It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Dawkins Reads His Fan (hate) Mail -HAHA!

page: 3
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Are you also "helping" me?

Well?




posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Haha so funny 😄😄😄



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7


This always makes me roar with laughter - religious people will tell you they don't judge, they mustn't wish someone ill yet they send hate-mail - beggaqrs belief in their hypocrisy. You don't agree with someone you don't send them hate-mail they havve a right to their opinion just as you do but that's where it ends unless some dink thinks he can do the pious popsie to your face.

Point well taken Shiloh. Does anyone except Dawkens know for a fact that this was not staged? Most all that I read here on this thread automatically assumes this nut is telling the truth. Is he a propagandist and wants his day in the sun? How could one so brilliant take precious time away from his most demanding work to become embroiled with crazy ole Christians? That is if the laptop entries are from Christians. But as with all other of his nutty quests in life, we should automatically assume that he took time and expense to make his little production and lead you to assume that what he read is from those nasty ole Christians. Not Muslims or Jews or any other such people but just those nasty ole Christians wrote all of those nasty old e mails to this saintly innocent man. And most all fell for this Al Gore mentality. I would have the tendency to believe that the Brooklyn Bridge has been sold a great many times and will continue to be sold a great many time more.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
This is why ATS has terms and conditions and fine moderators, without which, it'd be pretty much the same insults directed at the atheists here.


Seriously. That is why there is a revolving door of Creationists who come through this website. They come in, post the same lies and information as the previous crop of Creationists, get upset when called out on their bs, then start hurling insults and end up banned. A few months later, enter the new crop.


... and there are those who stay, which complicates things, doesn't it?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Let me disagree with a few points here...

I do not agree with sending death threats, but atheists do that also. Let's call that a human problem.

Well, let me disagree with the last part...it is not Christianity or religion that brought about those problems, but the lack of religious faith.

You cannot lay the fault of prostitution onto the Christians as right now there are a lot of atheists who are buying prostitutes as we speak. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession, but prostitution sure ain't the cause of Christianity, but if you don't believe me, let's go down to the streets and ask the ladies if their pimps are Christians. Prostitution is oftentimes a very violent crime.


I know this, but my point was that Christians MADE it their problem by imposing their morality on the rest of the populace. I'm not trying to suggest that prostitutes are Christian (and not all prostitutes have pimps by the way...).

Prostitution isn't a violent crime ever. The assaults that happen to prostitutes are violent crimes. But assault is a crime regardless if it is done to a sex worker or the guy next door. What you just did here is like calling drinking a crime because people drive drunk.


Temperance Movement didn't work and after they ended, alcoholism and gambling became very mainstream again. Remind me again what a Flapper was. And a Speakeasy, certainly wasn't a church.


Exactly, but we STILL have temperance laws on the books. We call them morality laws or non-violent crimes. What is a crack house other than a modern speakeasy?


Those things, please do not lay at the Christians' door, because it wasn't Christians promoting those things throughout history.

But let me ask this, that atheist who is right now paying that prostitute, they are getting high and drunk...are either one of them talking about God at this moment? I think not.


Why should they? The point is these activities are illegal BECAUSE of Christians. The prostitute and the atheist have to suffer because some busybody Christians said they aren't allowed to do those things.


All these things you mentioned, ancient problems. Even the Greeks and Romans partook of that. And like I said in another thread, the Kama Sutra itself is descriptive of sex, prostitution, homosexuality, drinking, gambling, rape and adultery. It's not a Christian responsibility.

But these things certainly should be reviewed historically, because it wasn't Christians who caused those problems, rather, it is people who love those things who keep it alive. Those things are the result of no religious faith.


It's not about who CAUSED these things, it's about who made them illegal. My point is that people will do these activites regardless of legality or religion, but CHRISTIANS working on behalf of their imagined morality from the bible got the government to make these activities illegal. That is what the temperance movement was all about. The fact that these things are STILL illegal shows that no one wants to address this blatant mix of church and government.


Right now, you, as an atheist, certainly aren't going to talk about God with your friends when they do porn searches. I am not saying you do it, but how many atheists have you seen talk about God when they are out drinking? Do they blame it on Christianity when they are slamming back those double fisted fruit cocktails?


I'm agnostic and you missed my point completely.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Not really. When you guys always come in with the same points, the poster is irrelevant. The entire evolution/science denialism thing is a strawman, so I don't care if I've argued with you before. You are still wrong and presenting a logical fallacy as a rebuttal to science.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
This is why ATS has terms and conditions and fine moderators, without which, it'd be pretty much the same insults directed at the atheists here.


THAT is why ATS has terms and conditions, and moderators?
Lmao, woodwardjnr. Get a grip.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Not really. When you guys always come in with the same points, the poster is irrelevant. The entire evolution/science denialism thing is a strawman, so I don't care if I've argued with you before. You are still wrong and presenting a logical fallacy as a rebuttal to science.


I was not pushing any particular agenda in my response, it is clear that it was too short to do so; my response was hardly even a complete sentence.

I merely pointed out that your statement (to which I was responding) was not absolutely true.
edit on 3/2/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

"You" was plural in this sense to include all the Creationists who hang around and manage to not get banned. Also I never claimed there was anything absolute about my statement. Though I do stand by my statement that science denialism is a strawman, which is the crux of the Creationist argument.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join