Dealing with the functionally inept.

BlogTV link: http://www.blogtv.com/People/LeagueOfReason
3pm EST 6/6/2010

His "thoughts": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z1aHSqnDlA

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• dishonest
• coward
• nephilimfree
• functionally
• retarded

[ThePuzzler81]

My girlfriend told me the other day that youtube needs a really sexy atheist on youtube making vids, so before she finished her sentence I said "baby you haven't seen the Don". She was very pleased.

[gregrutz]

You can't be logical with creazy people. It does not work.

[ObliviousBurrito]

@ThePuzzler81 How do you feel about Aziernoch and MeridianFrost.

[anglicantian]

@ThePuzzler81

Tell her to look up TheoreticalBullshit.

[d007ization]

@ThePuzzler81 Aren't you worried^^?

[Typhoonbladefist]

Why do people constantly fall for these idiots? Just ridicule them and move on. To partially quote Thomas Jefferson: “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them"

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@55metalmonkey I thought you were done with this convo?

[you can't debate beliefs or lack of beliefs]

Actually you can, many people have done so, even Dawkins himself did it against John Lennox.

[why do you assume that I'm making excuses for RD]

I don't, and once again you make something new up that is completely unrelated to what I or you have been discussing. I'm saying you grant the excuses Dawkins give, as some kind of "information".

[55metalmonkey]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper Your a persistant little fucktard aren't you. I'm not going to make excuses and defend a grown man that can speak for himself (which he has) I could care less if you belive him or not, if you have a problem with his reason, send him an email and tell him he's full of shit. Do you defend every bible thumper retard you see just because of like minded beleifs, I don't think so. So why do you assume that I'm making excuses for RD based on a like minded lack of beleif in God?

[55metalmonkey]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper Holy fuck, your correcting spelling on you tube, lame... maybe you should go back and check your posts and look for bad grammer and poorly formed sentences with missing letters, I'll let you find them for yourself, I'd hate to be a duchebag and point them out. and the title of the debate is "Athiesm vs Christanity: Where does the evidence point to?" & I know not all Athiests are scientists, but my point was you can't debate beliefs or lack of beliefs

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@55metalmonkey [And RD did explain why he won't debate WLC]

No he gave an excuse (again), and you take it for granted as it's somehow a valid point, because Dawkins is an atheist aswell as yourself and you need to be biased about it. If you're not a fan of Dawkins, which you said you weren't, it would be perfectly consistent of you to just admit "yes Dawkins is a coward for not debating the most famous apologetic" but instead you choose to wriggle out of it due to your biased atheism.

[55metalmonkey]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper And RD did explain why he won't debate WLC, search YT for "Richard Dawkins explains why he won't debate William Lane Craig"....... It's right from the horses mouth but I forgot you don't try to find first hand information,

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@55metalmonkey [aperently you don't]

Appearantly is spelled this way, and for explaning that a debate titled with "Atheism vs Christianity" is about atheism and christianity is really not to misunderstanding the point of the debates. Atheism doesn't represent science, because an atheist is not necessarily a scientist. Christianity is not necessarily limited to the bible, because a theist can argue independantly of biblical scripture. It's ok to admit you were mistaken. You haven't watched it.