How do you self-identify?

robindch

Just to see how people self-identify!

antiskeptic

I’m religious and I do trust people I identify as ‘militant/aggressive’ atheists or agnostics

I voted 'not trusting militant/aggressive' but am defining militant/aggressive as the more rabidly anti-theist types. Would I trust Dawkins in a position of political power to strike a fair balance and work towards a truly secular society?

I don't think so.

Zombrex

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

robindch wrote: »

Just to see how people self-identify!

Not enough options I think. I wouldn't equate militant and aggressive. I might be an aggressive atheist, I'm certainly not a militant one. You could say the same about Dawkins.

Galvasean

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

I'll defend myself aggresively. Does that make me option 2?

robindch

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

Galvasean wrote: »

I'll defend myself aggresively. Does that make me option 2?

Well, your default position on religion is to show up at A+A beers with a collection of rubber triceratopses. I don't think that's aggressive in anybody books

robindch

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

Wicknight wrote: »

Not enough options I think. I wouldn't equate militant and aggressive.

I'm not sure that I see much of a difference in how they're used by the religious side of the debate -- they both used to refer to the same kinds of activities.

What do you reckon the difference is?

panda100

I’m religious and I don’t trust people I identify as ‘militant/aggressive’ atheists or agnostics

I can't decide which option to choose!

I'm a tolerant atheist in the sense that I respect my religious friends views and wouldn't dream of ridiculing anyone beliefs. However, I can be very militant and aggressive when I feel that religion is encroaching on my personal space and how I live in Ireland.
I only become an aggressive atheist when provoked and in Ireland unfortunately that is quite a lot! I am very militant when it comes to the church s influence over womens health's issues in this country.

So I would say aggressive/militant when provoked!

Shenshen

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

panda100 wrote: »

I can't decide which option to choose!

I'm a tolerant atheist in the sense that I respect my religious friends views and wouldn't dream of ridiculing anyone beliefs. However, I can be very militant and aggressive when I feel that religion is encroaching on my personal space and how I live in Ireland.
I only become an aggressive atheist when provoked and in Ireland unfortunately that is quite a lot! I am very militant when it comes to the church s influence over womens health's issues in this country.

So I would say aggressive/militant when provoked!

I think the above pretty much sums up my own position as well.
Religion is not a subject I would bring up or dwell on in day-to-day life, although I enjoy debating it on the internet.
But when religion presumes to tell me what I personally can and can't do, I do get aggressive.

robindch

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

Shenshen wrote: »

But when religion presumes to tell me what I personally can and can't do, I do get aggressive.

Likewise, but there's fair provocation in that case.

The question here really refers to your default, unprovoked position -- ie, on a nice saturday afternoon, are you up at the top of Grafton Street with a megaphone in one hand and a copy of Dawkins in the other, ranting and raving about there being no god.

Or are you out taking your kid for a walk up a mountain and looking forward to a beer when you're back home again?

.

Zombrex

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure that I see much of a difference in how they're used by the religious side of the debate -- they both used to refer to the same kinds of activities.

What do you reckon the difference is?

Yeah but the whole "militant atheist" is just religious propaganda and nonsense. I don't identify myself in any terms they would use

Ush1

Not to churn out a cliche but is the pope a "militant/aggressive" catholic?

amacachi

I'd say I'm fairly live and let live, though I'm sure anyone I've expressed my views and frustrations to wouldn't think that. :pac:

robindch

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

Ush1 wrote: »

Not to churn out a cliche but is the pope a "militant/aggressive" catholic?

In the religious use of militant/aggressive to mean "committed", then yes, the pope is desperately "aggressive".

Funglegunk

I’m religious and I don’t trust people I identify as ‘militant/aggressive’ atheists or agnostics

robindch wrote: »

Likewise, but there's fair provocation in that case.

The question here really refers to your default, unprovoked position -- ie, on a nice saturday afternoon, are you up at the top of Grafton Street with a megaphone in one hand and a copy of Dawkins in the other, ranting and raving about there being no god.

Or are you out taking your kid for a walk up a mountain and looking forward to a beer when you're back home again?

.

Whoops. In that case I chose the wrong answer...

