Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Do you think religious people are...
Options
Comments
-
Well then you should have used the word hostile and no you are not using militant in its correct sense.
When you have suicide bombings and abortion doctors being murdered and people picketing funerals with signs saying God Hates Fags, all in the name of some religion, then no, it makes no sense to call anything said on this forum militant. The word conjures up images of actual violence and intolerance which is a form of poisoning the well. It's a bad argument and not conducive to a useful debate. When someone points out that beliefs that you hold which are unsupported by evidence or demonstrably false are ridiculous from their perspective, they are not being militant, merely honest. Perhaps, next time you might pause to think that at least some of these people have studied your beliefs and have good reason to consider them ridiculous. And maybe while you're at it, such a comment might cause you to reflect on your own beliefs and why you hold them, which would avoid knee-jerk reactions like militant and intolerant in the future.
Sorry I didn't realise the word police were on full patrol in this forum
I don't think we have the same understanding of the word militant. If you'll look it up in a dictionary you'll probably find the meaning I was referring to.
Now that I've found it's such a loaded word I won't be using it again.
Also if you'd even bothered to read my original post you'd realise that I did not call anyone a militant atheist and I am not a theist myself so these are not my beliefs.0 -
-
Undiscovered wrote: »Sorry I didn't realise the word police were on full patrol in this forum I don't think we have the same understanding of the word militant. If you'll look it up in a dictionary you'll probably find the meaning I was referring to.
Now that I've found it's such a loaded word I won't be using it again.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant
Nope.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Well then you should have used the word hostile and no you are not using militant in its correct sense.
When you have suicide bombings and abortion doctors being murdered and people picketing funerals with signs saying God Hates Fags, all in the name of some religion, then no, it makes no sense to call anything said on this forum militant. The word conjures up images of actual violence and intolerance which is a form of poisoning the well. It's a bad argument and not conducive to a useful debate. When someone points out that beliefs that you hold which are unsupported by evidence or demonstrably false are ridiculous from their perspective, they are not being militant, merely honest. Perhaps, next time you might pause to think that at least some of these people have studied your beliefs and have good reason to consider them ridiculous. And maybe while you're at it, such a comment might cause you to reflect on your own beliefs and why you hold them, which would avoid knee-jerk reactions like militant and intolerant in the future.
I'm not normally one to disagree with you but (it was obvious there was going to be a 'but'
) here I do. Undiscovered used the word in a proper context. (Although s/he did like many other misunderstand the OP.) Not one everyone here is overly familiar with, but still he used the appropriate word. It's a bit like using the word 'ignorant' in Ireland. For some bizarre reason the word has so many negative connotations associated with it that telling someone they're ignorant of something is seen as an insult. Depending on the audience, I use ignorant in the proper sense of the word. Just like I would militant. Connotations associated with words unless they're wholly negative and derogatory like '******' should never be assumed instead the context of the post, which I understood immediately (bragging rights, hehe 
) , should be sought. 0 -
I'm not normally one to disagree with you but (it was obvious there was going to be a 'but') here I do. Undiscovered used the word in a proper context. Not one everyone here is overly familiar with, but still he used the appropriate word. It's a bit like using the word 'ignorant' in Ireland. For some bizarre reason the word has so many negative connotations associated with it that telling someone they're ignorant of something is seen as an insult. Depending on the audience, I use ignorant in the proper sense of the word. Just like I would militant. Connotations associated with words unless they're wholly negative and derogatory like '******' should never be assumed instead the context of the post, which I understood immediately (bragging rights, hehe ) , should be sought.
Nothing in the OP's post is militant by any definition though. Quite literally nothing.
He just thinks some peoples absolute faith in X religion is nonsensical and stupid. That's not militant.
Militant would be standing outside the Church with picket signs, and shouting in peoples faces.0 -
Nothing in the OP's post is militant by any definition though. Quite literally nothing.
He just thinks some peoples absolute faith in X religion is nonsensical and stupid. That's not militant.
Militant would be standing outside the Church with picket signs, and shouting in peoples faces.
Ahh God curses you. I'd just edited my post
Lots of posters have interpreted the OP as being the kind to actively want shout in people's faces and be intolerant of them. The vibe I got from Undiscovered was that he thought the OP was vocal about their atheism and condescending towards the opposing view. So even though he misunderstood the OP, he still used the appropriate word. 0 -
Ahh God curses you. I'd just edited my post
Lots of posters have interpreted the OP as being the kind to actively want shout in people's faces and be intolerant of them. The vibe I got from Undiscovered was that he thought the OP was vocal about their atheism and a condescending towards the opposing view. So even though he misunderstood the OP, he still used the appropriate word.
The only way the word Militant could accurately be used to describe the OP's comments is if it actually was.
