Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Hermit » Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:53 am

Mister Samsa! Have you already forgotten how rEv has constantly attacked you personally in the past and you never got a break from havig to deal with his logical fallacies, equivocations and ad hominems? You must be getting feeble-minded. Or rEv just did not do that.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39970
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:11 am

Don't be silly Hermy, Mr Dodo embodies the normative standards of all rational thinking. :tea:
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60766
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:12 am

DaveDodo007 wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:Got the kids at the moment. Sometime later...
No problem, PM me if you need or if I take too long to reply.
Mentions you by name but is too busy to reply, I don't need to tell you that rEv is full of shit as the next ideologue. Prepare to be attacked personally and have to deal with logical fallacies, equivocation and ad hominems (creationist come in all forms as it is not just the religious as that is all he has got.) Not that anything you say is any better but at least I don't have to get down in the mud and wrestle with pigs when I disagree with you.
Get off the turps, man.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:06 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Mr.Samsa » Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:20 pm

Hermit wrote:Mister Samsa! Have you already forgotten how rEv has constantly attacked you personally in the past and you never got a break from havig to deal with his logical fallacies, equivocations and ad hominems? You must be getting feeble-minded. Or rEv just did not do that.
Getting feeble-minded? I've been accused of that long before now so I don't think that's a new concern for me!
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Forty Two » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:30 pm

JimC wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Utterly alone in the world? Join the club! :-)

We are born naked and alone, and we die naked and alone.

But, if we're lucky, we get 75 or so years on the planet to feel pleasure, pain, joy, happiness, sadness, jealousy, envy, compassion, kindness and all the rest. We are the lucky few who even got to be alive in the first place.

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?” - Richard Dawkins.
I actually really hate that quote as it's overtly dualist. I can't believe he ever thought that was a good argument to prosecute.
How can "existence vs. nonexistence" be anything but dualist? Or, is your complaint that there are some DNA iterations other than the one an individual has that would still be that individual?

If I understand you correctly, you don't like the duality of you are here as DNA combination A, and that any other DNA combination is another person who by happenstance did not come to exist. I think that's a fair question, although, it certainly would be a foundational question -- would a person born with ALMOST my DNA combination still be me? Would my "consciousness" be the same or similar enough to still be perceived by me as me? Is that where your objection lies?
I'm not impressed by the quote either, though not for philosophical grounds about dualism or anything else.

It's simply that it is twee and facile, and does not say anything important about the raw reality of life and death.
Nor does it purport to say something about the "raw reality" of life and death. It purports to present a way of looking at things. The idea is that our own existence is not a fait accomplis -- that is, it's not as if failure to be born would result in the same "us" being born as other people. You are you because of the fortuitous nature of the night your parents banged. Instead of being swallowed or missing the egg, the sperm that founded us hit the mark and we were there. Absent that, nonexistence would have been it.

So, looking at the sheer number of wasted sperm, for example, the number of possible persons that could have been born instead of you is astounding. Had any of them captured the egg first, you would not be here at all.

I suppose one could posit a "me-ness" that exists irrespective of genetics, but there is no evidence for it. People think they've been different people over the years, born and reborn, but there is no evidence, of which I have been made aware, for any of that. Based on the genetic evidence -- I am me, and only me. The only other option would be to be another person, in which case, I would not be me. it's a remarkable thing to contemplate.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Forty Two » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:33 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Utterly alone in the world? Join the club! :-)

We are born naked and alone, and we die naked and alone.

But, if we're lucky, we get 75 or so years on the planet to feel pleasure, pain, joy, happiness, sadness, jealousy, envy, compassion, kindness and all the rest. We are the lucky few who even got to be alive in the first place.

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?” - Richard Dawkins.
I actually really hate that quote as it's overtly dualist. I can't believe he ever thought that was a good argument to prosecute.
How can "existence vs. nonexistence" be anything but dualist? Or, is your complaint that there are some DNA iterations other than the one an individual has that would still be that individual?

