geo wrote:I didn't read this article for the reasons Dexter mentions. Here's a couple more:
1) Intellectual laziness. Ant's MO is to dredge up content from the web that fits with his biased and bigoted views of atheists. Um, yeah, what he said!!
2) Intellectual dishonesty. Okay, well Dexter did mention this. This thread is just a continuation of anti-atheist-themed rants. Just go through these threads and look for all the challenges to his "arguments." They are ignored. Time to start a new anti-atheist thread!!
Ant proudly states that he accepts the Daddy Hypothesis despite the obvious bias and the author's absurdly non-scientific methods (that were pointed out and ignored on another thread). This is the same kind of bias and motivated reasoning that creationists use to reject evolution. Ant is oblivious to his own bias that leads him to accept unwarranted beliefs. I know elementary grade students who demonstrate more introspection and intellectual integrity than what Ant shows here on BT.
Taylor said it well when he said "this article and its author lend a great deal of nothing to the life worth living." This was in response to an article Dexter posted to ridicule the author's obvious goal to diminish those who don't think just like him. The joke is that Ant could have easily selected the same article because it fits right in with his bigoted worldview. But Dexter beat him to it.
And so here's another one that Ant dredges up in his nonstop quest to put others down. I don't have to read an article entitled "Why are atheists so angry?" to know that this article is not worth reading and that it contributes nothing to a life worth living.
A couple of things come to mind about this totally dishonest reply from Geo:
In the atheists are historically illiterate thread, i think it was telling that DWill was the only one to come forward and state that my posts added needed context to Robert's bigoted one side view of a certain historical era. Geo, kicking his legs out to cheer on Robert, goes to show that he had zero to add to the discussion.
Cheering on a bigot is just as bad as being a bigot.
You had your chance then.
Are you going to accuse me of being bigoted in that thread?
You fled like a chicken my attack on Dawkins error regarding TGD and what constitutes a scientific hypothesis. Instead you took cover in a post where you had two other people providing direct and indirect support to your opinions that differed from mine. It wasnt that i wasnt willing to engage you directly about that either. I was no matter how wrong I think you and your pals are.
Ive seen you fold several times here, only to be rescued by opinions from others that are similar to yours and that you get to expand on because of the ideas they stimulate in your brain.
Which will it be, Geo? Your 3 rd grade understanding of history, or your poor understanding of the scientific method and how it was not intended to develope scientific theories about the supernatural, or detect supernatural events in nature. I'll engage you directly.
Im willing to bet you'll simply squirm your way out by speaking very general about either of those topics with me. I was embarrased that you could only cheer on Tulips bigotry and run to Interbane's Is God a Scientific Hypothesis post.
Youve cried about me being unruly before only to later tell me to go screw myself.
