Fundamentalist Atheists

[TheGunShoj]

If you're talking to me, you'll need to signify that somehow in your messages.

I was talking to you. I was replying in addition to Bunyips reply. Thought that was pretty clear since it was in sequential order and relevant to the topic being discussed.

You seem to think we are way off base with our questions but you imply a lot in the way you speak. You said that you weren't implying that its pointless to read Dawkins books until I got involved, so that is your position which I inferred from your first post about it. So it would seem that it was your position all along, even before I got involved.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It was in response to your comment that you found people's interest in such things to be curious.

Yes, I do find it most curious. I find this whole thread curious. A long ad hominem against one particular guy.

Maybe if believers would actually engage the debate -- rather than wasting so much time kicking around the Biggest Bogeyman NonBeliever -- they might overcome some of their insecurities and grow stronger.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, I do find it most curious. I find this whole thread curious. A long ad hominem against one particular guy.

Maybe if believers would actually engage the debate -- rather than wasting so much time kicking around the Biggest Bogeyman NonBeliever -- they might overcome some of their insecurities and grow stronger.

I could not agree more. Sadly attacking the man is far easier than addressing the arguments.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You seem to think we are way off base with our questions but you imply a lot in the way you speak.

Huh? Who is 'we'? And what questions are you talking about?

As for what I imply, are you sure you aren't just inferring too much?

You said that you weren't implying that its pointless to read Dawkins books until I got involved, so that is your position which I inferred from your first post about it.

Oh boy. Pointless, eh? I said it was pointless to read Dawkins?

Goodness. What an idiotic thing for me to say.

If I'd actually, you know... said it, I mean.

So it would seem that it was your position all along, even before I got involved.

If you'd ever like to understand any of my positions, you're welcome to ask questions. I'm not shy about explaining myself.

But if you just want to assert what I believe -- as the Dawkins bashers have been doing to Dawkins all along -- well, you don't need me for that.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Huh? Who is 'we'? And what questions are you talking about?

Bunyip and I were both responding to your posts. That 'we'.

As for what I imply, are you sure you aren't just inferring too much?

Not if I'm right.

Oh boy. Pointless, eh? I said it was pointless to read Dawkins?

Goodness. What an idiotic thing for me to say.

If I'd actually, you know... said it, I mean.

I guess criticize isn't the right word. But you are implying that there is no point to reading his books.

Well, no. I wasn't doing that until you got involved. I was just asking the guy what motivates him to read Dawkins. I'd really like to hear his answer.

You said you weren't until I got involved. Until means that you were not at one point but you are presently. So you admitted that you were stating that it's pointless to read him. Maybe you misspoke but that's what I was basing my responses on.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I've never seen the debate, actually. I only heard it was incredibly disappointing so I never bothered, and then forgot about it until it was brought up a few moments ago.

As Copernicus has kindly linked it, I've bookmarked it to watch (when I finish watching a few programmes. I'm currently watching the 'Human Weapon' series. I have no idea how I ended up watching them, though).

I highly recommend it. My favorite question Williams posed to Dawkins was "If consciousness is an illusion, then what isn't an illusion?", then after that question Dawkins stumbles.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You said you weren't until I got involved. Until means that you were not at one point but you are presently. So you admitted that you were stating that it's pointless to read him. Maybe you misspoke but that's what I was basing my responses on.

I'm sure you'd make a fine engineer. You can study the drawings, measure the precise distance between my words and my punctuations, consult your dictionaries and charts to determine what my words necessarily mean and exactly how this one interlocks with that one, and then present your findings to the Meaning Committee, confidently drawing a detailed model of the AmbigGuy Structure for them.

May I ask if you happen to be a coder? I'm doing an informal study of how different people view language, and you remind me of coders I've encountered.

 

[TheGunShoj]

I'm sure you'd make a fine engineer. You can study the drawings, measure the precise distance between my words and my punctuations, consult your dictionaries and charts to determine what my words necessarily mean and exactly how this one interlocks with that one, and then present your findings to the Meaning Committee, confidently drawing a detailed model of the AmbigGuy Structure for them.

May I ask if you happen to be a coder? I'm doing an informal study of how different people view language, and you remind me of coders I've encountered.

Nice Red Herring. It's fine. I just demonstrated from your own words how you said yourself that it is pointless to read Dawkins. You're apparently too stubborn to admit that you simply misspoke, which if you did, I would completely accept. In the future, you should try to be more clear about the words you use to convey your meaning as they can cause misunderstandings such as this one.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nice straw man. It's fine. I just demonstrated from your own words how you said yourself that it is pointless to read Dawkins.

Ah. You're serious. Full-blown bibliolatry.

Would you like a little discussion on the confusions inherent in bibliolatry? We could start a new thread.

You're apparently too stubborn to admit that you simply misspoke, which if you did, I would completely accept.

How gracious of you. But, alas, I'm not a word worshipper myself. Much too familiar with them for that.