Truley

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but the whole "militant atheist" is just religious propaganda and nonsense. I don't identify myself in any terms they would use

From the dictionary

Mil -i -tant

–adjective vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.

So it is possible to be a militant athiest, as much as it is to be militantly religious anyway.

Me, I voted the first option. I try not to be militantly anything.

Zombrex

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

Truley wrote: »

From the dictionary

Mil -i -tant

–adjective vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.

So it is possible to be a militant athiest, as much as it is to be militantly religious anyway.

Me, I voted the first option. I try not to be militantly anything.

I'm not saying it is not possible, I'm saying it is a miss used slur used by religious people against any atheist who expresses an opinion contrary to their and doesn't know their place (ie sit down and shut up).

Notice the "aggressive" bit in the definition. Militant means combative. Given that Dawkins is dismissed as a militant atheist when have you ever seen Dawkins aggressively force a position on someone. The proper uses of the term aggression I mean, not just he used nasty words in that book he wrote.

pH

So it's clear then, anybody who uses the phrase "militant" before the Pope, Paisley, Deepak Chopra and the Dalai Lama is entitled to call Dawkins militant too,

Truley

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

pH wrote: »

So it's clear then, anybody who uses the phrase "militant" before the Pope, Paisley, Deepak Chopra and the Dalai Lama is entitled to call Dawkins militant too,

I think people should steer away from name calling full stop. However it happens in most debates, though it certainly isn't exclusive to religous people.

pH

Truley wrote: »

I think people should steer away from name calling full stop. However it happens in most debates, though it certainly isn't exclusive to religous people.

Well here's the nub of it isn't it - you instantly recognise that calling the Pope militant is "name calling", another word for an insult or slur.

Militant is used as a pejorative by those calling others it, yes it's used as an insult - when people call Dawkins (or indeed anyone) a militant, it's sole usage is to disparage.

Now someone will come along with a dictionary definition of "militant" to point at it and say "well he is ... ISN'T HE?", not only do they want to insult, they want us to own the insult too? To which I respond, how stupid do you think we are - adding that I'll gladly respond and tell anyone throwing around the term militant how stupid I think they are.

Dawkins is a militant in exactly the same way as the Pope.

MagicMarker

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

Wicknight wrote: »

Not enough options I think. I wouldn't equate militant and aggressive. I might be an aggressive atheist, I'm certainly not a militant one. You could say the same about Dawkins.

I agree with this.

I can be aggressive but not 'militant'. It's not hard to be aggressive when you're faced with certain people's utter stupidity.

rainbow kirby

panda100 wrote: »

I can't decide which option to choose!

I'm a tolerant atheist in the sense that I respect my religious friends views and wouldn't dream of ridiculing anyone beliefs. However, I can be very militant and aggressive when I feel that religion is encroaching on my personal space and how I live in Ireland.
I only become an aggressive atheist when provoked and in Ireland unfortunately that is quite a lot! I am very militant when it comes to the church s influence over womens health's issues in this country.

So I would say aggressive/militant when provoked!

Would be of a similar opinion. I don't really give a rat's arse about the minute details of what people actually believe, but when their beliefs are used to deny others their rights, to discriminate or to provoke hatred then I have a serious problem with it.

strobe

I don't.

Dave!

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

I'm a jihadeist

mikhail

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

Technically, I'm a kind of fruitcake.

Glenster

I'd have to know more than one fact about a person before I decided whether I trusted them or not.

If I met someone for the first time and the first thing they said was "I am both militant and aggressive in my atheism" they wouldn't be my go-to call if i needed a babysitter.

But then there's no way to end the sentence "I am both militant and aggressive in my ________" without coming across as a crazy neckbeard.

Zillah

Just because I have an atheist paramilitary force ready to assault the vatican doesn't mean you can call me "militant".


No really. Christians or Muslims attacking others for their beliefs is absolutely normal to see in the news (Muslims especially these days, but gay bashings by supposed Christians are still unfortunately not uncommon). Just imagine how ridiculous a notion it is for atheists to attack the Vatican. But if you heard that a group of Muslims had attacked a holy site in the news you wouldn't even blink.

Militant atheists? FEAR MY MIGHTY BOOKS, FOOLS!

