No, I'm upset because you choose to be a deliberate reetard. People are tolerant here and give you a lot of good will and grace. You've used it all up. Respect is not something that is given freely - it's something you earn. You have marked yourself so completely by spattering shit everywhere, you may never get any respect back whatsoever. You now have the status of an in-joke. I bet you feel proud.
I am frankly shocked and appaled at the stupidity and closed minded ignorance shown by some people on this forum and i would be grateful if instead of stupid insults someone would tell what is wrong with saying I don't like Dawkins writing style.If you cannot tell me what is wrong with that then I will have to assume that you are in fact so deeply stupid that you wouldnt know a good book if it hit you.
If the level of ignorance is so low thet you cannot take the slightest critisism then I suggest you stay away from discussion forums.
I the think? Ok, I'll try to make that clearer so that you can perhaps understand. Other people who are not impressed by Dawkins are of course not necessarily stupid.
You however seem to think that we should all be duly impressed by the cerebral incontinence you're leaking in this forum. And now that people aren't you're whining.
I'm sorry that your parents don't love you and nobody seems to volunteer to give you a big hug but your attention whoring will not really help that.
Now go write that book you mentioned, I'm sure we'll all be thrilled by it and acknowledge your genius with a sincere apology once we've read it.
cerebral incontinence is an interesting concept,
maybe you would like to elaborate a little if you can do that without becoming abusive and maybe you could explain why we should be impressed by someone who thinks that if you discuss a subject such as the origin of the devil it makes you a satanist.
Does this mean that if I choose to discuss the philosophy of an omnipitant being then I must believe in the existance of an omnipitant being or does it mean I am simply interested in the philosopy?
In my ignorance I assumed that a forum on atheism was open to discussion of all aspects of atheism/theism, if thats not the case then maybe you could provide me with a list of prohibited subjects.
That wasn't what Wolf said at all... Get over it that not everyone will like your opinion, what you failed to do was giving some kind of honest criticism why Dawkins' WRITING STYLE bores you, more than his arguments are rehashed. Yes, of course they are, The God Delusion is supposed to be for the layman who has never seriously considered the philosophical parts of atheism before!
Instead you ARE acting like a crybaby, and your thread title doesn't help in the bit. You could've constructively criticized Dawkins, finding holes in his argumentation, mentioned why you think things are rehashed or why he is a poor author, I see nothing of this, I doubt anyone else did as well. Btw, I belong to your age group and I act a lot mature than you.
I am not gonna refute your arguments... no bother. They are all exaggerated strawmen.
I have only seen Dawkins on Youtube and such,but he does come across as sounding arrogant.What he does have over religion is lots of real science on his side.Perhaps he should take a gentler approach like Sagan did while saying the same things.Science is already on his side,he should take more time to convince people of his viewpoints .I also think he's just fed up with religious closed mindedness.
Yeah well youve got to be careful what you say about him, some people on here seem to think he is some kind of god for some bizzare reason.
I was going to start a discussion about the logic of having an omnipitant being based around this because I thought it was interesting :-