In the future, you should try to be more clear about the words you use to convey your meaning as they can cause misunderstandings such as this one.

How wonderful. A language lecture from a bibliolater. In the fullness of time, don't be surprised if you find yourself gravitating back toward a scriptural life.

 

[Copernicus]

I highly recommend it. My favorite question Williams posed to Dawkins was "If consciousness is an illusion, then what isn't an illusion?", then after that question Dawkins stumbles.

It is actually a great discussion between two intelligent, thoughtful, courteous individuals. Dawkins appears as he usually does--a bit hesitant and self-effacing at times. Obviously, Cynthia savors every hesitation as he pauses to give some thought to a response.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Ah. You're serious. Full-blown bibliolatry..

How gracious of you. But, alas, I'm not a word worshipper myself. Much too familiar with them for that.

How do you get bibliolatry out of what I have said? I'm not a word worshipper either. But words are all we have here on this forum to convey what we mean and you used some language that confused the issue. You could have simply said "I wasn't doing that" why add the "until"? the one word confused the whole conversation because I was basing responses off of what you said.

Words have meaning. If you say cat, I'm not going to get dog out of it.

I get that it was a simple misunderstanding, I don't know why you have such a problem with that, it's over now.

Now you're resorting to misrepresentation of my position. :clap

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It is actually a great discussion between two intelligent, thoughtful, courteous individuals. Dawkins appears as he usually does--a bit hesitant and self-effacing at times. Obviously, Cynthia savors every hesitation as he pauses to give some thought to a response.

I can understand that Rowan Williams can be imposing as Christopher Lee (they like have the same voice) but there were three people in that debate, the agnostic Anthony Kenny. Just admit Dawkins is not as great of a thinker or speaker as those two.

 

[Sunstone]

Dawkins appears as he usually does--a bit hesitant and self-effacing at times.

It stands to reason that someone who appears to weigh their words before speaking cannot be a great thinker. Obvious. Quite obvious.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

How do you get bibliolatry out of what I have said? I'm not a word worshipper either. But words are all we have here on this forum to convey what we mean and you used some language that confused the issue. You could have simply said "I wasn't doing that" why add the "until"? the one word confused the whole conversation because I was basing responses off of what you said.

If I'd known you were so closely focused on every word, with the intent of making the worst possible interpretation you could make, I would have either tediously built an unassailable word construction or else, more likely, I would have loaded my message with all sorts of ambiguity just to see how you would act.

Words have meaning. If you say cat, I'm not going to get dog out of it.

As I think I offered... if you'd like a little language discussion, I'll be glad to accommodate you. In a new thread.

Words don't have meaning, by the way. Only people have meaning.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It stands to reason that someone who appears to weigh their words before speaking cannot be a great thinker. Obvious. Quite obvious.

Dirty dog atheists don't weigh their words. They 'stumble'. They are struck dumb. They tremble in silent terror there in the shadow of the Great Theist Debater's Grand Pearls of Wisdom!

Atheists are dogs. Let's just all admit it and go on home.

 

[TheGunShoj]

If I'd known you were so closely focused on every word, with the intent of making the worst possible interpretation you could make, I would have either tediously built an unassailable word construction or else, more likely, I would have loaded my message with all sorts of ambiguity just to see how you would act.



As I think I offered... if you'd like a little language discussion, I'll be glad to accommodate you. In a new thread.

Words don't have meaning, by the way. Only people have meaning.

I wasn't focused on every little word. I took your post at face value. It isn't my fault that I responded to a post in which you said what you didn't mean.

I have no interest in a discussion about words. I don't care that much.

I'm done now. Have a good day.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dirty dog atheists don't weigh their words. They 'stumble'. They are struck dumb. They tremble in silent terror there in the shadow of the Great Theist Debater's Grand Pearls of Wisdom!

Atheists are dogs. Let's just all admit it and go on home.

Now, that's just plain offensive. After-all, dogs are loyal, and we all know that us atheists are lying, deceitful scumbags without an honest bone in their body.

 

[Sunstone]

Dirty dog atheists don't weigh their words. They 'stumble'. They are struck dumb. They tremble in silent terror there in the shadow of the Great Theist Debater's Grand Pearls of Wisdom!

Atheists are dogs. Let's just all admit it and go on home.

Well, they did steal me Precious.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I wasn't focused on every little word. I took your post at face value. It isn't my fault that I responded to a post in which you said what you didn't mean.

If you're serious with that assertion, I really and truly believe you might benefit from a language discussion. But as you please.

 

[Copernicus]

I can understand that Rowan Williams can be imposing as Christopher Lee (they like have the same voice) but there were three people in that debate, the agnostic Anthony Kenny. Just admit Dawkins is not as great of a thinker or speaker as those two.

Yes, Williams has a nice resonant voice. Dawkins sounds a bit prissy, and Kenny sounds a bit reedy. I would say that Dawkins was not the greatest thinker of the three, but I actually believe that he was. I guess we just have different perceptions on how well they did.