tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post115223886613608785..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Take no hostages?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1152283397077313002006-07-07T10:43:00.000-04:002006-07-07T10:43:00.000-04:00Oh, and apologetics tends to attract confrontation...Oh, and apologetics tends to attract confrontational fellows. That's why I'm not an apologist. I'm too much of a gentleman.<BR/><BR/>We should not answer a railing accusation, but when the railer starts to jump up and down yelling 'yah, cowards!' it is awfully hard not to punch them in the nose.Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1152268549474184662006-07-07T06:35:00.000-04:002006-07-07T06:35:00.000-04:00It seems to me that there's a deeper problem here....It seems to me that there's a deeper problem here. Is atheism a religion? If so, then atheist evangelism makes sense. <BR/><BR/>But it also has to accept the disadvantages that accrue to religion in the Public Square.<BR/><BR/>If it is not, then atheist evangelism is at best self-indulgent, and at worst spiteful. From what I've read here about the Debunking Christianity wallahs, most of them seem to have had serious problems with their churches. Can it be that they are trying to 'save' people from problems that do not exist in every church?<BR/><BR/>Still, this should be a warning that charity towards the confused is necessary. But not, I'm afraid, towards the Devil's propagandists.Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1152253125402810502006-07-07T02:18:00.000-04:002006-07-07T02:18:00.000-04:00Well said!Well said!Frank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1152242019399831682006-07-06T23:13:00.000-04:002006-07-06T23:13:00.000-04:00... Having said that, I agree that, at *some* time...... Having said that, I agree that, at *some* times, *some* Triabloggers over-indulge in ad hominems when they could be using their bytes rebutting arguments instead. I'm not interested in the personal failings and flaws of John Loftus or Dagood. Prove Loftus or Dagood to be a fool and an incompetent, yet a thousand other atheists will fill his place. Rebut atheism as a position, and it becomes as intellectually intenable as - say - Marxism has in the past 40 years (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...!).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1152241755824495552006-07-06T23:09:00.000-04:002006-07-06T23:09:00.000-04:00"Double standard" applies to the methods used: eg,..."Double standard" applies to the methods used: eg, that it's okay for side X to use some particular tactic, but wrong for Side Y or Z to do the same. So it's hypocritical for Fred Phelps and for ACT-UP to criticise each other for disrupting church services. Once you open the door to "it's okay for Side X to use Tactic A because Side X are the good guys", you break down the social compact and end up back in the war of all against all. Because, as John Locke noted, each sect is orthodox in its own eyes: no one says publicly "We're the bad guys, so we're not allowed to use Tactic A".<BR/><BR/>But obviously, no sane person is neutral as between goals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com