Posters your sick of!
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Please go away, all of you! |
Anonymous
Just when it was sinking lower on the page, you bring it back.... |
Anonymous
That's sick. |
Anonymous
Oh, don't feed the trolls, either of them. (Wasn't somebody saying there's only one obnoxious atheist? Hah!) LET THIS THREAD DIE ALREADY!!!! |
Anonymous
Oh please, if you can't laugh at the Roman persecution, you have issues. Go rent a Monty Python movie, Mel Brooks or get a humor transplant. |
Anonymous
| Die thread, die. Let the trolls get distracted by another thread. |
Anonymous
Not the best way to get a thread to die. |
Anonymous
] Oh you mean that page that Dawkins DIDN'T write, but was someone's analysis of him. No, I'm talking about his actual words on the subject, which can be found in Chapter 9 of the God Delusion, called "The Poverty of Agnosticism". Google Books will allow you to read all nine pages of that chapter. |
Anonymous
| Will the people who post the hot guys on "I'd Hit That Thursday" please post photos of hot atheists, agnostics, Christians, Catholics and hotties of any other faith you wish. Maybe this will make the thread end. Or at least it would be fun to look at them. |
Anonymous
You mean the thing written by Cambridge University folks based on something else he's written. Because he's written a lot. It's easy to see, however, how he felt he had to create a whole new set of definitions in order to try to get away from looking like a strict agnostic. |
Anonymous
No, read the footnote. They are referencing the book "God Delusion". It is easy to tell that they are analyzing chapter nine of the book -- if you bothered to read it. Look, if you don't want to actually read what he wrote, fine. But don't pretend that you know what he said. Admit that you are lazy and move on. Nine pages. Your children have to read that much. |
Anonymous
| The good folks DCUM are trying to bring logic to an idiot fight. Feed the trolls to the Adams Morgan rats. |
Anonymous
OK, I did as you asked and read the chapter. And my reaction was, "So What?" I read through the straw men about teapots. And much of the same stuff about TAP and PAP that was summarized by Cambridge. He says the probability of God is less than 50%. It didn't seem enlightening. I'm done humoring you. |
Anonymous
23:00 again. Let me be very clear. It's easy to tell how somebody who can't distinguish between your and you're might be impressed with the rhetoric. But after reading through his own explanation temporary and permanent agnostics (which is what the shorter Cambridge University piece had already said) -- he still seems like he fits the definition of agnostic, but he doesn't want to cop to it. If I sound pissed, it's because I tried to be a good citizen and was rooked. Thanks for wasting my time. |
Anonymous
Anyone who uses "hon" gets my vote |