, and many notable and other celebrity Atheists have identified themselves as such. Kathy Griffen is one of them. I think Q mark gives a proper definition to both Militant and to Terroism, which I have contended all along, you do not have to be violent to be militant. Although Atheist is not a cause, the united front against Christianity is, and carried out in the spirit of the definition of Militant.

There is not a thread in any forum, that does not morph or evolve off the title, threads take on different directions, I am not the only one who makes this happen, we all do. That may range from a different perspective on the subject, to outright trolling, placing in stupid videos.

"Militant panentheist..."

greeney2 wrote:I did not make up the term Militant atheist, as you very well know. It is a term worn proudly by many of your fellow atheists, and many notable and other celebrity Atheists have identified themselves as such. Kathy Griffen is one of them.

I am not sure where it actually originated, but just because some irritating plonker comedienne decides to adopt the term doesn't mean you should aim it at every atheist who you consider to be vocal or in some way passionate about their beliefs (or lack of).

greeney2 wrote:I think Q mark gives a proper definition to both Militant and to Terroism, which I have contended all along, you do not have to be violent to be militant. Although Atheist is not a cause, the united front against Christianity is, and carried out in the spirit of the definition of Militant.

The original definition of "terrorist" I used come from a dictionary, so is acceptable, and I think I proved using quark's definition that we are either both militants, or neither of us are. Personally, I think it's a struggle to make anyone on this board match the definition of militant, but either we all have to be, or none of us, since we all seem equally passionate and outspoken.

Which would you prefer, both of us as militants, or neither?

You like the term "militant Christian"?

By the way greeney, the term used to describe what you call "militant atheists" is actually the term adopted by people like Dawkins, and it is "anti-theist".

If you want to describe those types then that is the term to use, Kathy Griffen be damned.