I'm sorry, Ebbie, I really would like to drop this. After all, it was decided--against the atheist viewpoint--over a month ago.   But there's still an amazing amount of drivel being spouted by people who don't like the decision.

Anybody who thinks Hitler's speeches prove anything other than that he was diabolical--willing to say anything in public to get his way-- is, sorry, delusional.   As well as being a poor reader. I noted the point about Hitler's speeches earlier, if you had taken the time to read.   Your wishful thinking that Hitler had been a Christian is exactly that--after about age 7.

Do you believe what a public figure says in public or what he says in private--if the two completely contradict each other, as they do with Hitler in this case.   In other words, how naive are you?

And have you found any more "unhealthy knowledge"?   Sure is striking that that is precisely the phrase arch-bigots would use about somebody who wanted to teach Darwin.



Also: people don't seem to like it when I name Mudcatters by name. And they don't like it when I don't. That about covers the possibilities, seems to me. So, since there is nothing to gain by changing, I will continue as before.



It is also interesting that despite my civil requests for better information on religious belief in the UK, nobody has come up with any actual facts which contradict mine.
So it appears, that as I said, the "religious frenzy" is in the mind of the poster--the depth of common sense in the UK--not any kind of "frenzy"-- has overcome the intolerant atheist viewpoint seen amply on Mudcat.

When our family used to go to church, my father, as he left the church, would ask the minister about the logical fallacies in his sermon. Seems like a reasonable role.

So I suppose you'd say it's a family tradition to poke holes in pretensions. And Lord knows, Mudcat atheists offer plenty of twaddle and pretensions. But it's amazingly easy--with "violation", "unhealthy knowledge", "religious frenzy", etc, it's fairly obvious that the claim of Mudcat atheists to be reasonable, logical people falls under the rubric of "flimsy pretension".

Let's see: against logic, afraid of "unhealthy knowledge", unwilling to think--sounds like some Bible Belt fundamentalists--or many Mudcat atheists--all except Amos and Bill D. Somewhat amazing in highly educated, (mostly) articulate people.   But perhaps it's part of the new atheism.