(November 8, 2009 at 5:21 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Well if you make such a biased statement you should expect no less Secularone. Keep it civil and others will be civil with you.
The statement may dismissed as simply biased, but it is well-substantiated by a mountain of evidence.
I wish that it was not true, but it is.
There is nothing about pointing out this fact that isn't civil.
You and other theists may be hostile to exposing this, but it remains a fact. Monotheism is a dumb-down fascist institution. It has all the characteristics. Christianity is no exception. The evidence is overwhelming. I would love to debate this with any Christian brave or dumb enough to take the plunge.
Of course, they will reject any evidence, just as you reject all evidence. But that doesn't nullify it. And the beauty of it is that I will get the chance of making the case without disruption or distraction.
Your idea of being civil is that I shouldn't expose Christianity's dirty laundry, no matter how deserving of criticism it is. I don't agree.
Without criticism, there remains no mechanism for reform. That's a fact too.
I am always open to honest discussions with theists about my remarks. I am not open to sophist tactics designed to disenfranchise or silence criticism. The remark made by Solarweave was not conducive to any kind of intelligent discussion.
If I am unable to articulate valid reasons for my statements, I will make a fool of myself without help from you or Solarweave. Everyone will see it and know it.
Solarweave should challenge my remarks, if he thinks there is a problem with them. Everyone will be watching to see if I can defend them. But when one rushes to condemn what they don't know anything about, they often are the one who ends up looking like a fool. Case in point: Your remarks about Unitarian Universalism, which I challenged but which you have not the integrity to either intelligently defend or retract.
