Notice the lack of modifiers? No "most," no "some," no "many," etc. Looks like painting to me.
Then you are colorblind to the difference. I said that Christians were the actors who engaged in a particular activity. That is a true statement, as is the fact that I have only witnessed pursuit of Sharia-like laws and other similar actions in our system of governance from Christians. That doesn't mean all Christians support that, but that out of people to watch out for imposing religious decree, I'm presently more concerned about Christians than Muslims based on the actions of each group. Nothing in that means that I think all Christians want to impose their religion upon me, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm painting all Christians as the same. It's simply a matter of which group has members actively acting towards a particular goal. I haven't seen Muslims doing what Deros claimed, but I have seen Christians. Not _all_ Christians, but "Christians" is an accurate description of those who have acted.
See, now this is why I was reluctant to get into this discussion in "public" in the first place. I was having a nice two-way conversation with marshaul until you came along with your superior attitude, cutesy cartoons, and borderline bigotry towards Christians (I have avoided espousing any particular religion for the purposes of this discussion, until now). Y'know, it's ironic. Change some of the words around and you argue just like some of the Evangelicals I've traded words with from time to time.
Care to explain, besides claiming indignation? You could demonstrate how the cartoon is false, explain how my attitude is superior, and not merely versed in fact and demanding of evidence, or you could try having a "conversation" that doesn't make asinine presumptions (as you did when you claimed what an atheist is, why there aren't "true atheists", why atheism is a religion or a faith, etc).
So no, just based on your attitude I cede nothing at this point.
You would have to actually engage a point at some time for that to hold true. Unless you're taking the equivalent of "la la la I can't hear you" because you dislike that I demand evidence and don't take "I feel it's true" to be any more than a claim of questionable sanity.
From my perspective, the existence of a Supreme Being (God, Supreme Architect, Creator, whatever you wish to call it) is as blindingly obvious and undeniable as the sun in the sky. Now, a crafty debating might get me to change my thinking on the nature of that sun, but to convince me that it does not exist when it's just plainly THERE is going to take an L of alot more "evidence" than you have presented here. You'd have to overrule the evidence of my own spiritual and mental experiences on the matter, which you'll have a very difficult time in doing, since you're not me and have not experienced as I have. And just for the record, nowhere did I deny that such things do not involve chemical reactions, they are not mere reactions, but are merely the vehicle for something Greater.
See above. Claims from personal revelation are nothing more than invitations to question your perception as being faulty. If I tell you that I have a unicorn servant who talks to me and helps me solve programming problems, would you believe such a being exists? What if I said that "it is as blindingly obvious and undeniable as the sun in the sky." Would that convince you that the being exists? Why or why not?
See, the thing here is you and I are actually the same. We are both convinced of the superiority of our own ideas, and damn stubborn on the matter. I assure you I have already gone through my own "open-minded, skeptical approach" to the evidence at hand, and being that I have come to exactly the opposite conclusion on the matter as you, should serve to demonstrate exactly how inconclusive and ambiguous your "evidence" really is.
We're different in that I will change my view based on evidence that cannot be rectified in a consistent and logical manner - that is, a manner that does not require special pleading. You can not assure me that you've undertaken such an approach when your previous paragraph belies a lack of rigor in investigating evidence versus feelings. You may feel something is true, or right, or whatever, but without evidence, it's an unsubstantiated claim, and does not hold up to open-minded, skeptical inquiry.
