Pretty much any and every exaggeration or over simplification or reference to a minority view as if it were mainstream that Putin has ever uttered here. We have a prime example.of a militant disinformer and religion slanderer.

Because any one person is representative of an entire group. Mafia didn't say "Putin," he said "atheists."

I never claimed atheists nor has anyone in this thread. It has always been militant atheists. Just as it isn't mainstream Christians or even creations but militant creationists. And Putin *is* an undeniable example of a militant atheist.

Then you didn't answer Mafia's question at all.

Mafia knows the discussion has been the fringe's lies and youbeither haven't read the whole thread or are intentionally being disingenuous.

Either way, I'm ignoring your trolling until you come around to reasonable discussion

Perhaps you should read the thread. semck stated:

"My point was just that many atheists do, in fact, believe and propogate false things about religion and the religious (not that these are the reasons for their disbelief)."

Mafia responded by asking what those lies (false things) are.

You then jumped in on an entirely irrelevant tangent about "fringe" atheists. semck explicitly stated that he believed *most* atheists believed and propagated these falsehoods, not just fringe people. Just because you want to talk about something different doesn't mean everyone else was.

Cute one with the trolling comment too, btw. Gotta love how that's become the universal "oh PE said something I didn't like that I can't reply to without looking like a fool" retort.

First of all, Mafia, I don't believe that ALL atheists, or necessarily even most atheists, do tell / believe lies about Christians / the religious. However, some of the commonly repeated falsehoods include (in the following, "most" means "large majority," not its usual, "majority"):

1) All/most believers are anti-science. (See, e.g., this thread).

2) All/most believers are dumb hicks.

3) All/most believers reject reason in holding their religious beliefs. (This one is slightly subtle. Religious believers speak of faith, but it is the unbeliever who is likely to insist, along with _some_ believers, that faith does not entail reason).

I could probably come up with more if you want. This is off the top of my head. I'll keep posting back with additional ones if you want, but on the other hand, probably no point flogging it.

And, as Draugnar says, if you want more, just look to Putin.

@PE,
"Because any one person is representative of an entire group. Mafia didn't say "Putin," he said "atheists.""
"Perhaps you should read the thread. semck stated:"

Perhaps, PE, it is YOU who should read the thread, or even your own quoted words. As already noted, I did not claim anything about ALL atheists, just many, so Draug's reference to putin was a perfectly valid example of the kind of thing I am talking about.

No, it wasn't. You said "most atheists." Draugnar cited one example of what he himself called a "fringe" atheist. And that you go back and say that Putin, who y'all both call "fringe," is representative of "many" atheists, is horribly wrong in and of itself, but that's not what I was talking about so I'll leave that alone.

And Mafia didn't say you said all, nor did I say you said all. You guys are the ones who need to read...

Semck calls me a liar while lying through his teeth about what he said within the last 24 hours. Hilarious.

"No, it wasn't. You said "most atheists.""

I said many, not most. You even quoted me saying many. And I'm the one who needs to learn to read?

Putin,
"Semck calls me a liar while lying through his teeth about what he said within the last 24 hours."

Where did I lie about what I said, Putin?

Okay, so I mixed up "most" and "many." Point? "Fringe" is neither "many" nor "most," so my objection to what Draugnar said still stands.

"Okay, so I mixed up "most" and "many." Point? "

Point is that it's freaking hilarious when somebody mixes up "many" and "most" in the adjacent sentence to where he tells somebody they need to learn to read, mostly.

More seriously, they're extremely different. One is a precise claim about percentages. The other is a general claim about absolute numbers.

Next, Draug did not call Putin "fringe." He said (correctly) that the topic of conversation had been the lies told by the fringe, so that Putin was a relevant answer as to what kind of lies were told.

And yes, the fringe can be large. 1% of 300 million is 3 million. That's large, yet small enough to be called fringe (note: I am not making any claims about the actual size of ANY group. I am merely demonstrating the compatibility of the terms "large" (or "many") and "fringe").

Semck is on an irony hit parade. Whining about generalizations while making them in droves without any support or evidence whatsoever. Supposedly condemning excessive extrapolations from fringe viewpoints while making far more extreme extrapolations. It's comical. This is what counts for reason among the ghost story crowd.

@Putin,

I asked, "
Where did I lie about what I said, Putin?"

I take it you're not going to answer?

You lied about how you were talking about 'fringe' atheists when you said many atheists lie, not a fringe. You're the same person who calls me a liar for making statements about what *many* Christians do, even though I never said all Christians oppose science. And I, unlike you, actually have a lot of polling information to back up my claims. You have nothing except your usual false equivalence gut feeling.

