I have no idea what the percentages are, (although the Church Militant) is an ancient theological construct), but I am not sure what your point might be.
You initially objected to the use of the word militant applied to some atheists, although it appears to have been used correctly. Now that the definition has been posted, you want to change the discussion to whether the word can also be applied to religious people–even though no one has claimed that religious people might not also be militant.
Had the original post claimed that only atheists are militant, I could see a point, but it now seems that you are just looking for something about which to quarrel.
(Of course, the AFA is militant. As are the Discovery Institute, the Catholic League, Answers in Genesis, and numerous other groups. So what?)
News is reporting facts. Honest opinions would not be considered news either so I don’t know what your point is.
I think you’re implying a false dichotomy between comedy, news, and opinions with nothing in between. It’s common today to combine genres. You can combine news, opinion, and entertainment in different ways. If you can find a quote of him stating that these aren’t his opinions, then I’ll concede that point too.
I agree context can change the meaning of a word, but there is no way I see to change religious ,as a noun, into meaning anything other than a person. If that isn’t what the OP meant then he made a clear error in his choice of words. If you can find a definition to suit your meaning then I’ll concede the point.
In both cases you’re making the claim that people didn’t mean what they said. Since language would be pointless if people usually didn’t mean what they say; It’s more likely they did mean what they said.
So what. So where are the references to the militant Discovery Institute, the militant Catholic League, the militant Answers in Genesis, or the militant AFA when these other groups are talked about?
You know he has writers, right? And that much of what he says is scripted?
The first thing you learn from hanging around sets is that every performer has an on-camera persona and an off-camera persona. Maher might be twice as obnoxious in real life for all I know, but you can’t judge him from what he says on-camera. Colbert is obvious, but do you think Jon Stewart really resembles his old weak Jew persona? It is also a bit.
As for comedy and news, I watch the Daily Show fervently, but even I know better than that. I remember him being on an interview program back during the Crossfire controversy, and someone saying he should go into more depth. His response was that his lead-in show was puppets making crank calls. While he recognizes he has power, don’t call it news.
It’s more respect than religious.
Have you ever been edited? Have you ever submitted writing to a critique group? If you have, you’ll know that stuff you think is very clear can be interpreted in a million different ways. And that is stuff you think you’ve polished. An OP on a message board is not a presidential speech or a statement by the Fed Chair which gets examined nine ways from Sunday for any possible interpretations.
As far as I understand it, I don’t find your version of God inconsistent either. I don’t buy it, but that’s different.
If you added a belief that Jesus died for our sins into your belief set, then it would be another story.
Is this a rhetorical question? There’s no reason to believe any percentage I assign would be even remotely accurate.
Yea, there are a lot of militant Christians. If you look back at my OP; It’s militant atheism to the point of where you’re willing to believe and behave irrationally just to combat the opposition. People like Bill Maher and Brian Sapient (Rational Response Squad) who say things like religion is a mental disorder, or anyone who takes pride in their atheism as a way to feel superior to believers. This is ridiculous. You are not fighting for rationality if you make these claims.
Be a militant rationalist or empiricist; Not a militant atheist. Atheism allows for the illogical (as long as it isn’t God); The other two don’t.
And who(please, name some big media names here) would you say are their militant counterparts on the Christian side of the scale? Would you say they far outnumber the atheists you are labeling “militant”?
Oh it does. On conservative religious sites, atheists are the worst scum of the earth. Unable to do anything right and automatically immoral people bent on destroying the planet.
They very much think that their belief in a supernatural entity that can’t be proven to exist makes them better than everyone on the planet.
Yes, Colbert is obviously performing satire his entire show. I understand John Stewart has said his show should be taken as nothing but satire and comedy, but you don’t think during his interviews he is being genuine? I saw him act in Big Daddy and it was pretty terrible, so I question that level of character depth.
Also, I know Bill Maher has writers, but I don’t believe the discussion panel is scripted.
Then it’s up to him to correct it, and until he does that statement can’t translate into meaning anything else. If he does then I’ll stop posting on this thread because my argument won’t be relevant to the topic anymore.
CBN, Fox News, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Discovery Institute, Ann Coulter, etc.
I don’t know if they far outnumber militant atheists in general, but they certainly have immensely greater audience and funding.
If you mean to compare the atheists who take their atheism to an irrational level, then I still don’t have an answer for you. Does it really matter though? Shouldn’t you call out irrationality no matter where it comes from?
This is totally asinine. Bill Maher isn’t a militant atheist. Bill Maher isn’t a militant anything-he is a comedian, a commentator, a satirist, a television talk show host, an actor and an author. Calling those with strong minority opinions who dare to speak those opinions “militant” is just an attempt to marginalize both the opinions and those who make them. I still reject your attempts to slap that label on such a broad variety of people.
An interesting study finds that a lot of churchgoing Christians have views on morality indistinguishable from the larger society:
IMO, this is evidence that most religious moderates aren’t really making any sense at all. They go to the trouble of believing in a man in the sky, but don’t think he expects anything of them beyond what society already expects. If you believe in something, then that belief should set you apart, even if in only small ways, from the larger society. If that’s not happening, then your religion is no bulwark against anything. We could become Sodom and these folks would just go along to get along rather than taking a moral stand informed by their faith.
Well, clearly, those polled don’t belong to the ONE TRUE FAITH, and are just religious posers. At least, that’s what the members of the ONE TRUE FAITH will think. But it turns out there are dozens, maybe hundreds of the ONE TRUE FAITHs.
I don’t disagree, but a “faith” should involve some disagreement with secular society. If it just ratifies whatever the conventional wisdom is, what’s the point?
Also, a religion is a particular set of beliefs. Heresy from one belief is one thing, but the study finds that a lot of churchgoing Christians reject their religions’ precepts on a lot of issues. So what exactly do they believe that causes them to side with human wisdom over God’s wisdom on every single issue of morality? And these are people who supposedly believe in God, so why would they reject his commands in favor of man’s wisdom?
Sort of a contradictory statement, yes? If there is only one true faith, how can there be dozens or even hundreds? As Mark Knopfler once said, “Two men say they’re Jesus; one of them must be wrong.”
Heh. No, that’s actually completely bonkers. Believing that a book came from God is quite a leap of faith, but once you’ve made that leap, it’s logical to follow what’s in the book. If you believe in God, you believe in his words, but then you just disregard them, and furthermore believe that your wisdom is greater than the God you supposedly believe in, then all I gotta say is… damn.
Then there’s believing in God, believing in his word, but believing that he couldn’t possibly have meant it when he said no divorce, no fornication, etc. That’s known as idolatry, because you built a God in your mind according to your preferences. WHich is also more bonkers than just believing in God and the Bible. Although sadly there are a lot of adherents to custom belief systems and they believe it makes them “spiritual” to create their own thing and believe in it as if it came from outside of them.
Put it this way. If I give you a book and say God told me to give it to you, follow everything it says, and you say, “Sure, I believe you!” you’re just being gullible. But if you imagine a God to your liking, that believes the things you believe, that likes what you like and condemns what you condemn(or doesn’t condemn anything at all if that’s what floats your boat), and you furthermore believe this God actually exists, this one you made up in your mind, that’s called crazy.