Atheist 1: I don't believe in God.
Atheist 2: Me either.
Atheist 1: Well, now what?
Atheist 2: Shit, we don't have much else to talk about then, now do we?
Atheist 1: Well let's just make fun of religious people.
Atheist 2: Cool.
Sounds like a blast, where do I sign up?
Ah yes, the venerable Hayabusa Rider and his equally exalted wife. :whiste:
As opposed to your approach:
Chalmers: Heeeeeeyyyyy yooooooooooooouuuuu guyyyyyyyyyyysssss!!!!
Everyone else: :hmm:
Chalmers: You guys are like soooo funnay! I can't actually participate myself because I frankly don't know jackshit but I certainly won't let that keep me from jumping in and jacking off to it!
Everyone else:
Chalmers: You mad bro?
Pretty sure only the top scientists get a FRS. You know, Newton was its president from 1703 to 1727.
But of course, since your wife is a triple phd in science, she shuld have mentioned this to you.
Did she ever mention The Scientific Method? Slightly important for the sciency people.
Shuld she have?
I always loved Calvin and Hobbes.
If she's as top of a scientist as you say, she "shuld"[sic] have.
I forget. Why do I care what you think? I didn't bring her up initially in this thread. Still, she didn't write a book, nor is she recognizable for her academically unrelated pursuits. But then again she isn't a self absorbed fool, so she has that going for her.
Well, enough about her. Let's talk about you. Let's assume that I'm a black lesbian doing time in prison. Since we aren't talking about Dawkins anymore because you'll have none of that why don't you go around to threads (which is something verifiable to all) and demonstrate your superiority in understanding and explaining scientific concepts. You can also find where I support such things as Creationism being equivalent to evolution, or anything at all.
My mistake was bringing up personal information to be trolled. That was an error on my part. Yours is the inability to find anything that suggests that I haven't a good grasp of the scientific and can't find where I've argued replacing it with religion. Will I give religious people deference in their beliefs? Sure. Will I allow it to be taught as a substitution for science? No, and you'll not find a case where I say otherwise. In the end I offended you, and Dawkins for his needlessly abrasive style. If he was a janitor or world leader, his behavior would be objectionable, but then that's a plus to some apparently.
Want to best me on the merit of my ideas or my knowledge and understanding. That's a fair challenge. Go for it. I posted a response about the creation of the universe today. Have a look.
Me too. Calvin and Hobbes is a Christian cartoon. ()
Notice I don't rush to the defense of those who debate Dawkins.
You need to see beyond this thread. Here's Dawkins again. Perhaps you see well reasoned arguments here. I see nothing of value for discussion
Please tell me you don't believe that because you saw this somewhere:
In other words you continue to play pretend because you don't have any evidence to back up your claims. Got it.
Not at all. If that's what you want to think that's fine, but this is about you and me. We'll leave my lover, my wife and your's (Dawkins) alone or not, but it's now you and me, and between us I'll hand you your ass based on merits and quality of arguments.
There is no you and me - you have made a bunch of statements, and literally don't have a single piece of proof or evidence for even a single one.
You: "I'm smarter than most scientists, including Richard Dawkins"
Me: "Prove it"
You: "My wife has 3 PHDs and is also smarter than Richard Dawkins, and a better scientist to boot!"
Me: "Prove it"
You: /goes on attack because you were called out on your lies
I've seen this type of behavior literally hundreds of times on the internet - you're not the first, and won't be the last. You're simply someone who lives in a fantasy land and likes to make things up as you go along. You literally have stated you are more intelligent than an esteemed scientist, who has written books, papers, etc., yet your posts show you to be of only slightly above average intelligence.
You are no different than the ATOT'er saying that they wouldn't date Jessica Alba because her elbows were too pointy.
I watched my first Dawkins video the other day because of this thread, so I'm no "follower" of his. In both the Catholic girl and the hour long Women for America videos, he shows amazing calm and restraint. I don't agree with his stance in the video you linked. It's not the right way to go about having a discourse, but I understand why he said it.
I can only assume that it's terribly frustrating for him to keep facing the same brick walls over and over. The big problems that I'm seeing in his videos is that people are misusing the word science and other scientific terms. If they would stop, I'd imagine this whole debate would simmer down quite a bit.
I'm assuming that to him, the common religious concepts of bread to flesh and Christ rising are as absurd as saying that a unicorn made of candy sneezed the universe into existence. Someone who claimed that would probably be mocked by society because most people don't hold that view. Although he may find them to be similar concepts, most people don't. Mocking people is just going to upset them and will do more harm than good when trying to change their very fundamental beliefs. They may even strengthen them because as that video points out, they've been told this would happen and that they should harden their resolve.
He needs to settle down and again, so too do people who use the word science in very twisted ways.
When you dated Dawkins, were you the top or bottom?
You guys are hilarious.
Why don't you two see that neither party will EVER back down and just move on?
When you dated Dawkins, were you the top or bottom?
When you fabricate stories from your magical castle, do you write with a candy cane or a chocolate pen?
Remember when you said your wife was smarter than Richard Dawkins? LOL.
Calvin is apparently not a creationist either.
I'm having fun, that's all.
This thread has occasional posts of relevance, but it's really a pissing match diversion.
The truth is that this will never be settled because people will have different opinions and as you say will never (or rarely) be reconciled. My point is that it's possible to discuss such topics (not here of course) between parties who are not absolutists. In that case the carrot works better than the stick, and bludgeoning never won an argument. It might feel good. It may make someone lots of money, but from an intellectual examination? Not really.
Please tell me you don't believe that because you saw this somewhere:
There is no you and me - you have made a bunch of statements, and literally don't have a single piece of proof or evidence for even a single one.
You: "I'm smarter than most scientists, including Richard Dawkins"
Me: "Prove it"
You: "My wife has 3 PHDs and is also smarter than Richard Dawkins, and a better scientist to boot!"
Me: "Prove it"
You: /goes on attack because you were called out on your lies
I've seen this type of behavior literally hundreds of times on the internet - you're not the first, and won't be the last. You're simply someone who lives in a fantasy land and likes to make things up as you go along. You literally have stated you are more intelligent than an esteemed scientist, who has written books, papers, etc., yet your posts show you to be of only slightly above average intelligence.
You are no different than the ATOT'er saying that they wouldn't date Jessica Alba because her elbows were too pointy.
When you dated Dawkins, were you the top or bottom?