Christian Grans

Yes but it was an atheist state, whatever their personal backgrounds, and the state oppressed and murdered people in the name of atheism. Just trying to present the opposite view.

I wouldn't say that anyone is being unduly 'militant' or 'aggressive' on either side of the discussion. Personal beliefs (or disbeliefs) are being stated and re-stated on several different threads. I have stated mine on some thread or other and have no intention of doing so again. Since there is so little common ground between the two sides, and there is no chance of either convincing the other, I can't be bothered flogging my own dead horse!

Oh - anyone can call themselves 'atheist' - and then go and fool about in politics... which in USSR was the case; they merely substituted the state for the deity and carried on regardless. Don't forget 'Uncle Joe' was seminary-trained... thugs are thugs whatever they call themselves.

In the 1930s the League of Militant Atheists in the USSR adopted violent methods to enforce their views. They killed those who did not agree with them. China does not have a good record either. Neither side of the debate can claim the moral high ground.

feetlebaum

A 'militant atheist' must be one who dares to disagree with things said for centuries by the priesthood/rabbinate/imams/what have you. I've yet to see an atheist moved by hi/her atheism to fly a plane into a skyscraper...

A 'militant' atheist is possibly one that doesn't consider 'faith' to be a virtue, but an excuse not to think rationally, and dares to say so!

Just noticed when's comment 'easy assumption to make ana' which seems to suggest that my posts are often meant to stir things up. If that is what when meant I regard it as a personal insult to which I take exception.

That kind of remark is disempowering and meant to invalidate another's point of view.

I did not find it easy to stick my head above the parapet and make my remarks to lily guessing that it would draw hostile reactions but I do feel quite uncomfortable about the nature of some of the anti-Christian posts on this thread.

So, having said that, time to withdraw.

Each of us is unique. I am an atheist. I am a humanist. Buddhism is a philosophy that I understand. I am responsible for creating my own heaven and hell during my lifetime. Bags is blest with a keen interlect. She is eloquent and GN is all the richer for her well balanced input.

Well said Lilygran

Some of the feminists I have known would glory in the name of militancy.

Life, strife, these two are one!
Naught can ye win but by faith and daring;
On, on that ye have done,
But for the work of today preparing.
Firm in reliance, laugh a defiance
(Laugh in hope for sure is the end)
March, march, many as one,
Shoulder to shoulder and friend to friend!

Looks pretty militant to me (from March of the Women, suffragette anthem). Although I go with Chambers and with *Petallus' on the definition. I started posting on GN because I was perturbed to see what I thought was a misrepresentation of faith by a number of posters. I don't care if people are atheists, ancestor worshippers or Jedi Knights. All that concerns me is that Christianity should not be misrepresented on a public forum and I try to offer a Christian perspective.

I think I will follow MiceElf's example and withdraw from this post.

No when I was not having a stir. My remarks came from the heart. I don't appreciate you trivialising my post.

However, so long as I am not told I am falling back on Blaire's techniques (see above) I think I can cope!

When, it has been said many many times that anybody can post anything on here whenever they wish. Are you now suggesting that Petallus shouldn't do that?

I've withdrawn from this thread as I simply don't feel that many posts are being responded to at all. Just avoided. And I dislike anyone being instructed that their understanding is limited.

And I find the term religiacs insulting.

Easy assumption to make ana. Patterns of this happening are all so predictable. But I am not here to stifle the discussion. Just off to visit my grandaughters but back tonight. Be good now!

In Chambers, which is my favourite dictionary for everyday use and, usefully, available on my iPad, one of the meanings of "aggressive" is given as "showing energy and initiative". I'll go with that! Proud to. Right, I'm aggressive. Deal with my energy and initiative and vigorous argument but do, please, stop moaning about it! Just join in if you want to.

Aggressive (energetic and initiative-filled) and vigorous atheism (or anything else, for that matter; theism too), tally-ho!

when, surely those members who are following this discussion but haven't participated previously are allowed to put their own views forward? We are always being told that everyone has the right to post on whatever thread they choose. Why do you immediately assume petallus meant to stir things up?

Having a bit of a stir, Petallus? Surely we can have a debate without someone dipping in occasionally to whip things up?

Furthermore, we're only those things on a DISCUSSION FORUM which is precisely FOR this kind of thing! If you don't want to argue, don't but stop telling those of us who do to stop.

However, I don't think we're aggressive. I think we're logical, rational and assertive. We're also actually interested in what makes people tick and always wanting to ask question because of our curious minds.

Would you call the feminists of our youth aggressive? That term was used as a device to shut them up. The same term is being used as the same device to shut atheists up. You could always just agree with us and then we'd have no-one to argue with

Would you call enthusiastic politicians aggressive?

According to my dictionary militant means 'aggressive or vigorous especially in the support of a cause'. The posts from atheists on this thread are certainly vigorous and I would say also aggressive.

Lilygran you are on to a loser here. Depends on how long you want to keep on banging your head against a brick wall.

sorry. Cross out the "to it".

I think probably not, janthea. I think this because of the approach which holds that all faiths are acceptable to it but atheism is not. So, theism is OK; atheism is not OK. Atheism is the theist world's whipping boy.

Why should anyone with any sense of justice accept that without an argument?
Theisms are philosophical positions. Atheism is a philosophical position too.

Greatnan Like you, I do not believe in any gods. I wonder if the same people who attack atheists attack other religions with the same intensity.