The Problem with Christians

[AAA]

You ought to read The God Delusion by Dawkins. The whole thing (so far) is negative evidence against religion. The theme is: the religious are stupid, therefore there is no God. I have yet to see any science, while Signature in the Cell is full of it.

Leaving aside that you're wrong about the contents of the book, this is also a false equivalence: The God Delusion is not a science book and specifically has at its aim the deconstruction and examination of religious claims. Meanwhile, Signature in the Cell is ostensibly a science text meant to demonstrate a specific, scientifically based claim. They aren't remotely the same thing.

Wikepedia summarized the book as Dawkins showing that belief in a personal God was going strongly against evidence, which is what I hoped it would focus on. But like I said, I'm not too far into it yet. If all he was trying to do was display religion's crummy past, then he has succeeded so far. I don't think anyone would argue that many horrible things have been done in the name of religion.

[AAA]

You ought to read The God Delusion by Dawkins. The whole thing (so far) is negative evidence against religion. The theme is: the religious are stupid, therefore there is no God. I have yet to see any science, while Signature in the Cell is full of it.

Not so much stupid as delusional victim in my opinion, theists do have quite a monopoly on arrogance generally speaking though from what I read on here (and the odd encounter in public). Yeh, I'd go with arrogantly deluded, not stupid. Or would it be deludedly arrogant?

You don't think Dawkins is arrogant? He makes some pretty arrogant statements in the book. He's a very angry man, it's actually sort of sad that someone can be so filled with hate.

[Cyberman]

And do you know how we can tell you're lying? It's because you don't actually present some of these "arrogant statements" for us to assess, you just declare them.

[Crossless2.0]

Every time I encounter Christian pity, I inevitably imagine a gaping asshole in which they can shove it.

[abaris]

You don't think Dawkins is arrogant? He makes some pretty arrogant statements in the book. He's a very angry man, it's actually sort of sad that someone can be so filled with hate.

Arrogant? He's got an opinion, the same way as you got one. The difference being, he's a world renowned scientist, who knows what he's talking about when talking about evolution. And another difference being that you don't notice your own arrogance, which comes with a healthy dose of ignorance as a byproduct.

Which is to be expected from someone attending a christian college. It always reminds of the good old soviet union, where they had so called colleges too, aimed to keep the attendants in line.

[Crossless2.0]

You don't think Dawkins is arrogant? He makes some pretty arrogant statements in the book. He's a very angry man, it's actually sort of sad that someone can be so filled with hate.

Arrogant? He's got an opinion, the same way as you got one. The difference being, he's a world renowned scientist, who knows what he's talking about when talking about evolution. And another difference being that you don't notice your own arrogance, which comes with a healthy dose of ignorance as a byproduct.

Which is to be expected from someone attending a christian college. It always reminds of the good old soviet union, where they had so called colleges too, aimed to keep the attendants in line.

A Christian college that doesn't include invertebrate zoology or comparative anatomy in its biology curricula, no less. I wonder what other inconvenient academic disciplines they accidentally/on-purpose choose not to expose their students to? Pathetic.

But at least AAA thinks he knows what he needs to know about biology to attack its theoretical underpinnings.

Yeah, Dawkins is the arrogant one.

[GUBU]

And do you know how we can tell you're lying? It's because you don't actually present some of these "arrogant statements" for us to  assess, you just declare them.

We also know he lies because of his constant boasts of being "a top biology student at a top college", yet he doesn't understand the simplest biological facts or theories, stuff that I learnt shortly after I started secondary school at age 11.

[abaris]

We also know he lies because of his constant boasts of being "a top biology student at a top college", yet he doesn't understand the simplest biological facts or theories, stuff that I learnt shortly after I started secondary school at age 11.

A college he won't name, lest it's reputation gets hurt. So either he's got such a low self esteem to believe he could single handely destroy it's reputation, or he still got enough of self awareness that it's not the most august place of learning.

[AAA]

And do you know how we can tell you're lying? It's because you don't actually present some of these "arrogant statements" for us to  assess, you just declare them.

Point out one lie

[AAA]

And do you know how we can tell you're lying? It's because you don't actually present some of these "arrogant statements" for us to  assess, you just declare them.

We also know he lies because of his constant boasts of being "a top biology student at a top college", yet he doesn't understand the simplest biological facts or theories, stuff that I learnt shortly after I started secondary school at age 11.

I never said I was "a top biology student at a top college". I'm a biology student who does well. Don't put words in my mouth.