An atheist speech.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's a story book, you don't have to see it as big metaphors (many fundamentalist Christians don't). You didn't know that? Odd.

The only thing that is odd is your lack of thinking. You don't have to see it as a book of metaphors, but I have never suggested such a claim. I suggest that it CAN be seen as a book of metaphors.

You on the other hand, suggest that it must be seen as a book of "literal" fact, as if FACT is clearly apparent from a sentance and totally unrelated to connotation or personal interpretation of readign a document as large as a book.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Where did he claim that?.

Thats right...Dawkins really isn't an athiest. TRY LEARNING. Might be good for a uninformed know-it-all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not true, didn't with the Archbishop of Canterbury for one. I am sure there are more Christians he also respects. But...well, that one is really enough to disprove your stupid claim.

"The God DELUSION"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you were wrong with the first two points, lets see you bring up some evidence for the third.

"Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility."

"The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

Maybe when I get home an I can sift through his books again, I'll provide quotes. He claims, falsely, that science can take a position on God. He is wrong. The question in itself is unscientific.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bullshit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, we saw that he isn't against anyone religious. That doesn't mean that need for religion is not a flaw in the human brain. And not only did you use myopic wrong, I also have no idea in what way you think he is it. Yeah he wants all Religion gone....and? If you think about it it kinda makes sense to not want religion..

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, yeah, you don't like him. You rebel, you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Assault? Are you out of your mind? Do you lack the most rudimentary of reading capabilities? The part you quoted neither attacked DigiMark nor you.

Yeah...come on...even DigiMark can figure it out.

Its called interpretation...do you know what it is?

Originally posted by Bardock42
N-no. It's democracy. Once again you show that you do not understand the word.

Originally posted by Alliance
The only thing that is odd is your lack of thinking. You don't have to see it as a book of metaphors, but I have never suggested such a claim. I suggest that it CAN be seen as a book of metaphors.

You on the other hand, suggest that it must be seen as a book of "literal" fact, as if FACT is clearly apparent from a sentance and totally unrelated to connotation or personal interpretation of readign a document as large as a book.

Lets start a bit more recently...I always like up to date facts. "The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

Thats right...Dawkins really isn't an athiest. TRY LEARNING. Might be good for a uninformed know-it-all.

"The God DELUSION"

"Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility."

"The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

Maybe when I get home an I can sift through his books again, I'll provide quotes. He claims, falsely, that science can take a position on God. He is wrong. The question in itself is unscientific.

Do you speak anything but?

Anyone? I said everyone. He hates religion, thinks religous people are deluded...yet he doesn't hate them? And people say that you can hate homosexuality and not hate homosexuals...

Yes, I do consider myself a rebel athiest because I don't think I'm an idiot. I like to resort to a little things called reason and rationality.

Yeah...come on...even DigiMark can figure it out.

Its called interpretation...do you know what it is?

And you show that you don't know the nuances of when to properly use the word. Please, go cry in the corner about how people are different than you. Whine about how people who think they're the only ones with a monopoly on "truth" (except for you) are evil and destroying the world. Then realize you're a part of it.

Look, I will just do what I do with every other moron that is too stupid to understand what I say and makes up shit.

Bullshit, you moron.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yeah...come on...even DigiMark can figure it out.

🤨

I thought we buried our hatchet....anyway, why all the anger?

...

And as for my interpretation of the Collins/Dawkins debate, I said that Dawkins points were harder to answer from a theist perspective, but that Dawkins debating relied heavily on poor rationale (he attacked religion in general as much as the question of God), bashing, and generally acting like a jerk. So I was more in agreement with him by the end than Collins, but thought he handled himself rather poorly.

So, if he handled himself poorly, and used poor rationale, how exactly did you end up agreeing with him?

Handling yourself poorly AND using bad rationale almost instantly suggest that one is not only a jerk, but doesn't know what he is talking about.

When intelligence is spent, insults are vent.

Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
Very interesting, if abit anti-thiest. I really like listening to richard dawkins

The problem with Dawkins, is he is so convinced God exists, he is spending all his time trying to prove he doesnt exist...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The problem with Dawkins, is he is so convinced God exists, he is spending all his time trying to prove he doesnt exist...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So, if he handled himself poorly, and used poor rationale, how exactly did you end up agreeing with him?

Handling yourself poorly AND using bad rationale almost instantly suggest that one is not only a jerk, but doesn't know what he is talking about.

When intelligence is spent, insults are vent.

In fact the smartest people I know (as well as the smartest on this forum) do use insults frequently, it is more the people of lesser intelligence that hate it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
stion..

In fact the smartest people I know (as well as the smartest on this forum) do use insults frequently, it is more the people of lesser intelligence that hate it.

I think you need to shoosh.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is exactly the impression that I had. He is an atheist who is fighting god. 😆

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think you need to shoosh.

Ahh, there are alot of them around! Question is...who will win? 😮

Why?

Originally posted by Bardock42
In fact the smartest people I know (as well as the smartest on this forum) do use insults frequently, it is more the people of lesser intelligence that hate it.

People who are truly intelligent, do not need to use insults. They are intelligent enough to put an argument together, without insulting, because their argument is strong enough.

Those who are not intelligent enough to make an argument, NEED insults to try and justify their incoherent ridiculous, intellectually insulting babble...

Hence all the greatest intellectuals could put someone down without using a single insult.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think you need to shoosh.

Ahh, there are alot of them around! Question is...who will win? 😮

I don't think God care or even notices. They are like ants biting at the toe of a giant.

Hmm, fair point.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
People who are truly intelligent, do not need to use insults. They are intelligent enough to put an argument together, without insulting, because their argument is strong enough.

Those who are not intelligent enough to make an argument, NEED insults to try and justify their incoherent ridiculous, intellectually insulting babble...

Hence all the greatest intellectuals could put someone down without using a single insult.

As I said. That's what people of lesser intelligence say to feel better about themselves in my experience.

Intelligent people can make excellent points and still throw insults in, because, to be fair, it becomes incredibly annoying to talk to people that do not even comprehend the most simple points. Sure they might not need them, but there's hardly any reason to not use them.

people resort to insults when they have nothing left.

I dont totally agree with that, people often resort to insults not when they have run out of argument, but because they have run out of paitence.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...Sure they might not need them, but there's hardly any reason to not use them.

As soon as you have insulted someone, you have lost the argument.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
As soon as you have insulted someone, you have lost the argument.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Bullshit

[edit] Also, do people notice how just those a reasonable human would not consider intelligent throw that shit around?

Originally posted by Bardock42
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Bullshit

[edit] Also, do people notice how just those a reasonable human would not consider intelligent throw that shit around?

You are delusional. Is that insulting you?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are delusional. Is that insulting you?

Not really. I am not, of course...but I wouldn't count it as an insult.

Either way, you must realize the severe stupidity of your last statement, if not I can give you an example that should clarify it and if you have just one brain cell left make you think about never talking again.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. I am not, of course...but I wouldn't count it as an insult.

Either way, you must realize the severe stupidity of your last statement, if not I can give you an example that should clarify it and if you have just one brain cell left make you think about never talking again.

You fail. 🙄