Yea, because it's totally out of line to interpret the words someone writes to glean the meaning, right. Then by that definition you're talking out your ass because I consider all letters to be scribbles and convey no meaning. You're the one taking words to mean things other then their meaning, which will be shown in my next point.
From
dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=militant&search=search Militant:
–adjective
1. vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2. engaged in warfare; fighting.
You see that? Aggressive, Fighting. That's how I interpreted it. You substituted the word for someone being fucking vocal. I mean aggressive like, someone saying, "I believe in god, I don't care what you believe in" and getting a response, "Why the fuck you would believe in a god dumbass? Prove his existence to me!" See how the atheist in this case is out of line? He could have said, "I don't believe in a god, I don't care what you believe in" but no, he went on an offensive against someone who didn't care or want it, THAT is militant. You being vocal is not. Learn to interpret words as what they mean, Not what YOU think they mean, but apparently the dictionary is using the word wrong just like fundies too.
See, at this point I question your ability to read. Which is pretty hilarious since you call into question MY comprehension skills.
First, you called me defensive/paranoid first, for something I wasn't even doing, I never said you didn't have the right to speak your mind, I said you didn't have the right to attack a passive believer just because they are a believer, and was trying to make the point that the one catholic that posted wasn't against people speaking out. I felt like you attacked him and thought it was unfair, you called me being defensive and paranoid for you attacking religion, despite the fact that I hate organized religion. Therefore I called you defensive/paranoid for going on an angry rant when I simply said perhaps he didn't mean it the way you thought he did (which as shown above militant does not mean vocal).
And that last part is just hilarious, let's look at what I say IN my post
So...I'm using words wrong again because they don't mean what YOU think they mean? Explain how you get from me saying speaking your mind isn't being militant, to you speaking your mind is militant. Yea, my reading comprehension is lacking...
No... You attacked him in your original post which I responded to. The subsequent posts were entirely between you and I. I guess I didn't lay that out so there was no error, I just assumed you would understand your first post was the attack, I am sorry that I overestimated you.
Oh, and this isn't being militant, just your response to someone trying to call out you misinterpreting the word militant for the the fundie definition of "vocal."
Explain to me how thinking that militant=vocal isn't an extreme view of the word, if you convince me I'll drop this and pay tribute to your glory.
I just see it as extreme because that's how the fundies use it, wrongly and extremely; I assumed the guy was not fundie since he posts here, presumably reads the main site, and said he keeps his religious views to himself.
No, the fundie will be screaming, "JESUS IS THE SAVIOUR." The theists I am talking about would say in response to a question, politely say, "Jesus is my savior, I have no qualms if you follow a different path." See the fucking difference? NOT ALL THEISTS ARE FUNDIES
I think you have every right to take offense to the former, but taking offense to the latter is entirely different.
Seriously, you claim I don't read, but then ignore what I say. I said that the theists to which I am referring to, don't need to provide you with any evidence, because they really don't want to convince you. As long as they don't care what other people believe, they don't need to provide you with any evidence, and that why there is the problem with someone who would be a militant atheist, demanding someone explain there personal beliefs, even if the person said they were just personal beliefs, and didn't care what the atheist believed.
You seem to be unwilling to consider the christian's who aren't pushing what they say as truth, which, to prove they exist, we have the post that you first commented on.
If someone is trying to convince you, "JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD AFTER 3 DAYS!!!" and they have no evidence (obviously the bible shit for evidence), then you are absolutely right in telling them to fuck off and leave you alone, you don't believe in there bullshit. However, if someone says, "I personally believe he rose in 3 days, I have no real evidence, just my faith, and it really is ok if you believe something entirely different, as we each have our own freedom to religion." You can't tell them to fuck off, they're not pushing there insanity on you, they're just telling you what they believe. Just like you have every right to say, "I believe there is no god, I simply see no evidence for one, and certainly not the one Christians/Muslims/Jews believe in." Both are stating personal beliefs while allowing each there own personal belief. However, actively attacking someone's religious views, just because they believe in a god, is wrong, again, unless they attacked your views first. Some things are an attack, others are not. Please be aware not every theist is a raving fundy trying to convince you and others "jesus is the saviour."
