(September 6, 2011 at 9:19 am)Rhythm Wrote: Fred is nearly certain that science is a religion, and that there's really no evidence for it when you get to the bottom.
Uh, no. Fred doesn't in the remotest think that science is a religion, nor does he believe the bit about evidence. You screwed to pooch on both counts right off the bat and nothing in the text or in anything else I've posted remotely indicates either of these idiotic interpretations.
Rhythm, after a few rounds with you, it's clear you have no problem aggressively missing the point and adding your own as a substitute. Fine. Go do it somewhere else. You are too smart to be this stupid unless you are actively seeking to obscure.
The bit about being unaware of Dawkins was the tipping point that convinced me you were either uninterested or incapable of playing a straight game. For an atheist to say that he is unaware of the main hitter in your lineup is akin to a catholic saying he is unaware of the pope. It's either a bald-faced lie or displays a level of ignorance of the social context the issue rests within that is beyond my ability to suffer. Good luck with that either way, dude, but if you think I'm going to be your new gameball to kick around to impress your crewe, I doubt you will find the experience to be as satisfying as you assumed it would be.
If you want to discuss this honestly, I'm happy to engage. If not, go back to kicking fundies or whatever gets you off.
Quote:Fred, before you became interested in eastern mysticism, were you religious?
No.
