Atheism causes creationism

Mark Hamill

marty1985 wrote: »

I'm just confused if you're referring specifically to the Catholic Church here or not when you say "church". If so, I disagree for reasons already given. I don't understand the line about anything being evolution's "fault". I just said that creationism as we know it has more to do with evolution because the movement gained publicity through the Scopes Trial.

I was referring to the RCC, but commenting on how they didn't resist against evolution, but have resisted, because of a literal reading of parts of the bible, other science.

marty1985 wrote: »

Not much correlates with it in fairness, (as in actual historical information), but I said already that I understood your view to relate to literal interpretations of the Bible, not fundamentalism per se. Fundamentalism is reactionary. I was only contributing some historical information to the thread, and giving personal opinion, not arguing.

"Christian fundamentalism, also known as Fundamentalist Christianity, or Fundamentalism,[1] arose out of British and American Protestantism in the late 19th century and early 20th century among evangelical Christians.[2] The founders reacted against liberal theology and militantly asserted that the inerrancy of the Bible was essential for true Christianity and was being violated by the modernists."

I am not sure what the disagreement is at all.

OK, maybe I'm over reacting a bit in relation to some of your points. Some other posters seem to be expressing your point as if it somehow implies that before the theory of evolution, no-one believed in a literal reading of the bible and that this means evolution should something something, I dont know, I'm still waiting to see why, even if true, it matters.
I still see your point, tbh, as moot, though. Fundamentalism is what we call the modern form of the belief that a lot of christian sects have always held, in the past in contrast to sects like catholicism which may not have held to an overly literal interpretation (and so the contrast and counter reaction wasn't very strong), but now in contrast to evolution (and so the contrast is a lot greater). I know you can point to modern fundamentalist protestors and say thats a difference, but its not really. Nowadays, fundamentalism has to protest against evolution as it makes it factually wrong (and so because of the large contrast, it makes the protest look extreme), in the past it protested against whatever its parent sect and you got offshoots, like Protestantism and Calvinism, which held more literal interpretations of parts of the bible.

marty1985 wrote: »

Because I respectfully don't agree. My statement was not directed at all militant atheists, ("There are militant athiests out there..."), it's an opinion and I gave reasons why I hold that opinion. It's nothing controversial.

Except it is controversial, because militant atheist is a disingenuous label, with aggressive, violent overtones which don't actually apply to the people being labeled. This is why I gave the caricature, a "militant" theist is violent, but a "militant" atheist is vocal.

marty1985 wrote: »

I don't see any point in arguing about a difference of opinion.

But thats what this site is FOR!

old hippy

Newsite wrote: »

2 billion Christians and still going strong 2000 years later old hippy?

At least keep the facts in mind when making such outlandish claims!

And harrassing journalists & people in the public eye? Is that outlandish?

Newsite

old hippy wrote: »

And harrassing journalists & people in the public eye? Is that outlandish?

You reckon they are real Christians? As Magic Marker said earlier, approx 1-2% of Christians are actually Christians. I'd say that's even well over the actual figure...

How about journalists' false claims against priests?!

Newsite

robindch wrote: »

Post below? I'd have said "above". And you certainly used the word "rational" in a sense I've never comr across. Perhaps we're not speaking the same language after all.I didn't address it because it's irrelevant. Do you know what motivated Jesus? Do you have anything he wrote himself? Or are you relying on second-hand accounts from other people?

'Second-hand accounts from other people' - I can take this to mean that you disregard writings from those who don't have first hand experience of historical characters, then? All those books written on Caesar or Aristotle by people who weren't living when these characters were alive, or who never met these characters, isn't valid, in your book?

You might be a bit biased here, no? I am too of course, but if you want to be rational then you have to recognise it.

Penn wrote: »

But was Jesus the author of these beliefs, or the inspiration for them? I bet a man named Jesus did live then, did some good things, had many followers, and died on a cross. Yet do you not think that it's possible that other people may have taken those true things, and exaggerated them, making Jesus into the Son of God, healing the sick, walking on water etc etc. After all, like you said yourself, the gospels were written after Jesus' death, and "the early Christians wrote nothing down! Few of them could even read, let alone write." So when the Bible says "Jesus said.....", how do we know that's what Jesus said?

