Christian Grans

Lily, unless you tell us what you mean by 'militant atheist' I will continue to feel it is a pejorative term. I don't attach any epithets to you and I would like you to do me the same courtesy.
It is totally untrue that atheists post hostile comments on every thread about Christianity, but I suppose if you want to avoid answering the questions which are actually asked you fall back on the Blair technique, of just repeating non-truths endlessly. I am not speaking for all my atheist friends but just for myself. I am not hostile to a belief in god, I just think it is mistaken. Nor do I want to stop other people believing in anything they choose. I am hostile to religions of all types, Christian or otherwise, that impose their beliefs on people who do not share them, or cause harm to others. I am sure some of you are hostile to the type of Islam that allows men to control women - does that make you militant?
It is not my choice to have to keep repeating this - it is because of the wilful blindess of people who will not take it on board.
It is not rocket science and I do not wrap up my opposition in any kind of difficult language. What is so hard about it for Christians to understand?

I find it interesting that we don't appear to have GNs from other faiths such as Isalam, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Or maybe they just keep quiet!

If it isn't true Lilygran no-one should call you militant. I am not violently opposed to you or your religion and I don't go out of my way to propagate atheism. I just don't believe there is a god. If I sit round a dinner table, dipping in and out of a range of topics that come up, I will say what my views are, same as on here. Militant atheism is something else altogether. We do seem to be going round in circles.

I don't mind in the least being called a 'militant Christian', I only wish it was true! I can't understand why individuals who contest every pro-faith or pro-Christian post, introduce anti-ditto when the post isn't actually about religion to start with and OP highly provocative stuff object to the term 'militant'.

Way to go, Elegran!

Here we go again. What the heck is a militant atheist? Crossing out offensive words does not remove them. As far as I am aware, no member here is trying to prevent anybody from believing or practising any religion they choose.
Why is your certainty allowable, Lily, but not an atheist's certainty?
I am sorry you have slipped into 'attack' mode, rather than discussion.

What do you think about the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain's Day of Agreement? I notice that few of the people who are always objecting to disagreement on gransnet have visited that thread yet.

It's early yet.

There is that.

Yeah, be fair, lily – what about the militant religiacs, like you? I'm not objecting to your being such. Why would I? It adds to the fun of gransnet.

Exactly, elegran.

Well, I think you last post means that you agree with my understanding of the use of the word secular in the OP, lily. So glad we've reached agreement on that.

As for there being a lot of posts arguing about religion, being anti-religion if you like, well.... Why on earth shouldn't there be? Religion gives those who have none plenty of scope to "attack" it! That is the problem, not the people doing the posting.

Be fair lilygran. We bad that discussion on other threads. There are no militant atheists on here.

All posts which are not about religion are secular posts.

I daren't hesitate to say anything about the militant atheist tendency on this forum because I know I will be told several times that no-one has been attacked criticised personally, it is only their opinions that have been contested. I don't think ElsieJoy's OP was intended to be provocative at all. She's new to Gransnet and was surprised at the number of militant anti posts on a 'Religion'' thread. As I was last year before I had posted a word.

Definitons of secularism.

I beg to differ from your view of the meaning of secular in the OP, lily. I think you are mistaken.

She said: "Saddens me to read so many secular posts."

I'm not aware of any posts using the definiton of secular that you and someone else reminded me of (i.e. a parish priest without monastic vows/restrictions; a 'lay' priest). If I have missed them, I'd take it knidly if you could point them out to me. In the meantime, I reassert that the OP of this thread actually was referring to atheistic posts, not secular ones.

Quite apart from what I've already said, why would anyone object to secular posts if the meaning was as you say? It simply doesn't make any sense to me. If you can explain that, and prove by rational discussion that your interpretation is correct, I'll drop my argument. I have acknowledged the meaning that you reminded me of. You are right that secular has that meaning. My point is that that is NOT what the OP meant. To me, it's obvious that she wasn't talking about lay clergy. i really don't see how you can squeeze that meaning into her words.

