Again, when someone uses a collective noun without qualification, they describing all of the collective noun.
I've asked this twice before and gotten no response:
Do the people who think that say "religion is bad" doesn't implicitly mean "all religion is bad" think that Michael Savage is making any distinctions within "liberalism" when he says "liberalism is a metal disorder"? After all, he doesn't say "all liberalism is a mental disoroder".
You got a response... but as always you ignore the response with the tangential
Regarding the latter... if someone made the comment after an egregious act as part of an OP, I would not derail the thread by making the silly demand that they proffer an APA report detailing liberalism as a mental disorder. Moreover, I would not conduct a strawman poll to see if people agreed or not to the claim that ALL liberalism is a mental disorder. I might ask how liberalism was involved in the OP. But then again, I'm not a dishonest religious apologist.
You went to a thread about a creationist tour guide making children purposefully ignorant and bigoted and didn't mention that at all... instead you demonized Qayak because he asked, "who said religion isn't child abuse." Then you stalked him to another thread and made the same accusation that he was calling all religion harmful and bad... despite the fact that it
had nothing to do with the thread. And your real crybaby beef is just that I have outed you both as a religious apologist and an "intelligent design" proponent. If it quacks...
Yes, I think the following are religious apologist. Those who critique atheists etc. and mischaracterize their statements as though whatever they said is worse than what they are commenting on. I see people do this all the time to Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Pharyngula, Penn Jillette. But when asked to proffer proof of their claims it seems quite obvious to me that the person doth protest too much. If such a nontheist would have made similar claims about locking kids in cages, raising kids to be white supremacists or promoting bigotry, teaching kids the earth was flat, or astrology-- nobody would have rushed in to demonize the claimant. But religion has special protective status that is upheld by the apologist to make sure nobody dares say the Emperor is naked.
I outed you and others because I think it's very disturbing that people have this knee-jerk blind defense towards something which is a lie perpetuated on the innocent and trusting... and they never seem to see it... they are the first to say religion gets no special preferences.
I don't want my favorite members to stop posting, because of such idiocy disguised as "holier than thou" morality. I also don't like the way such people treat newcomers I like. And yes, I consider these signs of a religious apologist:
Those who seem to hate Dawkins and/or memes or anything associated with him without being clear why. Those who, like you say Dawkins is wrong and you are right about some silly notion that nobody but a creationist would adhere to. The people who equate atheism with dogma or "militant" for people using nothing more than words
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/militant_atheists_are_a_clich.php
while ignoring the words those words are about entirely. People who haven't read Dawkins, et. al., show a poor understanding of evolution and slander such people anyhow. Those who equate faith with facts and respect of scientists as worship. Those who never really say much of anything except obfuscating notions and critique of others who speak the truth about things that matter-- about the fact that religion claims to have higher truths but there is no evidence of higher truths. Those, like you, who derail threads and fling ad homs and can't stay on topic and demand impossible evidence for things you don't want to believe while proffering the measliest semantic argument for your own view.
It's an opinion...you know, like your silly contention that random means anything related to probability and that anything with randomness can be called a random process.
And there are many here who feel similarly. I like to give them a heads up so they don't think that they are the reason for the miscommunication. Because the most socially incompetent people never recognize that they are the incompetent ones while the socially competent people are wondering if the problem is them. You just can't say anything bad about religion or good about Dawkins in front of some people--
You are as dishonest and obfuscating and tangential as Behe.
For anyone who cares to investigate for themselves who these people might be or who are trying to figure out TA religious apologist reasons for creating this poll-- I submit the following.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85338
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87572
I'm sure all people can make up their minds freely as to what is more disingenuous and harmful... the subject of the OP, the comments about the OP, or the apologists attempts to make the OP about whether the thread should be derailed to discuss whether a person is calling ALL religion harmful.
It's the biggest and oldest and stupidest apologist ploy ever. And they always hold themselves, like you, to be morally superior without ever really saying anything at all. You insult some of the best posters because they call you on your BS all the time. And you make it so easy, because you think you are smarter than everyone else, and you can't hear what people might teach you.
!