Well think about it. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the letters of Paul were all written within a few decades of Christ's death. They give an account of His life and quote various figures who were alive at the time they wrote these accounts. Surely these figures would have refuted these accounts at the time? Why can you find no evidence of these accounts being refuted? Is it possibly because they are true?

If you think about it, how do we know that anything is true from history? We rely on the writings of others to give accounts. Also, Jesus is mentioned in various other sources, e.g. the writings of Josephus.

Penn wrote: »

Take The Last Temptation of Christ as an example. Jesus fasted for 40 days and nights in the desert, resisted temptation by the devil, and was cared for by the angels at the end. Now, who told that story? Jesus was alone in the desert for 40 days and night, so the only person who could have known what was said and what happened, was Jesus. Either Jesus told the disciples (who had no way to verify the story), Jesus lied to the disciples, or someone made it up after Jesus' death.

How does anyone learn anything about historical figures? By reading about such figures from someone else is one way. Either people who knew them first hand or from secondary sources.

For example, if I went and travelled to Japan for a month on my own next week, and I somehow became a person of note, if you came along 30 years later, how would you know I had been there? It would be because someone would have known about me, and wrote about me, and this was then passed on.

Delirium

You're not comparing like with like. Stating a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago and who died by crucifixion isn't outside the bounds of reality.

Saying he was the son of the creator of reality, that's into the realm of fiction/myth.

Newsite

koth wrote: »

You're not comparing like with like. Stating a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago and who died by crucifixion isn't outside the bounds of reality.

Saying he was the son of the creator of reality, that's into the realm of fiction/myth.

Well considering that the story of Christ and the essence of Christianity is based on the latter part, if you take one you take the other.

If He hadn't claimed to be the Son of God then He probably wouldn't have been crucified in the first place would He.

Improbable

Newsite wrote: »

Well considering that the story of Christ and the essence of Christianity is based on the latter part, if you take one you take the other.

If He hadn't claimed to be the Son of God then He probably wouldn't have been crucified in the first place would He.

Just because he said he was the son of god doesn't make it true.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

You might be a bit biased here, no? I am too of course, but if you want to be rational then you have to recognise it.

As with your previous response, I've no idea what this has to do with what I wrote. You are changing topic at random, avoiding discussing the matter at hand, avoiding points raised, and generally failing to take part in the kind of mature dialectic discussion that the posters here A+A do rather well.

Since you're a recent (and welcome) arrival, and no doubt, to a certain extent still figuring out how things run here and who's who, the following handy flowchart may help to clarify what we mean by the dialectic:

Delirium

Newsite wrote: »

Well considering that the story of Christ and the essence of Christianity is based on the latter part, if you take one you take the other.

If He hadn't claimed to be the Son of God then He probably wouldn't have been crucified in the first place would He.

Exactly, for what he claimed to be. Not because the Romans believed him to be the son of God. If they actually had believed that, then Jesus probably wouldn't have been crucified.

Just shows that he wasn't entirely convincing as a son of the creator.

As for it being the essence of Christianity, that's a problem for the Christians to resolve.

Newsite

Improbable wrote: »

Just because he said he was the son of god doesn't make it true.

But the accounts of the resurrection and impact thereafter do suggest it. The immediate spread of Christianity and the martyrdom of thousands do support it, wouldn't you say?

I can't see thousands of people dying for something they could attest to being a lie.

Newsite

Newsite wrote: »

But the accounts of the resurrection and impact thereafter do suggest it. The immediate spread of Christianity and the martyrdom of thousands do support it, wouldn't you say?

I can't see thousands of people dying for something they could attest to being a lie.

So then how do you explain Jim Jones' cult?
Or Heaven's Gate?

Or any of the numerous parallels to early Christianity in cults that you believe are obviously false which brought up for you to promptly ignore.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

I can't see thousands of people dying for something they could attest to being a lie.

Back to square one again.

I note that you use the weasel-word "attest" in there.

It's quite obvious that few people are going to die for a lie, though there are known cases of it happening. What happened here is that (assuming that the reports of lots of people dying are true), people thought that the religious stories about Jesus were true.

People believe all kinds of silly rubbish, whether it's from the scientologists, the jim-jonesers, holocaust deniers, 9/11 troofers, the north korean goverment, the national socialists etc. And of all the kinds of rubbish beliefs that circulate, religious ones are the most popular. And yes, people do die for them, regularly. Doesn't mean they're true, just that people thought they were true.

Before you reply to this post, or anybody else's, please look at the graphic I posted up above.

thanks - robin.

Improbable

Newsite wrote: »

But the accounts of the resurrection and impact thereafter do suggest it. The immediate spread of Christianity and the martyrdom of thousands do support it, wouldn't you say?

I can't see thousands of people dying for something they could attest to being a lie.

It does no such thing. It suggests that people might have BELIEVED it to be true. Once again, just because they BELIEVE it to be true doesn't mean that it is.

Improbable

robindch wrote: »

Before you reply to this post, or anybody else's, please look at the graphic I posted up above.

thanks - robin.

Ah now, you can't hold them to that standard. They would lose 95% of all their arguments cos they'd constantly be breaking the 3rd rule. They'd also be breaking the 4th rule pretty consistently.

Newsite

robindch wrote: »

Back to square one again.

I note that you use the weasel-word "attest" in there.

It's quite obvious that few people are going to die for a lie, though there are known cases of it happening. What happened here is that (assuming that the reports of lots of people dying are true), people thought that the religious stories about Jesus were true.

People believe all kinds of silly rubbish, whether it's from the scientologists, the jim-jonesers, holocaust deniers, 9/11 troofers, the north korean goverment, the national socialists etc. And of all the kinds of rubbish beliefs that circulate, religious ones are the most popular. And yes, people do die for them, regularly. Doesn't mean they're true, just that people thought they were true.

Before you reply to this post, or anybody else's, please look at the graphic I posted up above.

thanks - robin.

How is 'attest' a weasel-word?

I've already confirmed in a recent post that I realise that people can be fooled by all sorts of claims, so why are you repeating this point ad-nauseum? Perhaps you need to read through your condescending graphic?

One major difference between Christianity and the 9/11 guys, or the Holocaust deniers, is that in the case of the deniers, we can clearly prove them wrong, so they are exposed as a sham. Re 9/11, it's suspect as to whether this was perpetuated by Muslims at all, but we won't go there. But given they supposedly died to get to the 72 virgins or whatever it was, we have no basis for believing their claims to be true.

But with Christianity, we have very few people rejecting the idea that Christ died and rose again in early Christianity, right? Why didn't the Romans refute it at the time?

The onus may be on me to 'prove' something, but you can't claim something is rubbish without providing your reasons for why that is - drawing parallels with other systems proven to be false is far from enough.

Newsite

Newsite wrote: »

The onus may be on me to 'prove' something, but you can't claim something is rubbish without providing your reasons for why that is - drawing parallels with other systems proven to be false is far from enough.

Actually that's exactly what we can do. We did provide examples and reasons for doubting the claims made about Jesus (ie. they are exactly the same as the claims made by other cults that even you think are false.)

Hence we are doing the logical fair thing and assuming the null hypothesis untill you are able to provide evidence to support his claims more that the claims of other cults. But experience tells us that you won't be doing so any
time soon.

But if you really did believe what you posted above, you then would have to accept any nonsense presented to you, because you're shifting the burden of proof.

ed2hands

robindch wrote: »

As with your previous response, I've no idea what this has to do with what I wrote. You are changing topic at random, avoiding discussing the matter at hand, avoiding points raised, and generally failing to take part in the kind of mature dialectic discussion that the posters here A+A do rather well.

