Difference between me and Dawkins is that usually when I give it out, its deserved.  Granted, I don't need to give people their just deserts, but sometimes I think it merits it.  *shrug*  For Dawkins, the belief that Genesis 1-2 is a description of real events is prima facie evidence that the person who holds it needs to be exterminated, or barring that, sterilized, or barring that, have their children taken away to be spared 'child abuse.'  Naturally, he doesn't say these things, but I know the man... it's what he believes.

Dawkins does not know how to be friends with people who disagree with him.  Its not in his genetics.  I guess that means he can't help it, and neither can I.  

"I think that you would be exactly like Dawkins in style and demeanor if you ever did become a real atheist."

Yes, I gathered that from your comment in the 'prayer doesn't work' thread that I would have been with the Jews in killing Jesus- a claim that no mature Christian would deny.  

"You don't change your modus operandi or personality when you shift positions on issues. You keep the method but shift the message."

Hmmm.  Like logging in as 'Cogito' in order to throw the insult out there, hoping for a rise?  Didn't work, so here comes 'Copernicus' to try again?  Throwing off your dirty work to an alter ego?  What does that say about a man, exactly?

The main difference between you is that my insults, when they come, are right out on my sleeve, whereas you are the most insulting person that I know, but you couch it in language where its the meaning and intent behind the words that is rude, but the wording gives you an out.  So, on that score, I happen to actually respect Dawkins- at least he has the courage of his convictions to come out and say what he really thinks.  Well, for the most part.  I suspect even he holds back.

Anyway, why were we talking about this again?  Oh yea, you called me a clown.  Very good natured of you.  

Did Dawkins call sntjohnny a "clown"?

Yes, and here's the proof:

"Why bother with these clowns?" -- Richard Dawkins to Francis Collins in the interview that you link.

Now what is the referrent for clowns in Dawkins' question?

It is this: "There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other..."

These are sntjohnny's positions. He believes the thoroughly discredited young earth thesis is true and he doesn't accept the truth of evolution.

Collins, politely, says only that such people's beliefs are 'inconsistent. . . with our knowledge of the universe. . . "

Dawkins, who does not suffer fools gladly, is more to the point. He calls them clowns.

So, yes, Dawkins calls sntjohnny a clown.

Dawkins doesn't believe that such people should be taken seriously. Neither, BTW, does Collins but Collins, who is understandably reluctant to offend his fellow Christians, is reticent to come out and say so directly.

""Did Dawkins call sntjohnny a "clown"?""
"Yes, and here's the proof: "

lol, this is a fine example of what I meant by Cop being insulting.  'He' himself already quoted and linked me with:  "There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other..."

These are sntjohnny's positions."

He quoted the exact same thing, so its clear that 'his' question 'did Dawkins call sntjohnny' a clown was not a question to you, he already knew the argument.  So, here is the difference... 'he' said exactly the same thing that you did, only 'he' used a lot more words but left the reader to draw the insulting implication for himself.  'You' just came out and said it, of course using identical quotes and argumentation.

Now, my point in response to 'Cop's jabs at my own conduct was that Cop is actually a pretty insulting person.  He occupies no moral high ground.   He was clearly calling 'me' a clown, but since he never came out and said it in the same way that 'you' did, 'he' feels like he hasn't done anything nearly as bad.  As if a method that takes three paragraphs to insult makes one morally superior to one that gets out the same insult in a mere sentence!  HA!

If anything, something should be said for efficiency!

At anyrate, the contempt that I know that 'you' and many other atheists have for people who don't agree with you doesn't bother me.  Nor does being called a 'clown' on this thread.  Just for the record.  I for one am glad to see that contempt out in the open, for the same reason that Dembski is reluctantly happy when Dawkins opens his mouth.

"Where I apparently insulted"

You seem to think that this is the thread I was referring to.  I wasn't.  I was speaking of your whole general approach and conduct.

"Your fantasy that Cogito and I are the same person has been funny, but it is getting tiresome."

I have yet to hear any formal declaration from either of 'you' that it is not the case.  

"I imagine that you use it as a way to annoy us and to distract from your lack of ability to address substantive issues."

