I especially think the part of Padraic's post...:
...was the biggest concern I have. Early on when I was involved in postiing on the internet, it was the biggest pitfall I fell into. It was my first lesson in considering the source and don't believe everything you read. I've tried to learn that lesson well and be more careful in the future.
Religious apologists and neo-cons will both go on the offensive when under attack. They'll pick out the weakest point of your arguments and harp on it endlessly, even if you later retract it (see my earliest exchange with Ryft). The strategy is to find any flaw and use it to discredit the whole (also known as poisoning the well).
It's important when you argue with either group that, whether it's fair or not, you have to review your armor and be sure there are no chinks in it. It's best to focus on what is indisputably proven.
The Bush administration did take advantage of a nation shocked and scared after 9/11 to play a shell game with us that got us into Iraq. This is criminal conspiracy stuff by itself that needs nothing else.
The Christians can only tell a extraordinary story based on gospels of dubious authorship written decades after the alleged events with testimonies that contradict each other and can't be squared with what we know of history. They don't even have their own story straight, never mind have the evidence that meets the burden of proof. Going into similarities with pagan gods, unless you are personally an expert in such matters, leaves you vulnerable to counter attack.
Quote:these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization—there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones.
...was the biggest concern I have. Early on when I was involved in postiing on the internet, it was the biggest pitfall I fell into. It was my first lesson in considering the source and don't believe everything you read. I've tried to learn that lesson well and be more careful in the future.
Religious apologists and neo-cons will both go on the offensive when under attack. They'll pick out the weakest point of your arguments and harp on it endlessly, even if you later retract it (see my earliest exchange with Ryft). The strategy is to find any flaw and use it to discredit the whole (also known as poisoning the well).
It's important when you argue with either group that, whether it's fair or not, you have to review your armor and be sure there are no chinks in it. It's best to focus on what is indisputably proven.
The Bush administration did take advantage of a nation shocked and scared after 9/11 to play a shell game with us that got us into Iraq. This is criminal conspiracy stuff by itself that needs nothing else.
The Christians can only tell a extraordinary story based on gospels of dubious authorship written decades after the alleged events with testimonies that contradict each other and can't be squared with what we know of history. They don't even have their own story straight, never mind have the evidence that meets the burden of proof. Going into similarities with pagan gods, unless you are personally an expert in such matters, leaves you vulnerable to counter attack.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
