I have no intention of continuting a discussion with some who makes a demonstrably false statement; refuses to acknowledge it; compounds that false statement by nonsensical arguments which he later denies making (His views on religion are Marxist". "I never claimed Marxism was a religion"); then tries to mixes it up with a juvenile insult at his original libelee ("leftist puke") and myself; and then finally claims he wsn't comparing Dawkins' and Marx's atheism but their attitudes to religion, even though (as others have pointed out) they have exprssed altogether different views of religions, and share little more than an antipathy to it - which antipathy is pretty much common to all atheists. As Steve Weinberg noted, very few people who are truly indifferent to religion call themselves atheists - why attach a name to something you don't think about?
When i asked, poliitely, for a retraction of a demonstrable and demonstrated falsehood, and it was met with a rant, I should have ended the conversation there. My mistake. I won't compound it further.
A)His views on religion are Marxist". B)"I never claimed Marxism was a religionProfessor, take a vacation. If you think A) proves your assertion disavowed by me in B) you've been working too much.
Alternatively I could take a page out of the "lists" book and call you a liar if it is required by the rules as I asked EdSheppa. But he never answered, he just called me a liar again.
So, do the rules require me to call you a liar when we disagree?