And seriously, I understand what you posted, you seem to not understand that I'm not talking about theists trying to gain converts, despite how I emphasized the point.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your response, truly. It just seemed that you believed because they had a lack of evidence their personal opinions about a god were wrong. I'm trying to say people don't need evidence for an opinion, an opinion is never wrong. They only require evidence if they are trying to convince others of their opinions, in which case any reasonable person would do what you do, and ask for evidence, and blow them off if none is provided.
Again, just to stress the point, if they are just keeping there beliefs to themselves, like the guy you originally quoted said he did, they don't need evidence, and you demanding they explain their personal beliefs to you is being aggressive. It all has to be in context.
You seemed to be under the persuasion that most theists attempt to force, or convince others that their particular faith is, "The Truth" and never really left room for theists that go about there business, and only stay what they believe in, within the appropriate contexts (IE. They DO NOT witness to people on the street.
I'm sorry if that was not your belief, that was just the general feeling your posts got across, IE, "If someone dares mention they believe in Jesus, they are trying to convince me to believe the same." While I'm trying to say you can say what you believe in, without trying to convince others of your belief, and for that you don't need to provide any evidence, as it's a personal matter (Fundies make it not a personal matter by trying to force you to believe, again that is the distinction I'm trying to make.)
Again, I apologize if that wasn't your intent, it was just the way your post generally came across to me.
Here all I can say is you truly did fail at reading comprehension, as I made the point quite clear that I never claimed atheists DID do anything else, merely that it was possible. Truly, please read my posts in their entirety.
Depends what you mean by strong stance. If by strong stance you mean you tell them, "I disagree, I have no belief in god, nor see a need for one, but we can agree to disagree" That's not an attack. An attack is, "Unless you provide evidence for your personal beliefs/opinions that you merely stated, but never tried to convince me of, I'm going to attack your beliefs because I think that your beliefs and opinions are wrong."
See the difference? I'll try to make it clearer, a theist is not attacking if he says, "I disagree, I have a belief in god and do see a need for one, but we can agree to disagree." however, he
IS attacking if he says, "Unless you provide evidence for your personal beliefs/opinions you merely stated, but never tried to convince me of, I'm going to attack your beliefs because I think that your beliefs and opinions are wrong."
You see? I hold atheists and theists to the same standard and don't assume either is correct, merely an attack has everything to do with language and context. If you try to convince people on a street corner who were minding their own business of anything, that is an attack, but doing so appropriately, or just merely being vocal of your beliefs is not.
Oh, and one more point, turnabout is always fair play, so if you see a fundie attempting to brainwash people, being aggressive with them is no longer militant, merely what they invited upon themselves in attacking peoples beliefs inappropriately.
Clearly, you must have missed that. Oh, and if it's not solid enough, that's because I don't believe the world is made up of absolutes, that's something for theists to do, who believe the bible is a moral absolute. I'm saying what constitutes an attack depends HEAVILY on context.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted something that you said, however I still hold that you mistook militant for vocal, and continue to do so.
No, that is more then I expect you to do. The moment, "They tell me I must believe what they say," all bets are off, they are attempting to force you to believe what they believe without any evidence for doing so, and that is forcing their insanity down your throat. At this point it is fine for you to tear apart their beliefs. What I'm saying is it's not appropriate for you to tear apart the beliefs of someone who simply doesn't care what you think, it's allowable for either one of you to express your beliefs, as long as you don't cross the line and try to force other people into your line of thinking (outside of the appropriate places for such discussions). In your case, you're being more civil than you need to. It was them pushing bullshit down your throat the moment they said you have to believe them.
Finally, I would wish that you didn't get so angry about something. I have tried to be calm (although I started this post disgruntled) and respective in the manner that I replied, and you resorted to cursing at me over the internet (LoL) and name calling. If I came off as arrogant or pompous then I am sorry, I was simply trying to tell you that perhaps he didn't mean militant the way fundies do, and that whether or not it happens, it is possible for an atheist to try to force a believer not to believe (again, the word force means that the atheist began the problem, and this wasn't turnabout, and that the atheist was actively trying to change the beliefs of a theist, who didn't want such a discussion to begin with).