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!"

That is not the argument, you dolt.

The argument is that if someone says "I believe that faeries and ocelots aren't real! I believe this because a bunch of cool kids over there are saying its so! And aren't all those people who believe that faeries and ocelots ARE real a bunch of big fat idiots!! They're just saying that because that dude in the funny hat said they're real, they're so stupid..", they are demonstrating themselves to be complete fuckwits.
You have somehow taken this to mean that I'm attacking all atheists, or that I'm defending people who are stupidly religious.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;275481And all of your recent posts and actions and harassment have led me to think that you might be a seriously mentally unbalanced individual.

You wouldn't be alone in thinking that.

Quote from: Anthrobot;275338blorp blorp

the courtier's reply is bad and you should feel bad. it's a stretched analogy to a fairy tale, (religion is a fairy tale hur hur,) and the essays point undermines itself. It's true that rhetoric is not probative, but the courtier's reply is just fancy rhetoric, and therefore not probative either. beyond that, it's self-deceptive, you believe you have an argument, but in fact, you just display your inability to deal with the argument at hand. it's an emotional argument which attempts to not only mock the opponent, but cast serious theologians as insincere medieval fairy tale throwbacks.

Quote from: jeff37923;275418That'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.

I don't think it's nice. I think it's actually quite evil. What the pope is currently doing is inciting hatred, which is illegal. So for a few 'reasonable' believers to try and adopt the moral high ground by touting the lies of Dawkins as some kind of intolerant bigot is just extraordinary.

As for catholics teaching evolution; i'm sure they do a great job; what with their objective and rational point of view to start from. Frankly I wouldn't trust them to teach at all. Religion should be removed from schools everywhere; faith schools are a terrible idea.

In fact teaching that evolution is guided by god only proves the point I just made; they aren't teaching evolution.

Quote from: RPGPundit;275480The 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.

Dude, you wheel out your credentials whenever you feel that you are superior to the unwashed twods you currently have a beef with that week. Don't be too shocked when someone wants to see if you are the real deal.

Quote from: RPGPundit;275480Dude, 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

Curiosity about who you really are is not stalking. Your threats mean nothing to me. If I'm letting you know that you should be careful I'm doing you a favour. It is only a matter of time before some twod from another site comes looking for payback and you should cover chinks in your armour. If you think that I'm going to out you, relax. I'm not.

Quote from: RPGPundit;275481Dude, 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.

I'll return the compliment of reading what you say if you do the same. I didn't call you a fundamentalist. Only narrow minded. You seem to think that just because you have laboured long and hard to reach your level of education , that someone who takes a shorter route by reading a book by an educated (in all our definitions)and brilliant professor is lesser for the experience. How you know what books the twods at Tangency have read  or that they're pretending to be atheists seems beyond rational argument.

Quote from: RPGPundit;275481And all of your recent posts and actions and harassment have led me to think that you might be a seriously mentally unbalanced individual.

RPGPundit

How very Ronite of you, Pundit. You being a bastion of rationality yourself. If you don't like being challenged then maybe you should retire to a beach cottage and stay off the net, you daft twod.

By the way do you have a physics degree or even know what Hawking radiation is without referring to wikipedia?

Quote from: andar;275499the courtier's reply is bad and you should feel bad. it's a stretched analogy to a fairy tale, (religion is a fairy tale hur hur,) and the essays point undermines itself. It's true that rhetoric is not probative, but the courtier's reply is just fancy rhetoric, and therefore not probative either. beyond that, it's self-deceptive, you believe you have an argument, but in fact, you just display your inability to deal with the argument at hand. it's an emotional argument which attempts to not only mock the opponent, but cast serious theologians as insincere medieval fairy tale throwbacks.

