The Black Vault

humphreys wrote:

And by the way, would you care to back up your claim that people are saying you strive to stamp out religion by force? I don't remember anyone saying that, but, I'm sure you have quotes handy to refresh my memory?

You could just ask without the attitude and sarcasm, you know.

In this very thread from greeney:

greeney wrote:To EH and Humphreys who profess wanting to irradicate religions and we would be better off without them

I don't see where it says "by force." Religions can be irradicated by constant indoctrination through government, public schools, and media. Which is exactly what is happening today. It's not being forced. The irradication is being coerced. There is still choice, but the government, schools, and media seek to make that choice undesirable, painful, and an open invitation to public ridicule and embarassment.

You have it all wrong. Religion is spread by indoctrination, it is irradicated by education.

I see this went well, didn't it, babe?
You do realise this is what always happens when you try to start a sensible conversation in this madhouse, don't you?

He did not make his point, it was not sensible it was a "loaded senerio", and several people replied why. Maybe his attitude turns the place into a so called madhouse presenting something in a distorted manner, and playing dumb to the real defintion of militant atheist.

humphreys wrote:You have it all wrong. Religion is spread by indoctrination, it is irradicated by education.

As long as you understand that religion and following the teachings of Christ, are mostly 2 separate things.

Otherwise, you are wrong. Bona fide Christianity is spread through education and the grace of God, and the anti-Christians seek to eradicate it by negative-indoctrination. I call it negative indoctrination because the militant Atheists, Agnostics, Progressives, Feminists, Gay and Lesbian activists, et al... are going about it by choking off the teachings of Christ and making them illegal; all the while teaching and promoting the exact opposite through the sinister use of media, school sytems, and all arms of the government. Not in the USA yet, but in several other countries, your militant Atheist cohorts imprison and/or KILL people for teaching the Christian ways. On some level I'm sure you see it as justified (i.e. it diminishes the effect of these evil "religious wars" that will wipe out humanity). That's why you and others like you--without picking up a weapon or even so much as taking part in a simple public rally--are aptly labeled "militant Atheists."

from dictionary.references.com :

militant (ˈmɪlɪtənt)
— adj
1. aggressive or vigorous, esp in the support of a cause: a militant protest.

A militant Atheist is one who is zealous and aggressive in his or her stance against religion. Many militant Atheists are hostile, even combative (i.e. E_H) but some aren't (you most of the time). Militant Atheists regularly and passionately confront those who oppose them.

To some degree, you are a militant Atheist in the true sense of the word. But not in the incorrect, technical sense, i.e. weapon-carrying.

And by the way, I won't shy away from it; to some degree, I'm a militant Christian as well.

It's not an insult. It's a descriptive label that applies wherever and to whomever it applies.

That is all. Good day.

frrostedman wrote:Otherwise, you are wrong. Bona fide Christianity is spread through education and the grace of God, and the anti-Christians seek to eradicate it by negative-indoctrination.

Teaching a child to think for himself is negative-indoctrination? That's all I want to do.

frrostedman wrote:I call it negative indoctrination because the militant Atheists, Agnostics, Progressives, Feminists, Gay and Lesbian activists, et al... are going about it by choking off the teachings of Christ and making them illegal;

I know of no atheists who have made teaching Christ illegal.

I don't even personally know of any atheists in positions of power who would be able to do such a thing.

frrostedman wrote:Not in the USA yet, but in several other countries, your militant Atheist cohorts imprison and/or KILL people for teaching the Christian ways. On some level I'm sure you see it as justified (i.e. it diminishes the effect of these evil "religious wars" that will wipe out humanity). That's why you and others like you--without picking up a weapon or even so much as taking part in a simple public rally--are aptly labeled "militant Atheists."

Umm, no? Killing in the name of belief or unbelief is not justified at all under any circumstances whatsoever - ever.

I'm sure it makes no difference that I don't match the description of "militancy" that you've just described, and/or agree with making religion illegal, and/or agree with killing anyone. You'll still label me a militant because you're more set on making me and other atheists look bad rather than being honest.

frrostedman wrote:To some degree, you are a militant Atheist in the true sense of the word. But not in the incorrect, technical sense, i.e. weapon-carrying.

And by the way, I won't shy away from it; to some degree, I'm a militant Christian as well.

That's what I said right from the start. Either we are both militant (enthusiastic, outspoken, etc), or neither of us are.

The double-standard is that the "militant Christian" label is and has always been used only for the violent minority, whereas believers are apt to throw it around about any atheist who dares to state that religion might not be the best thing for humanity.

The first time I came across the use of the word militant in this context was by a self-proclaimed militant agnostic. The agnostic part meant he believed he does not (and perhaps could not) know whether God exists and the militant part meant that neither do you, a claim about your ability to know whether God exists. Has nothing to do with a traditional use of the word military.

Militant Atheists regularly and passionately confront those who oppose them.

To some degree, you are a militant Atheist in the true sense of the word. But not in the incorrect, technical sense, i.e. weapon-carrying.

Hold on Frosty, nobody started up anti-atheism posts here designed to infuriate the atheists, it was the atheists here who started posting distortion propaganda about the Bible and religion. Nothing was done in any spirit of debate it was done in a mean spirited attack on your beliefs. No atheist was defending themselves, they were bringing slurs and lies to the message board, with a mission of arguing it to the death, your beliefs. Humphreys posted this to try to equate that militant atheism is a myth because it is not a act of violence like the islamic assasination in Pakistan, to distort what militant atheism is. They are coming out with these over zealous attacks on the Bible, with intent to distroy Faith, not to have a friendly debate. No offence Humphreys but you are militant in your approach, and EH is even worse.

Being anti-religion or even believing God does not exist is everyones right, but what is the motivation for attacking those who practice their religion, believe in God, and live a life doing so? Small town USA has millions of people doing this, and they are no more part of world misery than Mickey Mouse. They live everyday with Faith, worship, and do not bother anyone. There are many atheists who do the same thing and are left alone, and do not go out of their way to be verbally hostile to believers.

There is a distinct difference between Humphreys and Frosty, if you think they are both equally militant. Which one is trying to save a soul?