Goduznt Xzst

I’m religious and I don’t trust people I identify as ‘militant/aggressive’ atheists or agnostics

Chose option 2 purely because it will mean that Jakkass and Antiskeptic won't trust me.

I'm pretty sure I'd be in good company if I'm on a list of Atheists they don't trust.

Ickle Magoo

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

I don't think it matters if we don't self identify as being aggressive or militant, I'm certain some still conclude we are and don't trust us anyway. :pac:

RocketFalls

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

I'm inherently sceptical about identifying strongly with anything. Idealism will only make you look like an idiot at best.

I'm secular agnostic, and can't tolerate things like mandatory religious education for children, but I will by no means think less of a person for having some form of religious belief.

Live and let live, I suppose.

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

Just to see how people self-identify!

in a mirror, just to confirm it's me.

iBumblebeetuna

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

robindch wrote: »

Well, your default position on religion is to show up at A+A beers with a collection of rubber triceratopses. I don't think that's aggressive in anybody books

Completely off topic, but this turned my life upside down...
http://www.geekologie.com/2010/08/no_no_nooooo_triceratops_not_a.php

Turns out Triceratops didn't exist... at least not as previously thought.

aidan24326

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

Can't see option 4 getting too many ticks.

Galvasean

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

iBumblebeetuna wrote: »

Completely off topic, but this turned my life upside down...
http://www.geekologie.com/2010/08/no_no_nooooo_triceratops_not_a.php

Turns out Triceratops didn't exist... at least not as previously thought.

Ah, but the name Triceratops remains. Torosaurus is the name that is getting disgarded.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055971828&highlight=torosaurus

sonicthebadger*

I self identify as "Biker". Bikers are better than real people don't you know?:pac:

goingpostal

I would self-identify as a selectively-militant atheist. There are certain issues where I will adopt an unbending position of opposition to dangerous religious nonsense (education, stem cell research, anti-abortion propaganda, education, indoctrination, rapist priests, did I mention education? etc.), but if I was to argue every time some religious wack-job gets on my tits, I would end up in a padded cell. There is a time for taking up the cudgels and a time for choosing the peaceful life.

sponsoredwalk

I’m religious and I don’t trust people I identify as ‘militant/aggressive’ atheists or agnostics

antiskeptic wrote: »

I voted 'not trusting militant/aggressive' but am defining militant/aggressive as the more rabidly anti-theist types. Would I trust Dawkins in a position of political power to strike a fair balance and work towards a truly secular society?

I don't think so.

Be careful of that guy on the right, it's always the quiet ones :pac:

I'm sure P.Z. Meyers is classed as militant atheist and if that's the case
then I'd like to call myself a militant atheist too because it's better Speaking Truth to Absurdity.

legspin

I’m religious and I don’t trust people I identify as ‘militant/aggressive’ atheists or agnostics

I would consider myself certainly at the more militant side of the equation. I can't do it here on Boards, coz' I would get banned really quickly, but I have been quite sharp in dealing with some of the religious types calling around here.

ChocolateSauce

I’m religious and I don’t trust people I identify as ‘militant/aggressive’ atheists or agnostics

robindch wrote: »

Well, your default position on religion is to show up at A+A beers with a collection of rubber triceratopses. I don't think that's aggressive in anybody books

I brought cheese.....I think that speaks for itself.

nozzferrahhtoo

None of the above for me I am afraid. I am not a theist or desit, but rarely (except as a term of convenience in longer writings) refer to myself as atheist, and certainly not as agnostic.

If I am forced to self identify in this context, I identify as Secular.

Shenshen

I’m atheist or agnostic and I do self-identify as ‘militant/aggressive’

robindch wrote: »

Likewise, but there's fair provocation in that case.

The question here really refers to your default, unprovoked position -- ie, on a nice saturday afternoon, are you up at the top of Grafton Street with a megaphone in one hand and a copy of Dawkins in the other, ranting and raving about there being no god.

Or are you out taking your kid for a walk up a mountain and looking forward to a beer when you're back home again?

.

Second option, most definitely.
While I do enjoy debating religion online, or offline with friends now and then, I also spend days and weeks without so much as wasting a thought on it.