Since no matter what guise you show up in you get responses, as indicated by 3 pages to Cogito in the prayer thread and numerous lengthy ones with you, I would suspect that there is no lack of ability to address any substantive issues.

"You need to pay closer attention to your own rules of conduct for this forum. For someone who ridicules others so freely and so often, it is hypocritical to complain when others do it to you."

Who is complaining?  I'm just making an observation.

"I would tell you to "turn the other cheek", but I doubt that even Jesus could penetrate your defensive shields."

I would remind you again of just what sort of person that Jesus did not take any guff from... up until he allowed himself to be killed, it was people of a certain sort.  Incidentally, the same sort that I don't take any guff from, either.

"I think that both atheists and believers can do much to restrain themselves from exchanging insults."

Sure.

"But first you must accept the fact that your own behavior may be just as bad as those you despise."

I'm pretty sure that's my point to you.

"I don't think that you are ready to admit that yet."

Once again, no mature Christian would deny it.  In light of your masterful grasp of Christianity as evidenced by your constant correcting me about my own beliefs, I'm surprised you don't know that.

You know, there is a strong tradition within Christianity of standing up for the weak and the defenseless.  In order to do that, you can't be a doormat at the same time.  I'm sorry that you find yourself in the category by your words and argumentation as someone who needs to be stood up to, but that's really not my problem, is it?  But, "I don't think that you are ready to admit that yet."

I notice you bending over backwards in the spirit of "I think that both atheists and believers can do much to restrain themselves from exchanging insults" to chide Cogito.

It would not be an insult if at this point I said that you were being hypocritical.  It would merely be an observation.

"Your fantasy that Cogito and I are the same person has been funny, but it is getting tiresome."

I have yet to hear any formal declaration from either of 'you' that it is not the case.

The idea is so ludicrous that it hardly merits a response, but I'm happy to help you out.  I formally declare that Cogito and I are not the same person.  Does that resolve the issue for you?

"But first you must accept the fact that your own behavior may be just as bad as those you despise.  I don't think that you are ready to admit that yet."

Once again, no mature Christian would deny it...

I'm not surprised that you think so, but that hasn't been my experience.

I notice you bending over backwards in the spirit of "I think that both atheists and believers can do much to restrain themselves from exchanging insults" to chide Cogito.

Perhaps I haven't bent over backwards because I noticed the winking smily after he made the "clown" comment.  It was just a gentle ribbing, but it seems to have touched a nerve.  I've seen you send far worse barbs his way and mine.

"The idea is so ludicrous that it hardly merits a response, but I'm happy to help you out. I formally declare that Cogito and I are not the same person. Does that resolve the issue for you?"

No.  Please find that thread and make that assertion there.  That is the proper place for it.  This thread, at least, is not, as I think you will agree.  Editted- I found it for you: http://www.sntjohnny.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2209

"I'm not surprised that you think so, but that hasn't been my experience."

Well, I dunno.  Passages like 'this is a right thing to think, "I am the chief of sinners'' and passages about 'all have sinned' ought to be known by mature Christians, and mature Christians would not exclude themselves from those categories, because they know that this would also exclude them from grace.  Jesus said he came for the sick- those who don't think they need to be healed won't be showing up for his services, right?

"Perhaps I haven't bent over backwards because I noticed the winking smily after he made the "clown" comment. It was just a gentle ribbing, but it seems to have touched a nerve."

Did it?  You seemed not to have noticed my own smiley rolling around acrobatically, laughing.  I took it as gentle ribbing.   I don't know how you can get more out of my rolling smiley than you got out of his winking smiley.

I think the 'nerve' came later.  If I have the chronology right, it was after someone 'else' spoke and after I already had my rolling smiley...

Maybe it was....

"He is too blunt, arrogant, and abrasive at times. (He admits this himself.) On the other hand, so is sntjohnny.
....I suppose that sntjohnny's supporters like that about him, as well."

And even then I didn't respond abrasively... and still haven't... cuz I really don't care.  :)

Thanks.  In case you can't find the link because of the move, its here:

http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php/topic,2209.0.html