bleeding heart

If there's anyone not in a position to criticize this style of debate......

He made no personal attacks...but received at least one in resposne. As you no doubt well know. Cybercoma Derangement Syndrome.

He is making no more effort to "silence [anyone's] views" than your disagreements with posters' points and styles of rhetoric are an effort to do so.

She's only saying that we are roughly indistinguishable, within our own respective countries as well as without. My own experience inclines me to agree.

Strangely, it would appear you were remiss for even bringing it up; just as cybercoma was wrong for the unique sin of telling a poster her argument is not good. Bad Squid and Cybercoma; bad!

For a few atheists. Not for most of them. I agree, but there's no reason to limit this metaphor to religious belief or non-belief. I know my children love me; but I wouldn't bet their lives on that notion, either. As i said earlier, every idea, notion, belief and bit of "knowledge" that we have--probably without a single exception--is dogged by this idea of knowing versus truly knowing. So why atheists are singled out for what is in fact an everyday, totally universal phenomenon about knowing, and about contradiction, is a mystery to me.

Whether one agrees with your assessment or not, it doesn't seem to undermine my point in any way.

The Graham Dynasty has decreed--with impeccable political timing and convenience--that the planet Kolob and magic underwear are commensurate with Christian doctrine generally, so there's no conflict. If the day ever comes when a conservative Muslim or atheist is on the Republican ticket, we will be informed that they, too, are Christians. Just to head off the predicted conniptions from the religious Right, an unsuually sensitive bunch.

Sure you can. In fact, it's extremely common, I thought AC and I had rather spelled it out already?

Just so, Mighty AC! I have pointed out repeatedly that most atheists are also agnostics....and people (primarily self-described agnostics, interestingly) simply flatly refuse to countenance the idea. But as Bertrand Russell astutely pointed out, he was--technically, to be exact--an agnostic; but for all intents and purposes, he was an atheist. For precisely the reasons you lay out. My personal example has always been: I know there are no faeries in Ireland...but I don't know there are no faeries in Ireland. The seeming contradiction is easy enough to reconcile....since a similar type of relatively trivial contradiction dogs us a thousand times a day, niggling around at every single idea and belief that we hold about anything...without exception.

That makes one of us. I view it all with much more equanimity...even amusement, albeit of the gallows humour sort. Of course, when reactionary knuckledraggers, writing in apocalyptic tones (whether from careerist impulses, or genuinely cowardly ones, only she knows for sure) screech about the "genocidal" Muslim threat to us all, and the "perfidy" of a mildly liberal, wholly conventional President....no sane person should have any reaction beyond laughter.

Unfortunately, an old and ugly story. When Canada hosted the "Depose The Popularly Elected Leader of Haiti" meeting in the early 1990's, joined with their fellow Democracy-lovers the USA and France, it was understood that some justification might be needed. After all, deposing an elected leader and replacing him with friendly killers is a fine old tradition, but some Westerners are too befuddled to quite get with the program. (Haitian opinions on their own democracy was, of course, less than irrelevant.) So Aristide's sins, both real and concocted, were floated about temporarily...and the disconnect--that those we put in his place were far worse by every measure, including even by comparison to our concocted reasons, seems to have passed notice altogether. However, they needn't have worried. The "combative" press didn't much care, and nor did political oppositions generally.

At least they'd have the journalistic pretence to holding the powerful's feet to the fire. The mainstream media in general has done little but lament the fall of the Great American Hero.

As WIP already pointed out in the self-same post.

For anyone who agrees with the nonsense spouted by the knuckledragger...sure! But most of us don't. (Though it would appear that the "ethnic vote" remains as much a sore spot for the political right as for the old separatist leader...interestingly.)

Actually, what is disingenuous is the (continually stated) premise that "they"-- Quebeckers--"want to leave," despite the uncontroversial truth that an awful lot of them demonstrably do not--as we know from the democratic mandate.

You were suggesting he not bother. That's active discouragement. But as you say....it's your free will to do so, if it pleases you.

So we should teach our children not to question what they read? Even if they're reading the National Post's editorial and commentary pages?

Nova Scotians--and Canadians generally--will do as they wish. No matter how often the Canada-obssessed wannabees depend on us for their entertainment! You can't make this stuff up!

You're not supposed to be actively discouraging the lost non-believers.

Hear, hear.

True, and it's quite interesting. And one might further ask what this says about Romney's support. Pretty lacklustre, it appears. Which might actually speak well for the intelligence of Republicans, now that I think on it.

I said "meaningful" discrimination. That is, people looking askance at you at a faculty dinner is not the same as political or legal discrimination. Of which religious people face approximately zero compared to non-religious people....that is, both face roughly the same amount...close to nil. In other words, it is everywhere, and derives from virtually all aspects of community life, albeit in various ways, dependent on said community. I'm not trying to be combative about it; I'm only wondering what religion, especially or particularly, has to do with any of it? Heck, once at a little gathering, my wife mentioned--casually, as an aside to a related discussion--that we were atheists. The reaction was amazing! A roomful of agnostics acting as if we had just blasphemed. But if I think of this behaviour as discriminatory....I dunno. By the letter, maybe, but not by the spirit of what I think when I hear "discrimination."

I enjoy the apocalyptic language. Good stuff!

triple! sorry