Since you're a recent (and welcome) arrival, and no doubt, to a certain extent still figuring out how things run here and who's who, the following handy flowchart may help to clarify what we mean by the dialectic:

"You cheated, the discussion is terminated":rolleyes:

IMO this chart should not apply to A+A discussions. It's gives carte blanche for your position to claim 'victory' over the other position ("cheaters").
You'll have an echo chamber soon enough with directives like that.

Hopelessly biased in your favour of course, and reduces all dialogue to the usual cack-handed "evidence of gtfo" argument favoured by many.

The Mad Hatter

ed2hands wrote: »

Hopelessly biased in your favour of course, and reduces all dialogue to the usual cack-handed "evidence of gtfo" argument favoured by many.

Whereas the religious would prefer to make the argument without resorting to evidence?

Virgil°

ed2hands wrote: »

"You cheated, the discussion is terminated":rolleyes:

IMO this chart should not apply to A+A discussions. It's gives carte blanche for your position to claim 'victory' over the other position ("cheaters").
You'll have an echo chamber soon enough with directives like that.
.

A "carte blanche" victory in a discussion for rationality, supplying evidence and open to being corrected is a victory many would gladly accept I wager.

ed2hands

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Whereas the religious would prefer to make the argument without resorting to evidence?

Each religious poster here would like to make their arguments in their own way as they're all different aren't they?

Why are you asking me that?

Newsite

King Mob wrote: »

Actually that's exactly what we can do. We did provide examples and reasons for doubting the claims made about Jesus (ie. they are exactly the same as the claims made by other cults that even you think are false.)

Hence we are doing the logical fair thing and assuming the null hypothesis untill you are able to provide evidence to support his claims more that the claims of other cults. But experience tells us that you won't be doing so any
time soon.

But if you really did believe what you posted above, you then would have to accept any nonsense presented to you, because you're shifting the burden of proof.

Well wouldn't you say that's the lazy route?! 'Oh look, Nazi revisionism is complete BS, ergo Christianity is 'false'? Essentially what you're doing is saying that because people get fooled by various claims, that this provides ample proof that Christianity is false.

I've already said that Josephus spoke of Christianity - it is claimed that the below piece was altered by Christians, which would seem completely ridiculous considering they were persecuted at the time and could not have had the power or means to corrupt the works of an esteemed writer, and have that version survive:

from Wikipedia: Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in AD 93. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice, though scholars debate their authenticity. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.
In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[71]

Newsite

Newsite wrote: »

Well wouldn't you say that's the lazy route?! 'Oh look, Nazi revisionism is complete BS, ergo Christianity is 'false'? Essentially what you're doing is saying that because people get fooled by various claims, that this provides ample proof that Christianity is false.

You're misunderstanding my point. Probably deliberately.

We are showing you examples of exactly what you are claiming validates Christianity in other religions and cults that you totally dismiss as false.
We are using this to show that early Christianity is as factually valid as these cults.
You have yet to provide a single reason to distinguish the "true" religion from the false ones.

Newsite wrote: »

I've already said that Josephus spoke of Christianity - it is claimed that the below piece was altered by Christians, which would seem completely ridiculous considering they were persecuted at the time and could not have had the power or means to corrupt the works of an esteemed writer, and have that version survive:

from Wikipedia: Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in AD 93. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice, though scholars debate their authenticity. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.
In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[71]

So that's it?
One historian 60 years down the line says Jesus existed and had followers who claimed he had magic powers?

Again this applies exactly to other cult leaders.
L. Ron Hubbard existed and had many followers who continued to preach his message after his death and was said to have performed remarkable feats.
Joseph Smith existed and had many followers who continued to preach his message after his death and was said to have performed remarkable feats.

Are either of these statements false?
Do either of these states make those cults any more true?

And if no (the only clear and honest answer), then how does the same statement then somehow make Christianity more true?

Delirium

Josephus was born after Christ died, so his account would be a collection of stories related to him 10-20 years after the life of Christ. So he didn't actually get to verify anything from the stories himself.

Penn

Newsite wrote: »

How is 'attest' a weasel-word?

I've already confirmed in a recent post that I realise that people can be fooled by all sorts of claims, so why are you repeating this point ad-nauseum? Perhaps you need to read through your condescending graphic?

