[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'm not even going to pretend that I have read past this point.

Read the thread.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1466683

Done.

Then read this thread again.

consider it, and respond after.

I see, you can't be bothered to read a whole post but I'm supposed to read whole threads to find your supposed evidence. However, being an affable sort, I've done so and I still see no examples of the argument you claim to be so common. In fact, it seems multiple posters in that thread explicitly reject such an argument.

Originally Posted by Syclone538

Rejecting the idea of a god has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution shouldn't lead people to doubt there is a god, the complete lack of evidence for a god should lead people to doubt there is a god.

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Understand that none of this eliminates the possibility of a designer to me. It only contradicts the very detailed accounts of what kind of designer was involved by those that are sure they know Him to exist.

The closest example appears to be English's post where he writes:

Originally Posted by English

No. It is two things. The totality of science, not just evolution, should lead people to believe that there is almost certainly not a creator.

But it's hard to say where that discussion might have gone given that you chose to descend into condescension and insults rather than attempting a substantive conversation, just as you did in this thread.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

But it's hard to say where that discussion might have gone given that you chose to descend into condescension and insults rather than attempting a substantive conversation, just as you did in this thread.

I think that right there is the best reason why we should all be ignoring Doc. He's taken so many threads right back into his crazy realm of "atheism is a religion" and "everybody is trying to disprove the deity" that it's affecting the quality of the discussions here. Grape has already bailed again and he was one of the best posters in RI. I suspect that this was Doc's plan all along. He's a theist that's irked about the atheist takeover of RI and he's decided to devolve every discussion he can into madness until we all get sick of it and just go away.

Notice that he happily falls back on classic theist arguments and never seems to take issue with anything the theists say despite their being so much more certain that they know the truth than any of the atheists have ever claimed to be.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

I think that right there is the best reason why we should all be ignoring Doc. He's taken so many threads right back into his crazy realm of "atheism is a religion" and "everybody is trying to disprove the deity" that it's affecting the quality of the discussions here. Grape has already bailed again and he was one of the best posters in RI. I suspect that this was Doc's plan all along. He's a theist that's irked about the atheist takeover of RI and he's decided to devolve every discussion he can into madness until we all get sick of it and just go away.

Notice that he happily falls back on classic theist arguments and never seems to take issue with anything the theists say despite their being so much more certain that they know the truth than any of the atheists have ever claimed to be.

That might not be fair; he called out one theist for claiming the existance of the Sun is evidence of God, for example. There is something going on, though.

[void *]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

That might not be fair; he called out one theist for claiming the existance of the Sun is evidence of God, for example. There is something going on, though.

Well, strictly speaking, he claimed that it appeared to be evidence of a sun. He didn't tell the theist it was *not* evidence of a god, and the two aren't necessarily exclusive.

I haven't seen him use the same argumentation tactics against the theists as he does against the atheists, although I haven't been around for a while, and the mere fact that I haven't observed him do so does not mean he hasn't.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Notice that he happily falls back on classic theist arguments and never seems to take issue with anything the theists say despite their being so much more certain that they know the truth than any of the atheists have ever claimed to be.

Iv'e noticed this as well. He's either a closet theists or a contrarian.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Cavalry PA

The fact that you are stoned out of you gourd just makes it easier. What time to you start smoking? 8 AM ?

Why do you always prefer to be a liar Cav-Pa. I've noticed that about you. Are you projecting? What if I were to start saying it's a fact that you molest children, prefer little boys, and then used it in our conversations as my Ah-Ha! moment like you do with the drug horse **** and me. Think about it for a second. You believe you have a good reputation around here. The truth aside, how would you like posts floating around insinuating that you molest kids? There'd be some folks that would know better but there'd be some that might actually believe it. I've told you like 3 times that I do not smoke, do drugs, or drink. You have no excuse for claiming that it's a fact that I do drugs. I know you don't like me. I know we disagree greatly on just about everything. I don't like you either and that's ok. We don't have to like each other or even get along. But why make a liar and troll of yourself by acting this way. I know you can easily dodge it... you're well practiced at wiggling out of your lies. But why do it at all?

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by void *

Well, strictly speaking, he claimed that it appeared to be evidence of a sun. He didn't tell the theist it was *not* evidence of a god, and the two aren't necessarily exclusive.

Good point; I may have read too much into it.

Originally Posted by void *

I haven't seen him use the same argumentation tactics against the theists as he does against the atheists, although I haven't been around for a while, and the mere fact that I haven't observed him do so does not mean he hasn't.