First off I am agnostic. So I don't belong to any side. I am here only to call Spade a Spade.

Bigwhammy, you had in another thread "Buddhist Conspiracy For World Perversion" criticized that some of us would defend anyone and everyone, except your religion. Specifically you accused that "PC squad never defends Christians when we get bashed every day". I have thought about what you said. You are right, I for one am guilty and extremely ashamed. I will practice what I had stated in that thread, I will defend anyone deserving, regardless of race, language and religion. I am therefore going to defend Christians. I hope you appreciate what I am doing as you are the one who has convinced me to do so.

I am defending Christian again instigators, hatemongers and perpetrators like you. You are no different than Rileytardell. You are in fact in the same category as Rileytardell and Richard Dawkins.

You Bigwhammy, Richard Dawkins and the likes are blind, incapable of reasoning and/or wilfully refuses to accept reality. You guys pick what you want to see and hear. You guys based your argument on selective evidences. What’s worse, you guys have a tendency of selecting mostly bad things. Because you Bigwhammy, Richard Dawkins and the likes are whom you are, you guys will be biased. You guys will ignore majority independent evidences. You guys will go with the most upsetting evidence you can find that has caused grievance to your religion/cause. You guys will ignore other people's grievances/cause. You guys will twist facts to suit your agenda.

Let me repeat and update what I said in the other thread. A religious group or a group that doesn't believe in God, doesn't guarantee all it's followers to be good. Being good is down to the individual. There will always be bad apples around, just as there will be good Atheist, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and others. The sooner you realised that, the sooner you will understand how the world really works. By the way, there are also good agnostics around too. I am an agnostic, my kind got bashed by fanatics from all sides all the time, but I am also defended by good people from all sides. They are the protectors and angels of humankind, which Bigwhammy and company are the opposite. Bigwhammy, Richard Dawkins and the likes just want to create a negative world for purposes only known to them. There are more of us who just want to live peacefully without being told what we should believe.

Bigwhammy, your thread has so much misinformation and misrepresentation, it’s disgusting. To critical thinkers, regardless of race, language and religion, always look out for characters with sinister motives. Deny them any opportunity to make this world a worse place to live, it's already bad enough. Never side them. Be faithful to yourself and your own belief. Let others be, leave them to their own beliefs. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Bigwhammy, you are part of the problem.

AHEM

Please stay ON topic and cease the personal sniping and attacks etc. It add nothing to the debate at hand.

Thanks

---

---

The Fallacy of Special Pleading is defined as follows - Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

By the way, the above came from the OP, credits to him. Gigantopithecus made own conclusion about this thread, this is a prime example of the fallacy of Special Pleading.

Nevermind the total lack of evidence from mainstream reputable sources, the intentional and selective use of materials from suspicious sources and the feeble argument to link Dawkins, Darwin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Communism, Socialism, Atheism, Darwinism, theory of Evolution, Materialism. In essence, this thread is to warn about the extremist and radical views of Richard Dawkins. It should be aptly titled. For example "Richard Dawkins is putting Atheists' contributions to society at risk", "Proof of Richard Dawkins' extremist views". "Richard Dawkins unfairly blame all religions".

The OP consciously and intentionally chose the disjointed title of "Are Atheists Air Brushing History?". This is an invitation to discuss whether atheists are airbrushing history instead of Dawkins radical views. The thread then steered off topic which deteriorated into Atheist bashing. Later the OP subtly injects his religious ideology into what was to be a Dawkins-centric thread. How far off topic can this thread get? There are 80 over pages in this thread, Gigantopithecus can draw own conclusion and Gigantopithecus can't be fooled. Is the OP willing to take up the challenge to be specific? How about changing the misleading thread title to "Radical Neo Atheist movement led by Dawkins and Hitchens"? To help the OP, perhaps ATS members can help suggest more apt titles which are less prone to steer off topic?

The OP is leading you to believe that I Gigantopithecus has been trolling and specifically targets him for personal attacks. This claim is false. I Gigantopithecus am a newbie, Gigantopithecus has only engaged the OP in only 2 threads out of the 80 over threads the OP visited. The OP is a seasoned poster with an impressive 30863 ATS points, he is intelligent and capable of manipulation. The OP knows I am not trolling him. The OP is trying his luck to scare off and get Gigantopithecus banned. If his false contention that I am "trolling" him is to be entertained, Gigantopithecus is still far behind, other ATS members had trolled the OP even more, they had engaged the OP in more than two threads. Under current circumstances, Gigantopithecus is not even encouraged to troll the OP, however, the debate will be taken to the OP, as and when Gigantopithecus decides.

Gigantopithecus need not and does not subscribe to personal attacks. Gigantopithecus will not deny his goals are to seeks and identify false claims, to venture into these territories to bring on the debate, to educate and encourage independence of the mind, to made the world less confusing, to promote understanding, peaceful co-existence and to make the world a better place to live in.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Sorry didn't mean to offend your delicate sensibilities. Seriously what did you expect when it was call "The Atrocities of Atheism" and it clearly has a starvation victim on the still before you hit play.

I expect you to assert some discretion and have some taste in what you post. It's one thing to show someone starving.. quite another to show a pile of decapitated heads.


[edit on 30-6-2008 by riley]

Okies I'm going to burst a bubble here - not all communists are athiests - I know this from very personal experience....I am not an atheist and never was one yet I was for many years a "communist"...as were many other believers during the years I was involved - this is even more true in central and south amercia...I organized among many folks from those regions...now I am no longer affiliated, because in the final analysis I could not reconcile the means to justify the ends - but let me tell you why I and so many other believers were in fact part of the dreaded "C" movement....because our governments failed to do the right thing, failed to alleviate the suffering of the poor, the disenfranchised, failed to oppose dictators whose crimes would reach from here to the moon, failed at every turn to practice the "christian" principles they flapped on about endlessly but never exhibited in practice....we felt there was no where else to turn except to armed struggle....why do you think Bishop Romero was shot down in cold blood??? Because he assissted the rebels, gave them sanctuary and spoke for the poor....

What I have found is that God's people are found in every corner of the world and of every description - there is no template for the sons of God - even those who call themselves athiests may one day find themselves of a different mind, a spiritual mind....Hence " I have sheep you know not of" says Yeshua.....bigwhammy, I truly appreciate your concern for the truth of the gospel, you are a fierce warrior for the truth - but please temper this with the knowledge that while sowing the seed is yours to do, the harvest is not yours to control...
with great Love in Christ
realshanti

[edit on 29-6-2008 by realshanti]

Tying this all back into the original post, I was finally able to watch the Dawkins vs. Lennox debate today (thanks for mailing it to me, Whammy!). Lennox called out Dawkins for his statements concerning religion and the damage it has done to society. Lennox accused Dawkins for his attempt to 'airbrush history' (his exact wording) by sweeping atheistic atrocities under the rug. It was pretty fascinating when he spoke of all the damage the atheistic regimes did to churches, clergy, and their own countrymen. He also pointed out the 'blind pitiless indiference' statement Dawkins made concerning a naturalist approach and how it devalues human life and makes morals relative. It made me think of this thread and thought I'd share. I'm not sure why I see more whining occurring in this thread instead of a rebuttal or discussion of the arguments.