One major difference between Christianity and the 9/11 guys, or the Holocaust deniers, is that in the case of the deniers, we can clearly prove them wrong, so they are exposed as a sham. Re 9/11, it's suspect as to whether this was perpetuated by Muslims at all, but we won't go there. But given they supposedly died to get to the 72 virgins or whatever it was, we have no basis for believing their claims to be true.

But with Christianity, we have very few people rejecting the idea that Christ died and rose again in early Christianity, right? Why didn't the Romans refute it at the time?

The onus may be on me to 'prove' something, but you can't claim something is rubbish without providing your reasons for why that is - drawing parallels with other systems proven to be false is far from enough.

But back then, people believed the Earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the Earth etc. You're attributing them with knowledge we have today but they did not have. Back then, if someone claimed they saw someone magic thousands of loaves and fishes out of thin air, most could easily believe that to be true. They claimed Jesus rose for the dead three days later and appeared before the disciples. People would be much more inclined to believe that back then as they would be today, especially if these claims tied in with what was already the basis of their religion due to their belief in God.

It's the exact same way people nowadays worship things that they think Jesus' face has appeared in. To believers, they see Jesus's face, because they already believe in Jesus. To non-believers, they just see the thing for what it is, and the coincidence that if you squint and put your head at a 32deg angle, it kinda maybe looks like a face. People back then would have been more likely to believe such stories because it played in to their already preconceived notions.

Dades

ed2hands wrote: »

"IMO this chart should not apply to A+A discussions. It's gives carte blanche for your position to claim 'victory' over the other position ("cheaters").

Why does that chart give us victory? What "rules" cannot be adhered to?

Also, I doubt anybody considers such a termination a victory - more likely a frustration.

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

Hopelessly biased in your favour of course, and reduces all dialogue to the usual cack-handed "evidence of gtfo" argument favoured by many.

Yeah strange that when you are espousing ideas people might want to know if those ideas have any substantiation whatsoever isn't it.

Sorry for not going with the "Accept my unsubstantiated ideas for no other reason than I have espoused them" argument "favoured by many".

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

On the contrary Zombrex, I'm perfectly interest and willing to debate on the merits of rationality, I love rational thinking

I'm sure you can do better than comparing Scientology to Christianity. Anyone can confirm that the motivation for Scientology was personal enrichment and self-aggrandising. L Ron Hubbard was clearly a liar who wanted to get rich.

Yes Newsite, that is the point. Despite it being utterly obvious to most people, and clearly demonstrated by the evidence, that Scientology is a lie some people continue to believe it is true.

So why would you assume at all that if Christianity had been discredited in the early days of the movement the early Christians would have stopped following it?

Your position has been discredited. You are simply ignoring this. You are, ironically, a perfect demonstration of how you say humans won't act.

Newsite wrote: »

Wouldn't you say that crucifixion is a fairly humiliating death? Wouldn't you say that if his followers were clearly making it up, that they might want to come up with something that would portray Christ in a more positive light?

They did, they say he rose from the dead and created a narrative that he in fact knew he was going to die and wanted to die and that this was in fact necessary for all man kind's salvation.

For all we know Jesus was screaming like a child begging to be taken down of the cross and recanting anything he preached. But you ain't going to find that in the official Christian records.

In the official records you will find a nobel death with purpose.

Shockingly this is also what you find in Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard died full of the medical drugs that his religion preached didn't work and were in fact really bad for you. Do you find this the official records? No, you find that Hubbard in fact shed his body in order to ascent to a higher plan of existence to continue his important work.

Newsite wrote: »

Why didn't He cleverly evade the Romans and escape through the power of God?

Er, because he wasn't really supernatural.

Newsite wrote: »

Wouldn't that make for a more 'glorious' end? More of a 'take that, you godless heathens'?

Jesus, like most cult leaders at the time, got caught and executed. His distraught followers had to invent a meaning for this event. They came up with the idea of the perfect sacrifice.

