LiamToo wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
No, idiot, he didn't forget. It's just that - quite unlike you - he's
too *smart* /himself/ to characterise Newton and Einstein as idiots. He
was saying that he believes that *Dawkins* considers such people to be
idiots, although, to be fair, it would seem that he applies it only to
the living.

So, because Newton and Einstein are already dead, Dawkins does not
consider them to be idiots, according to Hart? How convenient. If we go
back to Hart's posting, he didn't define idiot. He said something else.

And why are you defending Hart? Cant' he talk for himself?

My use of the term "idiots" was prompted by Angelo DePalma's assertion
concerning Dawkins opinions, although I agree with Mark Houlsby that
"deluded" is the term Dawkins would prefer. In any case, I believed
Angelo's interpretation of Dawkins' position was much too broad and I
suggested a narrower one. Angelo and I were able to have a reasonable
exchange through which we hopefully reached a better understanding of
each others' positions. Liam, on the other hand, prefers to
deliberately misconstrue my position in order to create an absurdity
that he can dismiss without saying anything intelligent.

Vince Hart wrote:
No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught as
science. Do you?

Creationism taught as science? Is that what you meant with your
statement that I responded to? Would you like me to post it again in
its entirety or would you like to go back and read it?

Or would you rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead and spew
innuendos and ad-hominem as you're doing now?

Vince Hart wrote:
Liam, on the other hand, prefers to
deliberately misconstrue my position in order to create an absurdity
that he can dismiss without saying anything intelligent.

Yep, you'd rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead of having a
civil discussion.

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught as
science. Do you?

Creationism taught as science? Is that what you meant with your
statement that I responded to? Would you like me to post it again in
its entirety or would you like to go back and read it?

Or would you rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead and spew
innuendos and ad-hominem as you're doing now?

Yes Liam. I meant "creationism taught as science." That is what I was
referring to when I wrote "he considers to be idiots (although
"deluded" is probably a better word choice than "idiots") those people
who want creationism taught along with (if not instead of) evolution in
public school science classes." That is why I used the word
"creationism," the word "taught," and the phrase "in public school
science classes." What did you think I meant?

Vince Hart wrote:

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught as
science. Do you?

Creationism taught as science? Is that what you meant with your
statement that I responded to? Would you like me to post it again in
its entirety or would you like to go back and read it?

Or would you rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead and spew
innuendos and ad-hominem as you're doing now?

Yes Liam. I meant "creationism taught as science." That is what I was
referring to when I wrote "he considers to be idiots (although
"deluded" is probably a better word choice than "idiots") those people
who want creationism taught along with (if not instead of) evolution in
public school science classes." That is why I used the word
"creationism," the word "taught," and the phrase "in public school
science classes." What did you think I meant?

Lance can't read, Vince.

Surely you know that by now?

Vince Hart wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught as
science. Do you?

Creationism taught as science? Is that what you meant with your
statement that I responded to? Would you like me to post it again in
its entirety or would you like to go back and read it?

Or would you rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead and spew
innuendos and ad-hominem as you're doing now?


Yes Liam. I meant "creationism taught as science." That is what I was
referring to when I wrote "he considers to be idiots (although
"deluded" is probably a better word choice than "idiots") those people
who want creationism taught along with (if not instead of) evolution in
public school science classes." That is why I used the word
"creationism," the word "taught," and the phrase "in public school
science classes." What did you think I meant?

And there is also "intelligent design" that seeks to unite the two
theories in many ways.

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ps.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
exists.

I think I agree. I categorically reject the delusional theists who
seek to impose their irrational vision on atheists, agnostics, and
rational theists alike. I am just not as convinced as I once was that
rational theism is where I want to make my stand.

I don't think it matters, except to you.

"Nobody cares what you think" doesn't contribute much to the
discussion, does it?

Is that what I wrote?

Regardless, what I meant was that if anything awaits us in the great beyond
your religious beliefs probably don't matter. They only matter to you, and
to individuals stupid enough to discuss them with you

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught as
science. Do you?

Creationism taught as science? Is that what you meant with your
statement that I responded to? Would you like me to post it again in
its entirety or would you like to go back and read it?

Or would you rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead and spew
innuendos and ad-hominem as you're doing now?

Yes Liam. I meant "creationism taught as science." That is what I was
referring to when I wrote "he considers to be idiots (although
"deluded" is probably a better word choice than "idiots") those people
who want creationism taught along with (if not instead of) evolution in
public school science classes." That is why I used the word
"creationism," the word "taught," and the phrase "in public school
science classes." What did you think I meant?

Hell, even I think those people are idiots. Unfortunately for rational
atheism, Dawkins believes *everyone* who falls back on any belief in a deity
is an idiot, not just creationists.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught as
science. Do you?

Creationism taught as science? Is that what you meant with your
statement that I responded to? Would you like me to post it again in
its entirety or would you like to go back and read it?

Or would you rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead and spew
innuendos and ad-hominem as you're doing now?

Yes Liam. I meant "creationism taught as science." That is what I was
referring to when I wrote "he considers to be idiots (although
"deluded" is probably a better word choice than "idiots") those people
who want creationism taught along with (if not instead of) evolution in
public school science classes." That is why I used the word
"creationism," the word "taught," and the phrase "in public school
science classes." What did you think I meant?

Hell, even I think those people are idiots. Unfortunately for rational
atheism, Dawkins believes *everyone* who falls back on any belief in a deity
is an idiot, not just creationists.

No, Angelo, this has already been explained to Lance: Dawkins regards
people as *deluded*, NOT as *idiots*.

There's a *huge* difference.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ps.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
exists.

I think I agree. I categorically reject the delusional theists who
seek to impose their irrational vision on atheists, agnostics, and
rational theists alike. I am just not as convinced as I once was that
rational theism is where I want to make my stand.

I don't think it matters, except to you.

"Nobody cares what you think" doesn't contribute much to the
discussion, does it?

Is that what I wrote?

Regardless, what I meant was that if anything awaits us in the great beyond
your religious beliefs probably don't matter. They only matter to you, and
to individuals stupid enough to discuss them with you

LOL! Well put :-)