(January 18, 2018 at 2:17 pm)Cyberman Wrote: I see a lot of unsupported definitions going on, but very little in the way of actual citations or anything silly like that.
His definition seems consistent with what I have seen used. When asked about the term on History for Atheists he describes it as the following “anti-theistic atheist activist” and also notes
Quote:I tend to find that it is the anti-theistic activists who are most likely to accept anti-religious pseudo history uncritically, to use it in their arguments and to reject any correction of it as “apologism” or “revisionism”.
However what would seem important in the immediate context would be what Steve is referring to in this manner.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