Newsite wrote: »

You also have to look at how the disciples are portrayed in the Gospels - as fairly weak, spineless, un-courageous men who would sell you down the river one minute (e.g. Peter, who had seen the miracles Christ performed first-hand, but still denied Him at the critical juncture - but who then went on to evangelise), but then as people who, following the resurrection, became strong proponents of the faith.

Wow, what could possible be the purpose of a story about how people became stronger once they had accepted the tenants of the religion :rolleyes:

Newsite wrote: »

Why would they be portrayed as weak men at all?

So they could be portrayed as "transformed" by the religion. That is what all religions promise, that the religion will make you better.

Are you really that naive Newsite?

Newsite wrote: »

Your counter-argument would probably be that the resurrection is what caused them to become bold preachers, but that since the resurrection itself is 'made up', that this means nothing. But again, why portray yourself as anything other than glorious if your motivation is self-glorification?

Jesus did portray himself as glorious, he portrayed himself as the Son of God for crying out loud.

He then went and got himself executed, probably through his own stupidity, and as you say was killed in a humiliating fashion. I would be very surprised if that was part of Jesus' plans.

His distraught followers were left with the cognitive dissidence that their messiah, the one who promised so much, had just been brutally cut down by the Romans. Why didn't their messiah use his magical powers to escape? Why didn't their messiah bring down the full wrath of God on the heads of the soldiers as the prophets in the passed had done.

Could it be that perhaps he wasn't the messiah after all?

Well we all know that when faced with crushing reality or comforting illusion religious followers pick comforting illusion time and time again.

So it MUST have been part of Jesus' plan all along! He MUST have known what he was doing!. The Messiah doesn't just die!.

And so piece by piece over the months or even years the story develops that he did in fact rise from the dead. It was all part of his plan after all! Of course it was!

Over here a rumour that some pepole saw him after he died. Over there a rumour that he was buried in a tomb but then the body was missing. Over here rumours that before he died he said he must die. Over there rumours of a promise of salvation because of his death.

Decades later when the Bible was actually written down the rumours has developed into a fully fledged mythology.

How do we know this happens in human cultures? BECAUSE IT STILL HAPPENS (exhibit A - Scientology)

old hippy

Newsite wrote: »

You reckon they are real Christians? As Magic Marker said earlier, approx 1-2% of Christians are actually Christians. I'd say that's even well over the actual figure...

How about journalists' false claims against priests?!

How about keeping to the facts when making such outlandish claims?

There is a Christian pressure group operating in Ireland who ring news programmes and harrass presenters if they perceive any gay agenda.

Why don't you deal with the pitiful last gasp of militant right wing christians before sticking it to the journos?

If it wasn't for journos, the plight of the many victims of your sick church would remain covered up.

Think about that.

ed2hands

Dades wrote: »

Why does that chart give us victory?

Exactly my point. It shouldn't, but some will claim it all the same i presume.

The chart clearly implies victory/defeat:
"You are deemed to have conceded all opposing arguments up to this point"
"You forfeit any right to complain about the discussion"

And my personal favourite, "You cheated, the discussion is terminated":pac:

Dades wrote: »

What "rules" cannot be adhered to?

They can all be adhered to in other matters yes, just saying i personally think it's not suitable to apply such rules to this forum in general.

Dades wrote: »

Also, I doubt anybody considers such a termination a victory - more likely a frustration.

Oh i'd say there might be one or two.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah strange that when you are espousing ideas people might want to know if those ideas have any substantiation whatsoever isn't it.

Not strange at all. Perfectly understandable.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sorry for not going with the "Accept my unsubstantiated ideas for no other reason than I have espoused them" argument "favoured by many".

Am sure they'd say 'No apology necessary'. If however their views were over-generalised, habitually misrepresented and demonised, then that's another thing.

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

Am sure they'd say 'No apology necessary'. If however their views were over-generalised, habitually misrepresented and demonised, then that's another thing.

Then take it up with people who have actually done so, I certainly have not. I am merely pointing out that there is nothing wrong with suggesting that one should have evidence for what one is espousing... let alone that expecting such "reduces" the conversation at all or is "cack-handed"