If I understand you correctly, you don't like the duality of you are here as DNA combination A, and that any other DNA combination is another person who by happenstance did not come to exist. I think that's a fair question, although, it certainly would be a foundational question -- would a person born with ALMOST my DNA combination still be me? Would my "consciousness" be the same or similar enough to still be perceived by me as me? Is that where your objection lies?
That I'm supposed to have some feelings about "potential people". I can't have feelings for something that doesn't exist or even make sense. The only way it can make sense is if we adopt dualism. That is there's a bunch of souls floating around out there just waiting to be born and I was picked and other souls weren't. It's nonsense. Even more so from a monist atheist like Dawkins.
Dawkins isn't positing a batch of souls in his quote. He is positing that you have only a small chance of ever being born. It's not a suggestion that you "care" about people who were never born. It's the contemplation that the slightest change of billions of actions and variables would have resulted in you not existing, and someone else being here in your place. It makes bitching about how bad one's first world life is appear a bit petty and small. I think that's what he was going for. We are the lucky ones - no matter how shitty you mayhave it, you are still the lucky sperm.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Seth » Wed Dec 16, 2015 10:23 pm

Richard Dawkins wrote:“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
That sounds faintly suicidal to me.
Richard Dawkins wrote:Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.
This has got to be one of the most ignorant things you have ever written. It's a complete non sequitur because DNA delivery and development packages (sperm and egg) are not "people" at all until they united at the formation of the zygote, as you well know.
The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia.


Another utterly irrational Atheist non sequitur.
Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people.
"We" know nothing of the kind, nor do you. Speculating that the "set of possible people allowed by our DNA" means that superior beings could have been produced is complete nonsense and utterly without foundation in reason or science. You have no proof whatsoever that "greater" anything would be produced even if every possible iteration of DNA combinations actually came into existence as human beings. It is just as possible that those individuals you mention were in fact the zenith of human DNA potentiality and everyone else is and will be inferior to them as the human species dies out because it is genetically incapable of survival, which seems more and more likely every day as we drift into World War III.
In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.
Your argument claims, without foundation, that "extraordinariness" exists in the total DNA set available for the formation of human beings and that "ordinariness" is the product of a wager. A wager with whom, I might ask? You yourself have endlessly claimed that we are nothing more than sacks of DNA which have no other purpose than to replicate. Now you're suggesting that DNA has an agenda of excellence and superiority that is somehow frustrated by chance. Please make up your mind, are we merely soulless, mindless DNA replication machines or are we "the lucky ones" and the "privileged few" human beings who have prevailed against all odds in our "ordinariness" and lack of Keatsian or Newtonian greatness to become the future of the species?
We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?” - Richard Dawkins.
What sort of ridiculous non sequitur is this? There is no "vast majority" that have "never stirred" there are only those human beings who have come into existence at the uniting of sperm and egg at the moment of alignment of the maternal and paternal chromosomes on the spindle apparatus which we label as the formation of the zygote, the first cell of a new, genetically unique living human being. DNA alone, regardless of the package its wrapped in (sperm, egg or living being) is not a person, it is merely the command set which controls the development of a living person (or any living organism for that matter). Trying to anthropmorphize DNA, and all possible combinations of DNA into potential human being equivalents is utterly irrational and profoundly illogical.

As living, thinking, reasoning, self-aware human beings we have every right to rail against death precisely because we "won the lottery of birth against all odds." We are indeed the "privileged few" who are the sum total of humanity who live today because our parents chose NOT to abort us in utero and because nature did not kill us in one way or another after we came into being, right up until it, or someone else, does. And while our death is inevitable that doesn't mean that we cannot or should not rail against the darkness nor does it suggest that we cannot seek to comfort ourselves with the prospect of unending life that makes our time of living on this earth more bearable, if that is what gives an individual that comfort. To disparage or even attempt to deny anyone that solace and comfort against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune is one of the most profoundly nihilistic, selfish, cruel and arrogant things any human being can do to another human being, particularly when it comes from someone like you Prof. Dawkins, who offers in return nothing other than stark nihilistic fear of death without hope or comfort.

