Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Free Thinker, May 25, 2012.

  1. Time to get the thread back on topic. I agree if they critically studied the bible there would be fewer bible believers.
    #301     Jul 5, 2012
  2. jem


    its funny you would cite Free Thinker on this thread.

    He and Stu were lying and misrepresenting science for 5 - 7 years.

    Ask him how many times he argued that scientists were not saying the constants appear fine tuned.

    Free thinker or stu acting like they are pro science is like Obama saying he is pro free market forces in health care.
    #302     Jul 5, 2012
  3. stu


    The answer is none.

    The constants appear fine tuned
    The constants are fine tuned.

    Were you ever able to distinguish between those two statements like any normal person would, well....
    come to think of it, the way you go about stuff... you still wouldn't have much of a clue actually.
    #303     Jul 5, 2012
  4. jem


    The cycle of lies is now complete. And so is the comedy...
    The troll now takes the argument from his antagonist and pretends it was his own. I have been saying for years that top scientists state our universe appears designed. Stu trolled to his death that this was not the case.
    Stu said the following and things like the following for years...
    Here is what he wrote on 06/03/07 about 5 years ago.

    "Design defined as intelligent has no scientific basis, neither does the belief in an appearance of intelligent design. It never has.
    In direct comparison , there is the overwhelmingly sound scientific basis for self organizing arrangements of parts or elements, defined as design."
    #304     Jul 5, 2012
  5. stu


    As I say, any normal person would find no reason to go off on one like you do over something so straightforward.
    Is this some sort of creationist tactic to make crude and ignorant bullshit comment in place of arguments they don't have?

    There is nothing inconsistent in that statement and in what I'm saying.
    The constants appear fine tuned and the constants are fine tuned, have entirely different meanings to any rational person.
    The problem you have is with yourself.
    #305     Jul 6, 2012
  6. Ricter


    Is this really what the argument has been revolving around of late, appearance of tuning vs. actual tuning? Just asking.
    #306     Jul 6, 2012
  7. stu


    It's the best Jem could manage.
    #307     Jul 6, 2012
  8. jem


    bullshit... that is what stu tried to change the argument to.

    After I showed him to be misrepresenting the work of Hawking.
    #308     Jul 6, 2012
  9. jem


    ricter - this is where the argument is now.

    #309     Jul 6, 2012
  10. stu


    ...the best you could manage.
    #310     Jul 7, 2012