Militant Atheism?

[Data]

Oh dear.
These don't make you look good, data.
Perhaps you should start a separate thread on both of these issues.

I don't care - at all - about looking good, I care about truth. I'm not going to start a thread about trolling because it's pointless and I'm not going to start a thread about - the thing we must not mention - because it will just be deleted. NOW, if I were willing to be banned over the forbidden subject I would do that, but you have to pick your battles.

Just ask yourself this. Does science cower from war time propaganda turned into popularized emotional ideology? Do you REALLY care about facts? The answer is yes to the first question and no to the second.

[Data]

I figured that, but is scientific evidence disproving certain aspects of the Holocaust considered "Holocaust denial"?

Can we talk about the historical accuracy of the Holocaust?

I won’t entertain your nonsense.

Boru

[no one]

You don't understand science, do you?

[FrustratedFool]

Oh dear.
These don't make you look good, data.
Perhaps you should start a separate thread on both of these issues.

I don't care - at all - about looking good, I care about truth. I'm not going to start a thread about trolling because it's pointless and I'm not going to start a thread about - the thing we must not mention - because it will just be deleted. NOW, if I were willing to be banned over the forbidden subject I would do that, but you have to pick your battles.

Just ask yourself this. Does science cower from war time propaganda turned into popularized emotional ideology? Do you REALLY care about facts? The answer is yes to the first question and no to the second.

Why do you say I don't really care about facts?
Also, did you ever follow up on the posts about your incorrect labelling of me being a hypocrite?

[Data]

Why do you say I don't really care about facts?

I don't think I specifically referred to you personally, correct me if I'm wrong. The entire point of the article I posted on another forum and linked to here wasn't for the purpose of examining the facts, although it did do that effectively. The actual purpose of the presentation was to demonstrate how science and facts aren't as important to people that claim it is due to indoctrination and ideology. It was an extremely effective presentation as you can see here. Atheists claim evidence, truth, facts and science are important when really, to them, they are not. They just claim they are in order to justify, in appearance, their ideology. I could have used 911 as an example but I chose the other due to it's historical nature.

Also, did you ever follow up on the posts about your incorrect labelling of me being a hypocrite?

I seen it but I guess I didn't respond. I'm overwhelmed here. It's me alone against the forum. I'll see if I can find it and respond. I'm enjoying this but it is taking too much of my time. I'm going to have to kick it down a notch or two.

[Data]

You don't understand science, do you?

As John Cleese said, science is a method for investigation, not a belief system.

[FrustratedFool]

It appeared in context that you were addressing me directly. But if you're clarifying that you don't believe that I don't care about facts then that's fine. We can agree that I care about facts.

I appreciate you're overwhelmed, though I expect you're used to it. Respond on your false charge about my hypocrisy when you can, and until you do I will rest knowing I am not a hypocrite.

[Angrboda]

Just an FYI - I agree with Boru.  Since staff is pretty thin these days...that's plenty to make a judgement call.

Not surprisingly. It's the most controversial subject I can think of. But, just to be sure, denying the historical accuracy of certain aspects of Russian wartime propaganda is okay otherwise? Ukraine, for example? And believing without question or criticism the death of a large number of Jews is only likely to be deleted in the case of the Holocaust - not the Bible? Also, is it okay to talk about the millions or other deaths caused by WWII?

[Data]

I oppose religion in the same way I oppose fascism and spitting in the street.  I'd prefer they weren't.
Is that militant?  

Or is it a question of methodology, rather than attitude, that makes something militant or not?

Militant is defined as having to do with the military, in a literal sense, and in a figurative sense, as I use it, at war with a group of people. For clarification what I specifically mean by militant in this context is outspokenness compared to non-militant atheism. Militant atheists care about prayer in schools, in "God we trust" on money, abortion and gay rights, nativity scenes and the 10 commandments at the courthouse, tax exemption for religious organizations, all of which I agree with them on. But, since I'm technically a theist, I'm a militant theist in that regard. Militant atheists rent billboards, ad campaigns, buy bumper stickers etc. for atheism. Non-militant atheists don't. As an atheist for 27 years I wouldn't have done any of that. As a theist I wouldn't do or approve of doing any of that for theism. So in one regard I'm militant and in another I'm not. If you have a better term for what I'm describing I would gladly change.

[Fake Messiah]

Militant is defined as having to do with the military, in a literal sense, and in a figurative sense, as I use it,

Of course, military or militant means whatever you want it to mean. One way of "proving" the existence of god is by adding scary words to atheism.