It's pretty clear to me that you yourself are trying to face your own mortality and you're finding that your arrogant nihilism suddenly does not provided you with any sort of solace, comfort or motivation to go on living. Your clearly desperate attempt to self-justify your religious Atheist beliefs by proselytizing others that it's wrong to "whine" about impending death just says to me that you are mired in fear of the unknown as you stare into that endless abyss. You appear to want others to share your fears, which seems to give you comfort and solace when they agree with you that welcoming death as a nihilistic and ultimately pointless completion of a natural process by not "whining" about it gives you some sort of rational, ethical or moral superiority over people who believe otherwise. You seem to think that cold scientific facts and rigid, unbending logic and reason are the ultimate virtues of human existence and that in aspiring to or believing in something that is beyond our understanding for our comfort, solace or in the hopes of seeing loved ones again or living on beyond this vale of tears we endure daily is morally, ethically and rationally inferior to your own frigid and unbending unreason.

You're wrong. Nihilistic obedience to the religious orthodoxies of Science is not the ultimate goal or achievement of human existence, no matter how much you might like to think so. There are many other aspects of being a living, breathing, feeling, thinking, reasoning human being that have nothing whatever to do with the cold calculus of the scientific method. Science cannot explain love, or hate, or desire, or fear, or thought, or self awareness. It might be able to describe the physical phenomena that occur in concert with these things, but it can never quantify or describe them in scientific terms because they are aspects of our personalities that transcend science and they are part of what makes us human.

Which is not to say that there is an afterlife, or that if there is it will be a pleasant paradise full of joy forever. I don't know that, and neither do you. But I would never arrogantly presume to disparage or deny the comfort and solace that such beliefs might give to others. Doing so is a profoundly evil deed on a par with strapping someone to a board and torturing for no better reason than that you can. Perhaps you should simply keep your pie-hole shut when it comes to what other people choose to believe about their lives or impending deaths ,because it is ethically, morally, factually and philosophically none of your damned business.
Forty Two wrote:Dawkins isn't positing a batch of souls in his quote. He is positing that you have only a small chance of ever being born. It's not a suggestion that you "care" about people who were never born. It's the contemplation that the slightest change of billions of actions and variables would have resulted in you not existing, and someone else being here in your place. It makes bitching about how bad one's first world life is appear a bit petty and small. I think that's what he was going for. We are the lucky ones - no matter how shitty you mayhave it, you are still the lucky sperm.
I don't think that's his intent at all. I think he's facing his imminent demise and has found that the rigid logical and scientific prison that he's built for himself in the eyes of the public frightens him, but not as much as it frightens him, in his overweening pride and arrogance, that he might be wrong. That's something I think he's simply incapable of admitting even to himself, much less to the world. And I think that scares the piss right out of him.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39970
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:25 pm

Context Seth. :doh:

Dawkins' paragraph has its own context. It's not supposed to be a list of absolute definitive statements but a way to simply and succinctly convey an idea: that the chances of you not existing far out-weigh the chances of you existing as the you you know you are; that your existence isn't/wasn't in any way inevitable or ordained; and that you exist at all to comprehend this is something to relish, enjoy, and marvel at despite the inevitable slings and arrows of outrageous fortune etc etc.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Beatsong
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:33 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Beatsong » Thu Dec 17, 2015 12:26 am

Forty Two wrote:Utterly alone in the world? Join the club! :-)

We are born naked and alone, and we die naked and alone.
A mate of mine at school used to parrot that line all the time - I think he got it from Carlos Castaneda or something.

