Zeitgeist

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

[The Grand Nudger]

I watched it all the way through a few times. Sucks, you aren't missing anything.

[DeistPaladin]

I especially think the part of Padraic's post...:

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are those of us who are very interested in comparative religion. Nothing wrong responding to a claim, for example, that the myth of christ is a unique one by showing that is not. What possible counterattack is there? We're dealing with myths here, unless someone has any evidence that would call this evidence based conclusion into question. No one should be worried that an apologist scores internet points by "winning" an argument. Evidence or GTFO.