And even if only one party was called out, it doesn't mean its partisan. Not all opinions deserve equal weight. If someone started the Anti-Science Party and said the Earth was flat and only 7 years old, it wouldn't be partisan to say they're insane and you wouldn't want them in charge of important decisions, it would just be that this one party happens to be even more insane than the rest and you're calling them on it. The other party might believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, but fact remains that this hypothetical Anti-Science Party is basing their entire campaign on their belief rather than their understanding.
Playing the partisan card is just deflection to avoid the realization that some things simply cannot be argued seriously in a respectable conversation. Pointing the finger and saying "they do it too!" doesn't make your side any better.
I assume partisan is being used in place of 'heavily biased'. I can see it is a reasonable substitution in most cases.
The 'Pure Science' people (similar grouping to the militant atheists) are, like it or not, pretty dismissive of any non scientific opinions and beliefs. This makes many religious people take a very defensive (aggressively so) position on many matters.
This is simply a different version of the "two parties facing each other and calling each other dumb" political system.
You are correct only in the sense that atheists and science committees are completely dismissive of non scientific opinions.
But I take great issue with the rest of your post. This is not a case of two parties calling each other dumb, nor is it the case that positions of science and positions of opinion are equal. Science does not deal in opinions. There are very specific requirements that need to be met for an idea to be considered a scientific theory. Religious ideas by and large do not meet these criteria. There is no such thing as "non-pure science." This is by definition of the term and process.
Further, your use of the term "militant atheist" is offensive. You call an atheist "militant" merely because she dares to voice her thoughts? This is what religious individuals due daily in church and other places, yet never are they called militant for it. Worse, religious advertising routinely gets away with suggestions that non-believers will suffer eternally or are otherwise evil or immoral. Such rhetoric is a far cry from a logical discussion of what we actually know that you might find from a typical vocal atheist.
Slurs like "militant atheist" are so common you no longer ever recognize them for what they are: insults and a labels intended to marginalize.
I think you're overreacting. I'm an atheist and regularly use "militant atheist" to characterize the sort of atheist who I don't want to be associated with--i.e., the douchey ones.
I am no fan of religion, but I'm also not a fan of assholes.
"The 'Pure Science' people (similar grouping to the militant atheists) are, like it or not, pretty dismissive of any non scientific opinions and beliefs."
When applied to scientific fact, this is correct. The religious persons attempt to meddle in what would otherwise be "pure" science and inject pseudoscience.