But when you consider he says this lineHalloran springs wrote: »
(I would never say that in public to or about a specific person, out of respect and probable personal consequences of insulting people - e.g. losing my job, fighting with family , etc)
That basically shows the OP keeps this to himself, seems quite apologetic for it and so the word Militant is completely and utterly useless when describing the OP's post.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I'm not normally one to disagree with you but (it was obvious there was going to be a 'but') here I do. Undiscovered used the word in a proper context. (Although s/he did like many other misunderstand the OP.) Not one everyone here is overly familiar with, but still he used the appropriate word. It's a bit like using the word 'ignorant' in Ireland. For some bizarre reason the word has so many negative connotations associated with it that telling someone they're ignorant of something is seen as an insult. Depending on the audience, I use ignorant in the proper sense of the word. Just like I would militant. Connotations associated with words unless they're wholly negative and derogatory like '******' should never be assumed instead the context of the post, which I understood immediately (bragging rights, hehe ) , should be sought.
I think Sonics has already explained the point concisely.
As you have said the only way in which Undiscovered's use of the word militant can be considered correct is by completely misinterpreting the intent of the OP. Since the OP is at pains to point out that this attitude is part of his thought process and not something he either acts on or intends to act on, I can't really see how anyone could interpret it in this way. So like I said, describing the OP's stance as militant is stretching the definition beyond breaking point.
Anyway, minor semantic differences aside, I take your point about not everyone being familiar with the context in which words get used.0 -
-
-
I think Sonics has already explained the point concisely.
As you have said the only way in which Undiscovered's use of the word militant can be considered correct is by completely misinterpreting the intent of the OP. Since the OP is at pains to point out that this attitude is part of his thought process and not something he either acts on or intends to act on, I can't really see how anyone could interpret it in this way. So like I said, describing the OP's stance as militant is stretching the definition beyond breaking point.
Anyway, minor semantic differences aside, I take your point about not everyone being familiar with the context in which words get used.
I think you're still missing the point. The OPs post, was bound to be misunderstood, these posts always are. I still don't have my old laptop (a boardsie here will hopefully fix that) but it's a phenomenon called conservation blindness and I only just realised that the word 'militant', your post, is also an example of it. Yes, he completely misunderstood the OP. Loads of other posters did, but you in return misunderstood his post. You saw the word the 'militant' and immediately objected to its use without really understanding the context of it. Other posters here saw the OP, read his thoughts, got a negative image in their head and then completely misunderstood his post. Not to the extent that you did. But the process with 'militant' is somewhat similar. We see it here on this forum time and time again where a poster posts something only for it be completely and bizarrely misunderstood. The only way to be come less prone to falling into that trap ourselves is to keep to the correct details. In this case, avoiding the use of the word militant is a bad idea. I hope that makes sense. If it doesn't feel free to tear this post apart. 0 -
-
-
-
MagicMarker wrote: »Jaysus, militant is repeated on this page 57 times (now 58).
I think it's time we moved on.
edit: Make that 59.
Yeah but almost half of those are inside quotation bubbles. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
I think you're still missing the point. The OPs post, was bound to be misunderstood, these posts always are. I still don't have my old laptop (a boardsie here will hopefully fix that) but it's a phenomenon called conservation blindness and I only just realised that the word 'militant', your post, is also an example of it. Yes, he completely misunderstood the OP. Loads of other posters did, but you in return misunderstood his post. You saw the word the 'militant' and immediately objected to its use without really understanding the context of it. Other posters here saw the OP, read his thoughts, got a negative image in their head and then completely misunderstood his post. Not to the extent that you did. But the process with 'militant' is somewhat similar. We see it here on this forum time and time again where a poster posts something only for it be completely and bizarrely misunderstood. The only way to be come less prone to falling into that trap ourselves is to keep to the correct details. In this case, avoiding the use of the word militant is a bad idea. I hope that makes sense. If it doesn't feel free to tear this post apart.
Sorry, but the long and the short of it for me comes back to a misinterpretation of the OP. Undiscovered, among other posters, misinterpreted the OP. He thought, given what he had read that militant was an appropriate term. However, when you actually read the OP, aside from one instance of some rather brusk language which may have coloured the interpretations which followed, there is nothing in the OP's attitude to suggest that he either acts aggressively or more importantly bears an attittude towards believers which is born out of aggression or malice. As he concludes he actually feels some measure of sympathy towards these people. I don't think that could be considered aggressive or militant.
Secondly, I disagree about the 'avoiding the use of the word militant' idea. Not that it's a matter of right and wrong but from a personal preference perspective, I would much rather avoid words which may be open to misinterpretation such as militant and use something (for example in describing Richard Dawkins) like strident instead. Intent can be difficult to convey in a medium such as this and I feel that using words which are more rigid in their definitions can minimise this.0 -
-
-
Sorry, but the long and the short of it for me comes back to a misinterpretation of the OP. Undiscovered, among other posters, misinterpreted the OP. He thought, given what he had read that militant was an appropriate term. However, when you actually read the OP, aside from one instance of some rather brusk language which may have coloured the interpretations which followed, there is nothing in the OP's attitude to suggest that he either acts aggressively or more importantly bears an attittude towards believers which is born out of aggression or malice. As he concludes he actually feels some measure of sympathy towards these people. I don't think that could be considered aggressive or militant.
