Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> How about, judging the entire thing based on only its flaws is as bad as 
> what you accuse it of doing, by having any in the first place? All such 
> lists are flawed, because there will be people stating that a) well it 
> doesn't apply to the ones "I" consider to belong to the group it talks 
> about, b) such and such group doesn't include X idea, and I don't 
> imagine Y or Z does either (which just shows a lack of imagination imho 
> lol), or c) it really is, in this one case, a bad argument, whether the 
> rest is sort of accurate or not. So... point out where its inaccurate 
> and be "specific" about who its inaccurate about. Don't presume that 
> because you find it inaccurate that its "not" accurate for the group 
> "they" where talking about, even as a general example of the sort of 
> issues that crop up.

  The entire reason I wrote my response to the video was precisely to
point out that their arguments are flawed. I'm not even claiming that
they are wrong in not believing in God (or even that *I* believe in God).
I'm just pointing out that their arguments are invalid.

  People here seem to argue that their point is "you are interpreting
the bible in the wrong way", even though it's quite clear that their
point is "God doesn't exist". It's a direct attack to all christianity,
not just a specific group inside it.

  (And btw, quotes are not used for emphasis, but for the exact opposite,
ie. de-emphasis.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message