Well religions are fairy tales are they not? Do you know of anyone who can turn water into wine by the touch of his hand? Do you believe that Santa claus exists? (By the way, happy Christmas. I hope that you enjoy the holiday!)
 The courtier's reply is logically quoted in the context of it relating to Pundit's overblown view on his being better than the Johnny come lately atheists he's attacking. You don't need to know all about religion to reject the idea of supernatural entities that are mentioned in old books.
Serious theologians don't have to be considered insincere. I'm sure everyone, including atheists, have ideas about the world that they revise when better evidence comes to hand.
As for anything being fancy rhetoric, I find that both theological dispute and scientific theories that aren't predictive or based on experiment rank in that definition. If stuff can be tested, then every now and again, it should be.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;275498You wouldn't be alone in thinking that.

I have no problem with that. After all, a lot of people on this site seem to be content to swallow Pundit's guff without questioning it. If you wish to be that lazy, who am I to dissuade you?

No...I just find this stuff tiresome.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;275536I don't think it's nice. I think it's actually quite evil. What the pope is currently doing is inciting hatred, which is illegal.

What about your own incitement of hatred? Is that illegal too?

Quote from: Anthrobot;275541Dude, you wheel out your credentials whenever you feel that you are superior to the unwashed twods you currently have a beef with that week. Don't be too shocked when someone wants to see if you are the real deal...

Curiosity about who you really are is not stalking. Your threats mean nothing to me. If I'm letting you know that you should be careful I'm doing you a favour. It is only a matter of time before some twod from another site comes looking for payback and you should cover chinks in your armour. If you think that I'm going to out you, relax. I'm not.

I'm not the one who needs to be concerned you cunt. Let me make this sparklingly clear. Make one more reference about me in this context, or suggestion that "someone" might out me, or claims about my physical appearance, or anything else to do with me outside of the internet, and you WILL BE MOTHERFUCKING BANNED.

Just one more, Anthrobot. Come on you fucking pathetic loser, give me an excuse.

The part you don't understand is that I'm not afraid or ashamed of my private life. I just want it to remain private. I have nothing that I'm worried about people online knowing about; I am worried that the more my name and identity are out there, however, the more that creepy psychologically imbalanced fucks like you might feel inclined to intrude on my private life. I'm not trying to protect my internet life from my real life, I'm trying to protect my real life from losers like you on the internet.

So whereas you seem to be trying to imagine that you're scaring me with your threats, you're not. You're not scaring me, you're making me angry.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Anthrobot;275543I'll return the compliment of reading what you say if you do the same. I didn't call you a fundamentalist. Only narrow minded. You seem to think that just because you have laboured long and hard to reach your level of education , that someone who takes a shorter route by reading a book by an educated (in all our definitions)and brilliant professor is lesser for the experience. How you know what books the twods at Tangency have read  or that they're pretending to be atheists seems beyond rational argument.

First, I have read the God Delusion, loser. I've read God is Not Great, too. And I had long since read Bill's Guide to the Bible and Vicars of Christ back when you were still shitting your diapers. Yes, more than two years ago!

On the other hand, I'd guess that far more than half of the "fashionable atheists" out there have not.  I'm really on the fence as to whether you have or not; you're so clearly mentally unwell that anything you claim at this point could be taken as a product of delusion.  The real question is not whether you're lying or not, but whether you're lying when you claim to have read it, or you actually believe that you've read it.

QuoteHow very Ronite of you, Pundit. You being a bastion of rationality yourself. If you don't like being challenged then maybe you should retire to a beach cottage and stay off the net, you daft twod.

I like being challenged, Anthrobot. You're no challenge, however. You're just a stalker.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;275205You do realize that the blog entry I made above essentially doesn't disagree with the idea of "top scientists being atheists", and is just condemning people who are basically being atheists not because they understand anything about either science or religion, but because its fashionable among some hipster subcultures and/or they have a chip on their shoulder based on totally emotional reasons?

You know the bolded part can be applied to just about any religion to.

Quote from: Nobilis;275584You know the bolded part can be applied to just about any religion to.

Yes, I do know that and have frequently commented on that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;275559No...I just find this stuff tiresome.

I find Punshit's stupidity tiresome. I think it is time to get myself banned.
Happy christmas Dr Rotwang! I hope you have an enjoyable holiday.