Hostile Atheist.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I wasn't starting a debate, I was making a statement extraneous to it on my observations about your approach to argument. If you are going to reason, then reason, veiled insults and diversionary impromptu linguistic and literacy lessons are not needed.

A bit of verbal sparring with opponents in a debate is all part and parcel of the fun on internet fora. Most people seem able to participate - but then we get those, like yourself, who seem to prefer being rude or unpleasant.

Linguistic and literary lessons would not be needed if all parties to a debate were literate, and used language in a consistent and meaningful way. Unfortunately that is not always the case.

I've noticed that if you point out the inconsistencies in certain poster's arguments that they dismiss it as semantics. It's probably a symptom of postmodernism's influence.

... and I'm sure none of these "accomplices" where acting without any fear for their own lives should they object

Probably no more or less so than the members of right wing militias who bomb abortion clinics or the Muslims who fly planes into buildings.

Seriously, I think it's about time that you started adding some credence to your claims. Where is it said that Mao killed religious people with the purpose of furthering Atheism? He killed a lot of people that he viewed as threats to his agenda, regardless of their faith or lack of. Pinpointing his Atheism as the source of all his actions is ludicrous.

Let's try to address what each other actually said, rather than what you imagine I said. I don't think I said that Mao killed "for the purpose of furthering atheism", or, indeed, that atheism was "the source of all his actions". You see, I am treating Mao as a comparison to your chosen subject of Christians who bomb abortion clinics. I hope you're not claiming that they did so for the purpose of furthering Christianity, or that Christianity was the source of all their actions.

Only two people have ever killed anyone by bombing abortion clinics. One, John Salvi, was a schizophrenic. The other, Eric Robert Rudolph, is a white supremacist who wrote, "Many good people continue to send me money and books. Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."

To be statistically accurate, we could both make up ways to weight the numbers in our favour, but what would be the point?

I think an impartial weighing of the numbers would be interesting, but then again, I don't have an axe to grind. I freely admit that both professing atheists and professing Christians have committed terrible atrocities. I'm not the none who was trying to pretend that one group is so much better than the other.

I doubt the atrocities caused by any of your fellow Christians has any bearing on your faith in Gods existence, in fact it probably strengthens it.

I certainly don't think that the atrocities committed by those holding a belief has any bearing on whether that belief is true or not (although quite how you think that would strengthen my faith I'm not sure). That would be true of both Christianity and atheism. I'm not arguing as to whether one ideology or another is true - I was simply challenging your rather sanctimonious quote about militant atheists as compared to militant Christians.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Who here has called Dawkins 'militant'?

Nah - a geek:pac:

Valmont

People have done and always will kill other people for a variety of reasons. Religion gives us a nice way to categorise the issue but I believe it is solely down to human nature.