I certainly didn't start the "read" thing but whatever. I'm rather sick of people harping on entirely irrelevant crap like whether "many" or "most" is used when neither one is correct.

You said, quite plainly, that MANY atheists believe/perpetuate lies about religion. Okay. So Mafia asked what those are. Draugnar cites Putin - one example of a fringe. It is plain disingenuous to act like a "fringe" is "many" without stating that many more members of the group in question are not "fringe." It's like saying "many swans are black" without adding "but many more are white" - your statement is technically correct, but it paints a skewed picture of the situation. Or, better, "many Christians think atheists should leave the country," without pointing out that "many more do not."

Thus, the objection that citing a fringe as an example of how "many atheists believe and perpetuate lies about religion" is entirely fair, and Draugnar's attempts to derail that with inane nitpicking about "many/most" and "reading the thread" (when I obviously did) are just plain stupid.

"You lied about how you were talking about 'fringe' atheists when you said many atheists lie, not a fringe."

I did? Amazing! The word "fringe" had not appeared in a single one of my posts in this thread when you accused me of lying.

PE, that would be legitimate if (but only if) there had not already been very extensive discussion on the thread about the relative numbers involved, which made it clear that Draug, at any rate, was talking about a small ratio.

I suspect you saw somebody making what seemed to you an illegitimate attack on atheists, got irked, and leaped in when you shouldn't have without realizing the backstory of the thread. It's reasonable -- we all do it, or anyway I do -- but in this case, you're wrong.

I'll reiterate for Semck. Many does not negate fringe and fringe does not negate many. Fringe implies at the extreme of a populace. Many is just a relative number. Compared to the population of my hometown growing up (Bethany, OH, population 50 or even West Chester Ohio, population ab out 10000 in 1984 when I graduated), the city I live in now (Fairfield, 45000) has many people, but compared to Greater Cincinnati (2.1 million people), it is a fringe population. Hell, 45000 people of any populace is many people but still a fringe compared to a greater populace. So one does not negate the other in either instance.

"The word "fringe" had not appeared in a single one of my posts in this thread when you accused me of lying."

So what? The meaning is clear. You endorsed Draugnar's posts in which he makes exactly that point and uses exactly that word. Your endorsed Draugnar's summary of what this discussion has been about, and Draugnar's usage of me as an example of fringe elements making up lies, even though for whatever reason you two geniuses refuse to call me fringe despite calling me that in every other way. This is what is like debating with Semck, you have to spend 100 posts going over what he just said because he's such an obscurantist.

Well said, Draug.

Oh, and I just noticed this, PE:

"I'm rather sick of people harping on entirely irrelevant crap like whether "many" or "most" is used when neither one is correct."

I completely stand by "many." Thus, from my point of view, you were accusing me of having made a claim that I could not defend instead of one that I would. Hardly irrelevant crap.

"Semck is on an irony hit parade. Whining about generalizations while making them in droves without any support or evidence whatsoever."

QF Irony.

Defend your claim then. No, it's easier to engage in annoying logic chopping than actually defend your indefensible claims.

Actually, putin, I did answer the substantive questions people had about my claim, and nobody has responded about that since then. There's been much more interest in discussing word usage and who said what. Which is fine. Whatever. I'll go with the flow.

I'll continue to respond to substantive queries, though, if people choose to go back that way. I'm not going to argue with you tonight, though. I'm moderately busy, and doing so, while entertaining in its way, always involves too much time spent trying to keep on topic, reading between snide remarks, and correcting fallacies. Feel free to raise any substantive points you want, though, and maybe I'll address them later.

No, you did not. You gave bare bones statements about how many atheists claim that all/most believers are anti-science. Not a shred of support for this statement. Nor your other two statements.

"PE, that would be legitimate if (but only if) there had not already been very extensive discussion on the thread about the relative numbers involved, which made it clear that Draug, at any rate, was talking about a small ratio.

I suspect you saw somebody making what seemed to you an illegitimate attack on atheists, got irked, and leaped in when you shouldn't have without realizing the backstory of the thread. It's reasonable -- we all do it, or anyway I do -- but in this case, you're wrong."

Not at all. I read the thread, I don't know how many times I have to say this. Draug may have been talking about his minute ratio whatever the hell, doesn't really matter because Mafia wasn't talking about it. His answer didn't match up to Mafia's question at all.

That question, by the way, has yet to be answered.

Strike that last sentence, I meant to erase that but didn't get it ;>_>

Well then how about this. Putin represents the many (many not most, we have already proven the two are not synonymous) that happen to be the militant athiest fringe. Look at Putin and you will see the rhetoric and lies that many athiests (AKA the militant athiest fringe) say about anyone of faith.