It wouldn't take long to say why I don't believe in any god - I see no evidence of any! If there were any proof, then faith would not be needed and we would not be having this type of discussion. Of course, we could be discussing what that particular god wants us to do, and which particular religion has the right approach.
In other words, we could still continue to squabble about religion!

This is such a rich and tantalising discussion, which I find myself going to first, most days. I like the analogy of us all popping in for a chat and a coffee and deciding which room or table we will join to enter or watch the discussion.

I share absent's view. The thread is about Chrstianity. I wonder if having an Atheism thread would help in terms of non-atheists beng able to question and critique why we don't believe in a god? Although, on second thoughts, it could be quite boring, now we've disspelled the notion of there being any mlitant atheists on here.

But we are talking about Christianity on this thread – some people as practising Christians, some as "non-religious" Christians, some as agnostics and some as atheists. But the subject is still Christianity although, as with almost all conversations on Gransnet, it wanders off the topic from time to time. I simply don't understand the problem.

I don't think the knitting analogy is at all valid. Nobody has come on this thread to say let's talk about Sikhism instead, for example. That would be the parallel with crochet. But it's an inappropriate analogy because you can go through your entire life and never have anything to do with knitting – you can't do that with Christianity.

The only power any member has on this or any other forum is the power to state their views within forum rules. Some of us enjoy debating and, naturally, use any tools at our disposal. Should we not be allowed to do that? I think some of our believing members are more than capable of holding their own in any discussion.

I did not mean to use the term "formidable" in a critical sense petallus. And I meant collectively rather than, necessarily, individually.
I consider it something of a compliment if it is used about an individual. But it depends how it manifests itself. It describes a certain kind of power, and power often needs to be tempered.

Why are atheists who state their beliefs clearly 'like dogs with a bone'- I find that a trifle offensive. The believers on these threads are equally ready to argue the toss, so how come only the atheists are criticised? These discussions are never one-sided and some of the most provocative posts are made by believers. The same non-facts are reiterated regularly - e.g. that atheists have made hostile comments about individual believers.
(Flounces off in a huff)

No, the definition you offered of 'secular' Bags was partial and in the context, not the one that applied.

PS I think knitting could probably be described as 'secular'.

I agree, lily, that jess's analogy is a good one.

However, I don't believe I'm the only person to have seen deliberate provocation in the OP. I didn't actually respond to the purely religious stuff. I just explained the misuse of the word secular. From there people chose to get upset. They needn't have.

If I started a knitting thread and misused an important knitting term in my OP, I would not take it amiss if someone corrected that misuse. I'd probably thank them for setting me right. Misuse of terms is not helpful.

Nor have I got upset about the arguments against my agreement with what Sam Harris says about the bible. I expected opposition to that OP. I also expected some agreement with the sentiments expressed. And that has happened. I'm not complaining. I won't complain if that thread gets completely "taken over" by posters who adore the bible. I might argue with them though.

Religion is controversial. Witness internecine strife and religious wars. Lack of religion is controversial because it still seems threatening to some people (even though it isn't). Therefore, it's only logical to expect dissertational 'strife' on such subjects. None of that needs to be personal. None of the most argumentative atheists get personal on such threads. But still there are complaints.

Let's face it, atheists can't win, whatever they do . Oddly enough though, globally speaking, they are 'winning' more support all the time. Through argument.

JessM - I'm another fan of the knitting analogy.

JessM I like your knitting analogy.

Not all atheists are 'formidable'. I'm an atheist and other non-Christians have taken a more liberal approach on this thread. So we are not all the same, like Christians, atheists come in different shapes and sizes and often disagree amongst themselves.

JessM I think your contribution to this debate is helpful and your analogy with the 'Knitting' thread is an excellent one. You've made the point I've failed to make. Thank you.