Grey

I said: “This self-pronunciation makes all others non-True Christian and your website contains an extensive list of those folk.”

Your response was: “I have nowhere on my website where I extensively list non-True Christian variants)”

You class them as occult.

http://alangrey.blogpot.com/Documents/Church_Desk/Cults.htm
Or here:

http://alangrey.blogpot.com/Documents/Church_Desk/Cults.htm#2

Is this list of your making?

Do you class cultist groups as true-Christians?

Very busy because of a cartoon we have placed in various newspapers. Maybe you should look it up!

David

David,
As I said very clearly before, alangrey.blogpot.com is not my website. It has nothing to do with me. Strange, I would have thought you would have been more tech savvy than that....

Already saw your cartoon. It shows your objectivity nicely and is sure to bring along like minded "rational" people.

Grey,

Your attitudes to global warming, abortion, evolution etc predisposed me to accept the site was yours as it has your ‘signature’. I would suggest you contact the host and complain if it has been hijacked.

Walks and quacks like a duck is a duck until proven not to be a duck.

David

Grey's correct, if disingenuously so. The correct URL for his blog is

http://alangrey.blogspot.com/

It's not much better than the other one, though.

Grey,

Apparently, you wish to continue. OK, that’s your call.

You have a fixed and unreasonable mind exemplified by your website. In addition, an important part of a website is an internal search mechanism. One of the reasons for this missing component can be a lack of technical expertise or an attempt to keep separate the information therein. I also treat sites offering opinions, with no precise information about the author's worldview, highly suspect.

Even so, a random search of http://alangrey.blogspot.com/ shows how you do not differ from many other fundamentalist Christians in supporting a creationist “ID” stance. By using quotes of others out of context, false conclusion follow.

Let me lead you to one example: It concerns the principal science writer (Biology) for Nature, Henry Gee.

The Christian fundamentalist propagandist organisation, Discovery Institute (What a misnomer) uses Gee, by selective quotation from his book, ‘In Search of Deep Time’, written intentionally supporting the science behind evolution.

Your blog contains the out-of-context quote even though you would be aware that is has to be misleading given what the book is about. Your page perpetuates the error. Are you so blinded by your faith, such a reprehensible and grievous ‘mistake’, went unnoticed? http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html

Gee is understandably none too happy with this kind of misrepresentation either, pointing it out here: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=795&m=61

Gee ends his letter with these words; “I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally.…the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.”

Continual falsification and obfuscation of evidence, some from unreliable sources, is your hallmark. Do you understand why I, and others on this forum do not take you seriously? Your posts do not allow the reader to have a better understanding from where you are coming; that is, fantasyland. Lying for Jesus is rampant in fundamentalist circles.

Thank you for supporting the proposition of - atheism: the default ethical position of humanity, so conclusively.

David

Okay David....lets recap....
Amongst much derision and non-rational rhetoric, you claimed that 'The argument that without religious belief, people would have no morals is specious'.

To support this you quote a study by an atheistic philosopher who has written that infanticide is a ethical logical position and a study by Gregory S Paul which is the academic equivalent of a 2 year-old's crayon scrawl.

I provided several links to peer reviewed research showing that Christian belief is indeed a positive force, nationally and personally.

You then tried to claim (after clarifying my misunderstanding of your position) the enlightenment was the cause of the national positive force of democracy, but agreed that the founding fathers were not atheists. You then claimed the men who were prepared to die for democracy in America would have been atheists except they didn't have enough courage to do so. Such hubris.

You also went to alangrey.blogpot.com (which was incorrectly linked to my account because of a typo). I corrected you and clearly identified my website, even showing you why a seemingly highly specified name had nothing to do with me (by showing you it was the same for davdnicholls.blogpot.com), but for some reason for such a learned man, you didn't understand this somewhat simple technical point.

My favorite part was when you said
"I just say it [atheism] is better than the rest as I have conclusively demonstrated. Not just with Singer – Houser and Paul, but by using the understandable logic preceding their input, with both supporting each other. Anthropological studies are hardly ever precise. They can also be manipulated to suit desperate ideologies. However, when observable facts also support them, these criticisms must be seen for what they are – rubbish."

This shows your close-mindedness and real lack of rational thought. Clearly you have decided a priori that religion is bad and atheism is good and any criticism of this position is automatically 'rubbish'.

After this little gem, you decide to try and start attacking my belief (as if that somehow makes any comments I make or evidence I point to irrelevant).
...