Discussion in 'Religion' started by Musika, Aug 15, 2018.
OK, so no, then.
I thought you were suggesting there were such a thing.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It's the internet.
? Comical, but actually symptomatic as well.
Note that such posting comes from the same folks who accuse atheists (all of them, not just Dawkins) of arrogance.
Refutation is hard, apparently.
And so is counting things - although the specific crossed mental wires are much easier to spot.
Nobody but an Abrahamic theist would be surprised if it came in around five million influenced to any visible extent in their views on atheism, by Dawkins himself.
Every so often you deliver yourself of a supposition or imagining like that - and they are always not merely wrong, but bizarrely and flagrantly and irrelevantly wrong. Silly. Haywire. Why would anyone after a moment's thought suppose the history of the paragraph to be uninformative, unenlightening, or anything but intrinsically interesting?
And this too is typical of the overt Abrahamic theist posting on a science forum. The role of these wrongheaded imaginings and presuppositions in the mental life of you folks is apparently significant - they come up a lot.
They occupy a very large fraction of the theistic bandwidth devoted to Dawkins, for example. The OP is stuffed with them.
So if you want to fudge on "fundie", how about "abrahamic"?
The bullshit "if", the one line post, the complete absence of refutation or even attempted address of the quoted post.
We're dealing with an overt Abrahamic theist posting on a science forum.
And they are attempting to present Richard Dawkins as a "problem" that "atheism has".
2 out of 2 is a perfect score, of sorts.
If you haven't already done so, I think you have sold yourself short if you didn't forge a career in politics.
Your ability to stay on message while discussing anything but what you mean to say, is truly stunning.
The bullshit "if" + wordfog + insult, no thread relevant content. An overt Abrahamic theist posts on a science forum.
And that crowd is where the OP is coming from - Dawkins is a problem that "atheism" has, somehow. None of the atheists anyone knows, but "atheism".
Some self-effacing might do you good. If there's lack of comprehension and/or communication, the sender is as responsible as the receiver.
Well, even if Tiassa was guilty of "doing an Iceauratm" on two (IIRC) occassions, he did have the decency to personally unpack for you into layman's terms.
On the first occassion, you didn't even respond beyond the first sentence.
On the second, you didn't respond at all.
So yeah, bringing horses to water, and all that ...
Did you read what I wrote at all?
If the receiver totally bypassed the sender on two occassions after they went to special lengths to resend it more clearly, the receiver owns the ineptitude.
You do realize this whole "self effacing" thing arose from you not "comprehending" Tiassa's posts?
If you think Tiassa sent anything comprehensible, feel free to explain it.
I just realized I made a mistake. I thought both instances of you dropping the ball occurred in the same thread, but actually you do it once here, and once more in the other "Religious nonsense" thread.
Here we go :
I know. I don't even try to point out all of your mistakes.
So are you going to try to explain Tiassa at all?
Put on your big boy pants and give it a shot. Me and sweetpea can help you along the way.
1. I'm don't know why you think sweetpea is on your side.
2. Are you going to keep trying to baffle us with bullshit or are you going to post something sensible?
3. The challenge remains: If you understand what Tiassa said, explain it in your own words. Otherwise, stop kissing his/her ass and move on.
I am pretty sure me and Tiassa would have plenty to disagree on in the right place and circumstance.
I got absolutely no idea about sweetpea, as in what their angle is, but it seems they caught it straight off the mark.
I am just providing you with an opportunity to prove your self effacing quality that you are convinced you possess.
I mean if you don't want to prove it, that's fine, and perfectly understandable.
And I'm providing you with an opportunity to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. It doesn't look like you can.
I accept your surrender.
Separate names with a comma.