You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #34: I’m not sure what is the more revealing [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. I’m not sure what is the more revealing

The disingenuous misrepresentations of what was actually said
or the ignoring of the corrections as new misrepresentations are hastened on to.

“ distorted and false caricature of atheists”

No blanket statement or ‘false caricature‘ regarding atheists or atheism.
The criticism was directed at the specific behaviour of some representatives thereof.



“ We DON'T hate religion and everything associated with it”.

Some do and have made that quite clear and explicit.

“Your prejudices and knee-jerk reactions were wrong.”

A “knee-jerk reactions” generally indicates an instant and impulsive response.
I made no such response…I took a good deal of time and I asked questions of others to determine the origin of their pov. More often than not those questions
went unanswered.

“Just as I was wrong that your strong defense of Islam and the Quran…”

You are once more wrong in suggesting that there was any “strong defence of Islam”. Islam was not under attack, I raised Islam in a comparative religion context (Re Christianity) and did so with the impartiality of any Comparative Religion class or text.
I was immediately (knee-jerk) expected to “defend” the Quran and to do so literally.

“…was an indicator of being a believer…”.

There was no “indicator of being a believer” other than the subject (fruits of Islam) was being presented without negativity, prejudice, bias or apologetics.
And >that< sufficed for the “believer” assumption to be made (and continued) as those who made the assumption refused to answer pertinent questions regarding the origin of their pov.


“Of course when you aren't bashing and insulting others, labeling them with bogus terms..."

I shall place the evidence you provide of my “bashing and insulting others” along with the evidence you previously provided for- “Or will you continue on the mean & dirty path with personal slurs..” .

Should your substantiation rise above zero….I’ll get back to you on it.

"you might actually LEARN about them.”

That would be nice.
But in the past and at the moment I have only enough time to mop up the assumptions and misrepresentations projected upon my pov by others.

But I am learning a great deal about them in the process ;-)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC