Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: Indeed. Who wrote, The God Delusion? Was it a Theist who put that screed together?

The first "shot" came from Dawkins. If he can't answer for it, it's no Theist's fault.

Manuel, if you're serious about being the forum Dick Head you need to increase the size of your text.

Indeed. Who wrote, The God Delusion? Was it a Theist who put that screed together?

The first "shot" came from Dawkins. If he can't answer for it, it's no Theist's fault.

That's how the pros do it.

Or, if you want to add that extra little touch:

Please, the first "shot" came from Dawkins. If he can't answer for it, it's no Theist's fault.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Not at all true, there are many cases where the atheists bring up the subject with the purpose of disproving theism, usually they fail.

Indeed. Who wrote, The God Delusion? Was it a Theist who put that screed together?

The first "shot" came from Dawkins. If he can't answer for it, it's no Theist's fault.

You don't have to read it, but you should. It's brilliant. And I was referring to this site, which is why I used the word 'here'.
I must say I really do feel so sorry for you poor little kkkristians. I mean, you've had it so hard and been so horribly persecuted (by each other) over the centuries. And so helpless and powerless too.

Dawkins is a top biologist but he knows very little about religion.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Not at all true, there are many cases where the atheists bring up the subject with the purpose of disproving theism, usually they fail.

Indeed. Who wrote, The God Delusion? Was it a Theist who put that screed together?

The first "shot" came from Dawkins. If he can't answer for it, it's no Theist's fault.

You don't have to read it, but you should. It's brilliant. And I was referring to this site, which is why I used the word 'here'.
I must say I really do feel so sorry for you poor little kkkristians. I mean, you've had it so hard and been so horribly persecuted (by each other) over the centuries. And so helpless and powerless too.

Yes, it's a superb book. Yes, Christians crying foul after centuries of oppression with continued tax-free power and strong political influence is a game.

Dawkins was originally purely interested in evolutionary biology. However, his work was being interfered with by evolution-denying idiots (aka Christian fundamentalists) and that battle lead him down a rabbit hole from which I wish he'd emerge. His rebuttals of religion are old news for me - yes yes, obviously old superstitions are only true in a metaphorical sense - but his insights on biology are always fascinating and eloquent.

Harbal wrote: Manuel, if you're serious about being the forum Dick Head you need to increase the size of your text.

He has a long way to go to be as good as you, and you are far behind Bob, Bill, Lacewing and VT.

thedoc wrote:Dawkins is a top biologist but he knows very little about religion.

Quite so. He's very weak on logic and terrible -- really absurdly bad -- on Ethics.

Greta wrote:Yes, it's a superb book.

I'm reminded of a line from Robert Browning: "She had a heart—how shall I say?— too soon made glad, too easily impressed..."

thedoc wrote:

Harbal wrote: Manuel, if you're serious about being the forum Dick Head you need to increase the size of your text.

He has a long way to go to be as good as you, and you are far behind Bob, Bill, Lacewing and VT.

Hey! Why are you attacking me, doc?

thedoc wrote:

Harbal wrote: Manuel, if you're serious about being the forum Dick Head you need to increase the size of your text.

He has a long way to go to be as good as you, and you are far behind Bob, Bill, Lacewing and VT.

You're better than this, doc, ditch that loser, he's dragging you down to his level.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Quite so. He's very weak on logic and terrible -- really absurdly bad -- on Ethics.

It must gall you terribly that his books are so popular.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:Yes, it's a superb book.

I'm reminded of a line from Robert Browning: "She had a heart—how shall I say?— too soon made glad, too easily impressed..."

The above is the glass house of your unquestioning belief in Iron Age myths being shattered by your thoughtlessly thrown "stone".

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Harbal wrote: Manuel, if you're serious about being the forum Dick Head you need to increase the size of your text.

He has a long way to go to be as good as you, and you are far behind Bob, Bill, Lacewing and VT.

You're better than this, doc, ditch that loser, he's dragging you down to his level.

I could do worse.

Greta wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:Yes, it's a superb book.

I'm reminded of a line from Robert Browning: "She had a heart—how shall I say?— too soon made glad, too easily impressed..."

The above is the glass house of your unquestioning belief in Iron Age myths being shattered by your thoughtlessly thrown "stone".

That is a photo of automotive safety glass that has been impacted, not the glass that is used in the windows of houses. Auto safety glass will stay together and not spread a lot of shards all over when impacted. The glass used in the windows of houses will shatter and scatter all over the place when broken. So this photo has nothing to do with a glass house.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Not at all true, there are many cases where the atheists bring up the subject with the purpose of disproving theism, usually they fail.

Must have missed all of those threads. Could you post some links?

The conversation is not limited to this forum alone except when you think you can get away with it.

http://atheist-experience.com/

These guys are constantly bringing up theism in order to disprove it.

For crying out loud. I was talking about this forum. And are you suggesting they aren't allowed to talk about their lack of belief? I mean, kristians have only been shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats for millennia, often with guns and violence. And I doubt if those guys on your link are saying that all kristians are evil, which is what your friend is claiming about 'atheists' (whether or not they fit into his idiotic claims of 'thick and thing atheism). He's a joke.

Lacewing wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Harbal wrote: Manuel, if you're serious about being the forum Dick Head you need to increase the size of your text.

He has a long way to go to be as good as you, and you are far behind Bob, Bill, Lacewing and VT.

Hey! Why are you attacking me, doc?

You have disagreed with me in the past, sometimes with some hostility, I just thought I would return the favor.

thedoc wrote:

Harbal wrote: Manuel, if you're serious about being the forum Dick Head you need to increase the size of your text.

He has a long way to go to be as good as you, and you are far behind Bob, Bill, Lacewing and VT.

I'm glad you included me with Lacewing. Bob is a religious nut, and Bill is a.. I'm not sure really.