Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People (it's mostly women) who post how much "we" make. You might be entitled to it in a divorce honey but you sure didn't earn it. I really dislike the woman who just by staying home and leveraging her connections, has increased her husband's earnings by a million or two. Barf barf bar f.

Hmmm. I'm not one of the women you describe but you come across as utterly jealous and bitter (and with an ugly perspective on marriage).

Sounds like the "hon" poster

Anyone who uses "hon" gets my vote

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you talking to me? I read the link to the Cambridge thing. It seemed pretty clear: Dawkins calls himself agnostic.

]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The good folks DCUM are trying to bring logic to an idiot fight. Feed the trolls to the Adams Morgan rats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you talking to me? I read the link to the Cambridge thing. It seemed pretty clear: Dawkins calls himself agnostic.

]

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.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you talking to me? I read the link to the Cambridge thing. It seemed pretty clear: Dawkins calls himself agnostic.

]

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.

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.

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 wrote:Are you talking to me? I read the link to the Cambridge thing. It seemed pretty clear: Dawkins calls himself agnostic.

]

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 wrote:Die thread, die. Let the trolls get distracted by another thread.

Not the best way to get a thread to die.

Die thread, die. Let the trolls get distracted by another thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victimized and oppressed Christians. Bring back the lions.

I LOVE YOU!

That's sick.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victimized and oppressed Christians. Bring back the lions.

I LOVE YOU!

That's sick.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victimized and oppressed Christians. Bring back the lions.

I LOVE YOU!

That's sick.

Anonymous wrote:OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Please go away, all of you!

Just when it was sinking lower on the page, you bring it back....

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Please go away, all of you!