Quote from: Ghost Whistler;275337Militant arrogant atheism is an invention. Can't remember the last time Richard Dawkins tried to deny entry to an abortion clinic, incited violence (unlike that old cunt in the vatican), or denied the use of contraception that would inexorably stem the flow of diseases like AIDS.

Frankly, i'd rather have someone like him, who may be a bit enthusiastic in his views, than some religious nutter using his position on the world's stage to talk shit like this.

Ghost Whistler I love you. I was wondering when someone would deal a blow to yet another anti atheist myth. Theists often see any expression of atheism, no matter how softly spoken, as an arrogant militant rant. Which is an indicator of  the theists discomfort at their beliefs being challenged.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;275339and people wonder why Dawkins gets het up!

There isn't a facepalm big enough to deal with the Catholic Church and it's nazi overlord.

Small point of fact: When Jeff likely went to Catholic School the Pope was NOT the current one.  The pope then was likely John Paul II , or the one or two that just preceded him.

Jeff, was it late '70s or early '80s?


-Ed C.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;275337Militant arrogant atheism is an invention.

This is really funny considering his follow on posts.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;275341Shit statement is shit.

Remember the quote is mockery (AKA piss taking in the UK). My point is to show that Pundit's long years of study don't mean much when it comes to realizing that gods are the product of human imaginations. You don't need years of study to reach such a conclusion.
The argument proposed by the pisstaker and by Pundit is absurd. To mock a bit more:
 Faust: "There are no fairies at the bottom of your garden, because fairies aren't real."
 Meph the poodle: "How can you say that when you haven't been to the bottom of every garden in X miles radius?"

The argument gets even more absurd when you get to " But there are still one or two gardens in the world/universe/multiverse that you haven't been to the bottom of, so you still can't say that fairies aren't real!"

Quote from: Anthrobot;275348Remember the quote is mockery (AKA piss taking in the UK). My point is to show that Pundit's long years of study don't mean much when it comes to realizing that gods are the product of human imaginations. You don't need years of study to reach such a conclusion.
The argument proposed by the pisstaker and by Pundit is absurd. To mock a bit more:
 Faust: "There are no fairies at the bottom of your garden, because fairies aren't real."
 Meph the poodle: "How can you say that when you haven't been to the bottom of every garden in X miles radius?"

The argument gets even more absurd when you get to " But there are still one or two gardens in the world/universe/multiverse that you haven't been to the bottom of, so you still can't say that fairies aren't real!"

What you are failing to grasp here is that Pundit is not making the case of there being gods (aka fairies).

While tweaking folks in Tangency who only frequent that section might sound like a good idea - are their inds open enough to 'get it' ?
Do enough of them have a sense of humor about it all ?
 Or do they take themselves too seriously?

Remember, I've been unable to view that pocket of the web for over a year now. Did it get worse ...or did it improve in any way ?


- Ed C.

Remind me again why we give a sizzling fuck about what Tangency does or doesn't.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;275382Remind me again why we give a sizzling fuck about what Tangency does or doesn't.

Because the face-eating space spiders will get you if you don't!!!

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;275339and people wonder why Dawkins gets het up!

There isn't a facepalm big enough to deal with the Catholic Church and it's nazi overlord.

And your point is?

Quote from: jeff37923;275400And your point is?

that the Catholic Church and the pope are reactionary out of touch and immoral.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;275413that the Catholic Church and the pope are reactionary out of touch and immoral.

That's nice.

Now what does that have to do with evolution being taught in Catholic Schools? Granted, its taught as evolution that is guided by God but it is still evolution, which hardly seems to be reactionary, out of touch, or immoral.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;275413that the Catholic Church and the pope are reactionary out of touch and immoral.

Says the one taking the revolution to the music industry one download at a time!

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;275382Remind me again why we give a sizzling fuck about what Tangency does or doesn't.

"We" (as in theRPGsite) do not. This was something I had posted on my Blog, and that Anthrobot felt he had to post for me here. I appreciate the advertising, for sure, but its not meant to be reflective of this site, just me.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Anthrobot;275300You rely far too much on pseudoRonite rhetoric and then fall back on your credentials as a professor to back you up.

The main difference between Edwards and myself is that I only ever make reference to my education or credentials in the context of talking about the actual subject I studied. I don't suggest that I'm more of an expert on RPGs because I've studied history.

QuoteBut this is like saying "Look at me I'm intelligent, because I say so!" There isn't any way we can gauge wether you are a shit hot or mediocre professor. You might want to reconsider your half hearted attempt to hide behind a pseudonym. It would be a strength if you were out in the open as professor "Joe Bloggs of such and such  university". Being partially hidden by your Pundit pseudonym is a weakness that could easily be exploited by unscrupulous swine that you have underestimated. if you are in plain sight then no one can out you in malice, and we can all check your credentials.

Dude, the only person who's ever had a serious problem about this, or been an asshole about this, is YOU. To the point of being an internet stalker. People here have a right to privacy, and I have a right to my privacy.

Continue along these tracks and there will be consequences.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Anthrobot;275338The above quote is obviously from your blog. Contrast it with this piss take of the type of view you express.

"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics."

Dude, if you were ever to actually READ what I'm saying, I have not suggested that Dawkins is unqualified to talk about what he's talking about. I'm saying that there's a shitload of other people who are unqualified to claim that they've made a rational EDUCATED choice about being atheists.

QuoteIt makes me think that you're desperate to glean some kudos for your long years of studying at any cost to your reputation.

And all of your recent posts and actions and harassment have led me to think that you might be a seriously mentally unbalanced individual.

RPGPundit