@msolga,
I'll start with Thomas. Why not? I have to start somewhere.
Quote:Again, Dawkins' talk contains nothing "militant" in the sense of "prone to violence" ; only in the sense of taking a stand, and taking it passionately.
A lie by omission. The "only" is, in Thomas's definition, excluding the possibilty of other explanations. Recruitment to influential positions in Media for example, which is a matter of far more importance that any isolated incident involving sporadic violence. We can do something about the latter because we see it but the former we don't see too clearly and thus there's little we can do about it. And naturally, as evolution theory teaches, it expands just as vermin do if we do nothing about them. They are not called "reptiles" in some circles for nothing. They know the seamy side of life sells their products. Headquarters is known as Grub Street.
On another thread today aidan (Rebecca) said that the picture she had of prison which she had gained from books and media was "totally different" from that she sees with her eyes working in a prison. It was common knowledge many years ago that a report on a football match one had been a spectator at was such that the writer of the report must have been at another game and his editor had mixed up the articles.
Then Thomas produces this--
Quote:But the most militant actions the "militant atheists" are accused of committing is (sic) that they believe (sic, sic, sic) in evolution.
I showed that to be meaningless in three lines. But having me on Ignore enables Thomas to avoid providing an answer so that other participants in the debate can consider it. The statement is not true as well as being meaningless technically.
And then JPB doesn't think that Setanta, ros and Thomas have any animosities. Not much they don't. Their bluff has been called and they have slunk off because, to quote ros, "they don't like it". They are not defending science, which needs no defence, in any recognisable scientific way, because they haven't an ounce of science in the three of them. Nor an ounce of history either. History is a process not an pile of disconnected facts which might not even be facts. They have a subjective reason to attack religion and talk about believers as if they are a sub-species. They are unbalanced. And if everybody comes to agree with them, as they must wish, they are nowhere otherwise as preachers, then we can begin selling off the Vatican, the Cathedrals, the Churches, the hospitals, the hospices, the schools, the colleges, the mission facilities in deprived city areas and overseas, the paintings, the statues, the gold chalices and all the other kit, which would take too long to set out in any detail, and redevelop all the valuable sites for commercial purposes and put the fat, lazy buggers on the road mending gangs where they might do something useful for a change. That has to be what they want. These people who hide away from opposing viewpoints.
And we get a U-tube video of a scene in a back street.
And you vote my comments down you say. As if I am supposed to have a knee-trembler at the dramatic news.
And I am justified is having an animosity if I want to have one, which I don't. You have three people who put their hands over their ears and bury their faces in Mom's apron when it is my turn to offer a "perspective" and for one reason only which I have already specified. Fear.
Is that debate Olga? Shouldn't you be admonishing Setanta, ros and Thomas. They betray the very essence of debate. Any talk from them about free and open discussion is just so much self-flattering hogwash. They shouldn't even be here. In a proper debate they would be thrown out. And it's worse that that. They actually try to make a virtue of it. Especially Setanta who thinks he is placing another feather in his cap when he repeats for the nth time that he has me on Ignore and that in doing so he takes the high ground. Can you believe that Olga?
Well--yes you can. You are on the same side as they are so you pretend that they are the good guys and can do no wrong. And they are wimpy jelly-babies which have been in the sunny window too long.
You have your standards and I have mine. Suit yourself who you want to have your discussions with and how they are conducted. You'll learn sod all from any of those three to anywhere near compare to the post of mine about Mr Bullock's book on Hitler. Nor of my analysis, crude as it was, of Media bias.
I wonder how many Media-persons have participated in an abortion. In pre-marital sex, in birth control, in adultery, in divorce and in homosexuality. All six profoundly demeaning to women.
But I expect nothing less. I know I'm on my own against a self-reinforcing claque.
