You refuse it. I wonder why.
Because it's wrong.
Sigh..... I actually don't like to waste time going over what was said already, if you didn't read my words as I meant them, I find it better to clarify my point than to go back and forth arguing over who is or is not "back peddling". But since you want to force the hand, I'll play along.
What I originally said (and you quoted) doesn't say anything about a concern for anti-theists, or the tactics they use. My concern was then, as it is now, with the philosophy of anti-theism. As I said.... "anti-religious arguments and opinions are being spread as dogmatic fact."
It has nothing to with any tactic that theists may or may not also use. It's about the anti religious arguments themselves. They are not factual, they are anti-religious opinions. I don't know why it's so hard to distinguish the difference.
In fact on page one, the poster "Me Myself" seemed to grasp my point perfectly as he stated....
I would be more concerned about anti-theists than anti-theism.
He knew that I wasn't talking about individuals, or tactics, but the philosophy itself.
You also seemed to understand at first, at least partially, since you asked in question form....
Do you mean you are concerned of anti-theists using the very same tactics ( many ) theists have used?
I answered the question for you. "Not really. I'm not so concerned with the "tactics" of individuals, as I am the spread of what is an inherently dishonest form of argumentation."
Even if my initial wording wasn't clear to you, I made it perfectly clear from then on. Why then do you continue to badger me on such a pointless matter? Rather than taking the time to really understand my point, you stoop to accusing me of back peddling and misrepresenting what happened as though I've been dishonest in this thread.
Was there an actual point you wanted to make? Or you just wanted to point fingers at me and throw theists under the bus as a way of justifying anti-theist behavior?