Let's try a different tack. Read the "penguin" argument of Vox Day's that I quoted above (page 109of IA). Do you think that it's actually a close parallel to the argument that Dawkins et. al. actually make? A "yes" or a "no" would be most helpful.

In response to a previous quotation from The Irrational Atheist. The attempt was to prove that not only the New Atheists (which, by the way, we all seem to agree are the triumvirate of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris; are not the ONLY ones who hold that religion is a danger.

You contention is that no “New Atheist” has ever uttered such a statement .In post #8 I went to great lengths to quote statements attributed directly to them. Which you promptly dismissed.

Maybe this will work. The British zoologist Richard Dawkins says that, 'Religion causes wars by generating certainty.' http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=227

There’s one “New Atheist”. Since they support each other; should be plenty along with all the other overwhelming evidence provided by my previous posts and Phillip’s, and Mountain Man’s. Or must I really find the balance? It is 7PM where I live and dinner is ready.

While intriguing; your ‘Quixote-like’ methods of continually trying to defend the indefensible can be wearing. You would do well to research the definitions of ‘endurance’ and ‘victory’ as I can assure you they are not equivalent. However; just by reviewing your posts over the last few months; equivalence doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

Raymond cannot argue a point unless he first re-writes it, substituting his own words for what someone actually said, and then disputing that new phraseology.

I suggest we continue to quibble of shades of meaning, rabbit trails, and minute differences in perceptions. This all certainly advances the discussion and leads to greater clarity.

Or, we could simply accept prima facia the obvious truth that the New Atheists in general believe that religion is at least a foolish pursuit by simple minds, and at worst a damaging, evil influence in the world.

Choose now.

"Sure, you can find damn fool atheists like damn fool Christians… but we were talking about the "New Atheists", not any random guy you can find a quote for." Are Dawkins and Harris "damn fool atheists?" Or are they "new atheists?" Or maybe both?

"Our disagreement is that Day (and now you) claim that the "New Atheists" claim otherwise. And that just ain't so." Please review my posts 2 and 3.

You quote Mr. Wavering: "Atheists proclaim that religion is a dangerous institution that foments the overwhelming majority of the examples of both unorganized and organized violence." Are you disputing that Dawkins and Harris have argued substantially this same point? in the quotes I obtained for you?

Well, one Christian – Pat Robertson – said that, anyway. Not any Christian we're talking about here, but, y'know, all Christians think alike, right?

That's the problem with your statements like "Atheists proclaim that religion is a dangerous institution that foments the overwhelming majority of the examples of both unorganized and organized violence." Sure, you can find damn fool atheists like damn fool Christians… but we were talking about the "New Atheists", not any random guy you can find a quote for.

And yes, we agree that "not all wars necessarily have religion as one of their implicit causes". I've been saying that all along… that's not our disagreement.

Our disagreement is that Day (and now you) claim that the "New Atheists" claim otherwise. And that just ain't so.

I used the word sole because I'm pointing out the difference between the words "the" and "an". If there were no difference between the phrases "the implicit cause" and "an implicit cause"… why would I be getting such pushback? Ask Mr. Wavering if he thinks there's no important difference there.

It's funny, I did use Mr. Wavering's "original word", "hyperbole"… but one sentence later (making the context unmistakable), when I described that as "exaggeration", you become upset… despite the fact that that's what hyperbole is.

What's really remarkable about this is that I'm disputing an argument made by Vox Day, where uses his own phrasing to sum up words by other people, taken out of context. If you're serious about honestly representing someone's words, you should be on my side here. Oh, well.

“successful calamitologist” indeed. You’re a laugh riot! LMAO!

Regarding your post #41. I think Sarah Palin will be a force to be reckoned with in 2012. Apparently; she learned a lot in 2008. Her PAC is distributing money; and not just to anyone either. They’re being careful to back candidates with great chances to win. She’ll need the backing of those future officeholders if she decided to further her political career.

I’ve never questioned her ideological credentials. I do believe she was woefully unprepared for her role in the McCain campaign in 2008. I also believe she didn’t’ do herself any favors by resigning her governorship. For my money; I think she needs to shop at the same store Hillary Clinton does and buy herself a few sets of iron underwear.

As for your last post. I’ve always dreamed of being a weatherman. I cant’ think of another profession where you can make big bucks being wrong so often. The only thing better that being a weatherman in general, would be being a weatherman in California. Can you imagine? “Today’s forecast; nice. Tomorrow’s forecast; nicer. Where’s my check?”

From those wonderful folks who bring the calamitologists the official reports:

This is what I found in The Baltimore Sun website:

A likely record, but experts will get back to us.
Measurement problems prevent meteorologists from saying for sure.

Calamitology: It’s an art, not a science.