"Atheism has a Richard Dawkins problem"

Musika said:
The notion of hierarchies that don't utilize organizational structure are appealing for the same reason it is appealing to buy the Brooklyn Bridge .... if you pursue it earnestly it says more about what you are setting yourself up for and, ultimately, it will end in the same manner, every time.
Click to expand...
OK, so no, then.
I thought you were suggesting there were such a thing.
My bad.
 
Musika said:
I give you the mic to let you explain yourself, and you've got nothing to say.
Click to expand...
? 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.
Musika said:
put it all together and I would be surprised if it comes under 100 million.
Click to expand...
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.
Musika said:
What does the history of the paragraph tell us? Not much, I imagine
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
? 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.
Click to expand...
So if you want to fudge on "fundie", how about "abrahamic"?
 
Musika said:
So if you want to fudge on "fundie", how about "abrahamic"?
Click to expand...
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".
 
iceaura said:
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".
Click to expand...
Ok.
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.
 
Musika said:
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.
Click to expand...
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".
 
Musika said:
Yet another self effacing appraisal of your comprehension skills ...
Click to expand...
Some self-effacing might do you good. If there's lack of comprehension and/or communication, the sender is as responsible as the receiver.
 
sideshowbob said:
Some self-effacing might do you good. If there's lack of comprehension and/or communication, the sender is as responsible as the receiver.
Click to expand...
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 ...
 
Musika said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
Did you read what I wrote at all?
 
sideshowbob said:
Did you read what I wrote at all?
Click to expand...
Sure.
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?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Musika said:
Put on your big boy pants and give it a shot. Me and sweetpea can help you along the way.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sideshowbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top