Secondly, I disagree about the 'avoiding the use of the word militant' idea. Not that it's a matter of right and wrong but from a personal preference perspective, I would much rather avoid words which may be open to misinterpretation such as militant and use something (for example in describing Richard Dawkins) like strident instead. Intent can be difficult to convey in a medium such as this and I feel that using words which are more rigid in their definitions can minimise this.
Hmm, ok, still not getting my intending meaning.
If possible can we forget the OP.
You're associating the word militant with malice. If my audience, was Ryan's Turbridy's Late Late Show, then I wouldn't use the word. However, to you I would. Likewise, I wouldn't immediately identify myself as an atheist. But here I use the word atheist all the time. Then depending on to whom I addressing I might use the word militant or ignorant. However, to you I'll always use those words and hopefully I can get you to understand why.
Why is that there is often a thread posted here that is completely and bizarrely misunderstood? Sometimes dishonesty plays a role here but most of time the people who read and misunderstand the post aren't dumb or dishonest they just genuinely misunderstand the post. Perhaps, the posts could be expressed better but ask yourself what is the best way for the OP of this thread to write his post so that it's least likely to be misunderstood? In my opinion there is no best way. He'll always be misunderstood. It's not what he says, not how he says, it's simply what people think he's saying. They see religion, they see him querying it and automatically, as they have been culturally indoctrinated to do, go on the defensive and assume the worst of what the poster means. This is a bias we all have. The only reason we don't experience this for the OP is because for some reason or another we're not attached to religion. It doesn't make us sentimental.
Militancy may imply violence, suicide bombers and the like but the point is if you let connotations of words associate the meaning then you'll also fill in the meaning for yourself and very often this will conflict with meaning intended. The associated connotation always wins out. In other words, all other things being equal if you disagree with the use of the militant then you are more likely to misunderstand someone's post if they draw upon that word than someone who doesn't have reservations about that word.
I hope that makes sense.0 -
-
"..unfounded scientific thought.."
Thats where you lost me.
Scientific ideas in the past have been completely bogus and unfounded. There's no reason to suggest that todays is any better. So not sure how exactly you lost him/her.
I do think Webeidia could do with reading up on Origin of Life research though. There's a pretty comprehensive picture there. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Hmm, ok, still not getting my intending meaning.
If possible can we forget the OP.
You're associating the word militant with malice. If my audience, was Ryan's Turbridy's Late Late Show, then I wouldn't use the word. However, to you I would. Likewise, I wouldn't immediately identify myself as an atheist. But here I use the word atheist all the time. Then depending on to whom I addressing I might use the word militant or ignorant. However, to you I'll always use those words and hopefully I can get you to understand why.
Why is that there is often a thread posted here that is completely and bizarrely misunderstood? Sometimes dishonesty plays a role here but most of time the people who read and misunderstand the post aren't dumb or dishonest they just genuinely misunderstand the post. Perhaps, the posts could be expressed better but ask yourself what is the best way for the OP of this thread to write his post so that it's least likely to be misunderstood? In my opinion there is no best way. He'll always be misunderstood. It's not what he says, not how he says, it's simply what people think he's saying. They see religion, they see him querying it and automatically, as they have been culturally indoctrinated to do, go on the defensive and assume the worst of what the poster means. This is a bias we all have. The only reason we don't experience this for the OP is because for some reason or another we're not attached to religion. It doesn't make us sentimental.
Militancy may imply violence, suicide bombers and the like but the point is if you let connotations of words associate the meaning then you'll also fill in the meaning for yourself and very often this will conflict with meaning intended. The associated connotation always wins out. In other words, all other things being equal if you disagree with the use of the militant then you are more likely to misunderstand someone's post if they draw upon that word than someone who doesn't have reservations about that word.
I hope that makes sense.
OK, I see where you're coming from now. You're right, I guess that we all have certain biases that makes us read a certain attitude into words that may not have been intended by the author. I think it's something that we develop to short-circuit the process by which we attempt to distill the author's overall comment into soundbyte size. It's something I will have to be more conscious of in the future. I think that maybe a more holistic approach to reading the posts might be needed rather than seizing on a particular word and projecting a meaning on to it that isn't necessarily supported.
I remember one St. Patrick's Day I found myself in the US and I was getting this green milkshake at some fast food restaurant whose name I can't remember. Anyway, in my head I thought surely green milkshake = lime. Boy did I get the shock of my life when it turned out to be mint. All because of a preconceived notion.0
Advertisement