It seemed like the single most moronic thing I'd ever heard in my life then, and it hasn't improved with age. Show me the human, or any mammal for that matter, that is born "alone". Dunno about everyone else here, but I came out of a cunt same as every other cunt I know, into a room full of amazed grownups.
Last edited by Beatsong on Thu Dec 17, 2015 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Beatsong
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:33 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Beatsong » Thu Dec 17, 2015 12:31 am

Hi rEv. Sorry to hear the black dog is barking at your heels.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Seth » Thu Dec 17, 2015 2:15 am

Brian Peacock wrote:Context Seth. :doh:

Dawkins' paragraph has its own context. It's not supposed to be a list of absolute definitive statements but a way to simply and succinctly convey an idea: that the chances of you not existing far out-weigh the chances of you existing as the you you know you are; that your existence isn't/wasn't in any way inevitable or ordained; and that you exist at all to comprehend this is something to relish, enjoy, and marvel at despite the inevitable slings and arrows of outrageous fortune etc etc.
Yeah, he was being all metaphorical and junk, but my point remains. He's a nihlist who worships science like a god and doesn't give a fuck about anybody else or how they might differ in belief from him. He's as much of a fundamentalist religious Atheist zealot preacher as Jim Jones was, but doesn't have the grace to at least offer the laced Kool-Aid to put people out of his misery. He just tells them that life is a pointless waste of time and one shouldn't bother whining about it but instead should worship his nihilistic God and be satisfied with stuff that offers only the realization that one is an infinitesimal, valueless, insignificant speck on a pimple on the ass of the universe and there's no point to anything at all. Oh, except ain't Science wonderful...

What a fucking Debbie Downer.

Besides, the more unlikely he makes it that we even exist, the more he supports the notion that we are here by design not chance.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39970
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Dec 17, 2015 2:56 am

Seth wrote:Besides, the more unlikely he makes it that we even exist, the more he supports the notion that we are here by design not chance.
:funny:
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Seth » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:10 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Seth wrote:Besides, the more unlikely he makes it that we even exist, the more he supports the notion that we are here by design not chance.
:funny:
Well, I didn't say it was a truth, just a notion that generates more skepticism about his claims. The basis of his argument against God in TGD is that God is more improbable than evolution, so by now saying that any individual human's existence is highly improbable he's playing into the very argument theists use to criticize the theory of evolution.

And, of course, he completely forgets, both here and in TGD that his bridling at the notion that God exists is actually a fallacy that has an actual name: argument from incredulity.

No matter how improbable it is that God might exist, the probability is non-zero, even according to Dawkins.

Therefore to claim that God did or did not do this or that is based on probabilities not on actual science. Just because Dawkins cannot understand how or why God might exist or act in the universe isn't a rational argument.

Besides, the entirety of TGD is based on his cherry-picking "God Hypothesis" that is nothing more than an iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by DaveDodo007 » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:22 am

rEvolutionist wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:Got the kids at the moment. Sometime later...
No problem, PM me if you need or if I take too long to reply.
Mentions you by name but is too busy to reply, I don't need to tell you that rEv is full of shit as the next ideologue. Prepare to be attacked personally and have to deal with logical fallacies, equivocation and ad hominems (creationist come in all forms as it is not just the religious as that is all he has got.) Not that anything you say is any better but at least I don't have to get down in the mud and wrestle with pigs when I disagree with you.
Get off the turps, man.
More like toilet duck, the drink of the discerning gentleman I'll have you know. :D
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74168
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by JimC » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:39 am

Leaving aside much of Seth's anti-Dawkins rant, I agree with him to an extent. The main point I dislike about the original quote is that it exists in a metaphysical dream world of totally abstract comparisons. I don't give a flying continental fuck about all the hypothetical JimC possibilities in some weird alternative universe. They don't exist, I do, and there's an end to it. Dawkins does not need such airy-fairy philosophical hand waving to convince me that an atheist perspective is central to my model of the universe...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests