Topic: Richard Dawkins reads some hate mail
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #14,163
Saw this on YouTube and lol'd.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj-TDgvbbnk&feature=related
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #251,751
> no link
Probably from the documentary 'The Genius Of Charles Darwin', great doc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptV9sNezEvk
Probably from the documentary 'The Genius Of Charles Darwin', great doc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptV9sNezEvk
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #251,756
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #251,757
(OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #251,760
hamfist !DHyzkOuyNw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #251,769
He did some great work in sociology but he's not a genius.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #251,783
Dawkins should really stick to evolution though. The whole evolution as the meaning of life is kind of dumb.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #251,804
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #251,805
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #251,806
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #251,807
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #251,808
@previous (A)
It took you 5 minutes to find the link for a youtube topic, and you're criticizing me?
It took you 5 minutes to find the link for a youtube topic, and you're criticizing me?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #251,809
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 57 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,822
@251,804 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
The meaning of life is subjective. Facts are objective. Hence trying to force a link between the two is dumb. Dawkins is better than that. I doubt he'd do so were there not so much money in it.
The meaning of life is subjective. Facts are objective. Hence trying to force a link between the two is dumb. Dawkins is better than that. I doubt he'd do so were there not so much money in it.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,832
@previous (E)
> The meaning of life is subjective.
Yeah it is subjective in the human mind sure, but in a biological sense its just reproduce and evolve to be more successful. All in all it's not really that important of a subject. I'm sorry I was a dick in my other post, uncalled for.
> Dawkins is better than that. I doubt he'd do so were there not so much money in it.
I agree, I imagine at this point Dawkins does stuff mostly for the money. Religion etc gets tiring to discuss... it can't be thrilling for him, but I do admire that he keeps at it.
> The meaning of life is subjective.
Yeah it is subjective in the human mind sure, but in a biological sense its just reproduce and evolve to be more successful. All in all it's not really that important of a subject. I'm sorry I was a dick in my other post, uncalled for.
> Dawkins is better than that. I doubt he'd do so were there not so much money in it.
I agree, I imagine at this point Dawkins does stuff mostly for the money. Religion etc gets tiring to discuss... it can't be thrilling for him, but I do admire that he keeps at it.
boop !Bz2S2BFeXI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,853
If he were genuinely interested in ending problems caused by religion he would be careful not to turn atheism into a religion, that's all, he would say "be self-critical, don't agree with everything I say, being atheist doesn't make you immune to self-justification". He may have mentioned this once in an ambiguous manner in a footnote somewhere sometime, regardless I haven't seen it yet, it certainly isn't the core of his argument as it should be. Oh and I'm not anything, I'm not theist or atheist or part of any religion. I'm just saying. Hate all you want.
!JuMPb0dbaE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,868
@previous (boop !Bz2S2BFeXI)
He would agree with you. You haven't read or seen very much of what he says.
He would agree with you. You haven't read or seen very much of what he says.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,872
@251,832 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> Yeah it is subjective in the human mind sure, but in a biological sense its just reproduce and evolve to be more successful. All in all it's not really that important of a subject.
You are so retarded it pains me to read your posts. The purpose of life is not "to evolve and be more successful". This is retarded magical thinking. Evolution just happens; it is not part of a great plan to achieve a purpose.
> Yeah it is subjective in the human mind sure, but in a biological sense its just reproduce and evolve to be more successful. All in all it's not really that important of a subject.
You are so retarded it pains me to read your posts. The purpose of life is not "to evolve and be more successful". This is retarded magical thinking. Evolution just happens; it is not part of a great plan to achieve a purpose.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,882
@previous (H)
Cool story christfag. You are a delusional, basement-dwelling autistic retard. No one here gives a single shit what you say.
Cool story christfag. You are a delusional, basement-dwelling autistic retard. No one here gives a single shit what you say.
green !6PPj7P5Iag joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,885
What if Richard Dawkins war God?Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,902
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,917
@251,872 (H)
@251,882 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
The only "purpose" you really have is to fuck bitches + propagate DNA.
@251,882 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
The only "purpose" you really have is to fuck bitches + propagate DNA.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,932
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 47 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,936
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,937
@previous (H)
> or RNA.
Yes, but I was talking about our purpose.
> "Fuck[ing] bitches" is not a purpose but a means of achieving a purpose.
Good point.
> or RNA.
Yes, but I was talking about our purpose.
> "Fuck[ing] bitches" is not a purpose but a means of achieving a purpose.
Good point.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 45 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,943
@251,853 (boop !Bz2S2BFeXI)
Dawkins actually does say this at times, but his actions and rhetoric are eerily similar to an evangelist. It's appears disingenuous. On the one hand he'll claim he's not trying to "convert" anyone, on the other he'll write a big check for pro-atheist advertisements.
Dawkins actually does say this at times, but his actions and rhetoric are eerily similar to an evangelist. It's appears disingenuous. On the one hand he'll claim he's not trying to "convert" anyone, on the other he'll write a big check for pro-atheist advertisements.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,045
@251,853 (boop !Bz2S2BFeXI)
> I'm not theist or atheist
That's impossible. If you hold a belief in God you're a theist, if you don't you're an atheist. You must be one.
> I'm not theist or atheist
That's impossible. If you hold a belief in God you're a theist, if you don't you're an atheist. You must be one.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,048
@previous (K)
Sounds like he/she's a nihilist. I never could relate to/understand nihilism, it's so much wtf am i reading.
Sounds like he/she's a nihilist. I never could relate to/understand nihilism, it's so much wtf am i reading.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 52 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,067
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,068
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,075
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,078
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,079
@252,075 (M)
Yes it does. That's what atheism is: not believing in God. If you don't hold a belief in God, you're an atheist. If you do, you're a theist.
Yes it does. That's what atheism is: not believing in God. If you don't hold a belief in God, you're an atheist. If you do, you're a theist.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,080
@252,078 (buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY)
seems like a definition that was thrust onto them by other people. Does a nihilist truly identify with nihilism, or do they just recognize the futility of defining themselves as anything?
seems like a definition that was thrust onto them by other people. Does a nihilist truly identify with nihilism, or do they just recognize the futility of defining themselves as anything?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,081
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,082
@252,078 (buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY)
I think he's one of those people who thinks atheism is believing there's no God, when in reality it's just not believing there is one.
I think he's one of those people who thinks atheism is believing there's no God, when in reality it's just not believing there is one.
Anonymous K double-posted this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,083
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,084
the theist says, "Do you believe in god, or are you an atheist?"
The atheist says, "What is god? I am a rational being."
The atheist says, "What is god? I am a rational being."
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,085
@252,079 (K)
Atheism is a rejection in the belief of the existence of god. Belief doesn't come into it. It implies knowledge that no god exists.
Atheism is a rejection in the belief of the existence of god. Belief doesn't come into it. It implies knowledge that no god exists.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,087
@previous (M)
so what would you call them before they rejected the belief? Before even they were aware of the concept of god?
so what would you call them before they rejected the belief? Before even they were aware of the concept of god?
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,088
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,089
@252,085 (M)
No. That's strong atheism; asserting the position God does not exist. Weak atheism is just the absence of belief in God.
No. That's strong atheism; asserting the position God does not exist. Weak atheism is just the absence of belief in God.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,090
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,092
@252,088 (buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY)
He's saying you have to assert that you know there is no god/s to be an atheist, but the line between atheism and agnosticism has almost disappeared. Few atheist would claim to know without a doubt there are gods, they simply don't believe in supernatural fairy tales.
He's saying you have to assert that you know there is no god/s to be an atheist, but the line between atheism and agnosticism has almost disappeared. Few atheist would claim to know without a doubt there are gods, they simply don't believe in supernatural fairy tales.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,117
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,137
@previous (M)
Wrong. Clearly you're confused as to what agnosticism and atheism are.
And you never answered my reply. (@252,089 (K))
Wrong. Clearly you're confused as to what agnosticism and atheism are.
And you never answered my reply. (@252,089 (K))
(Edited 47 seconds later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,141
@previous (K)
Actually, I think you'll find that we're both right since nobody standardizes words. But regardless this is what I use. Fuck you for telling me what I can and cannot call things.
Actually, I think you'll find that we're both right since nobody standardizes words. But regardless this is what I use. Fuck you for telling me what I can and cannot call things.
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,143
Strong atheism: I know that no god exists. I reject the belief in god. (Gnostic atheism)
Weak atheism: I do not know whether god exists. I reject the belief in god. (Agnostic atheism)
Simply fulfilling the first part (I do not know if god exists) does not make you an atheist. It does make you an agnostic. You can also have gnostic and agnostic theists.
Weak atheism: I do not know whether god exists. I reject the belief in god. (Agnostic atheism)
Simply fulfilling the first part (I do not know if god exists) does not make you an atheist. It does make you an agnostic. You can also have gnostic and agnostic theists.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,144
@252,141 (M)> Fuck you for telling me what I can and cannot call things.
You can call things whatever you want, doesn't mean you're right though.
If a belief in God is absent you're an atheist, if you do have a belief you're theist. It makes no sense to say "I'm not atheist or agnostic" because you either have the belief or you don't. Glad we cleared that up.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,145
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,148
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,150
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,151
@252,143 (M)
You still don't get it.
Atheism or theism describes your belief in God; if you have a belief you're theist, if you don't you're atheist.
Agnosticism or gnosticism describes your claim to know for certain whether God does or doesn't exist; if you claim you know for certain, you're gnostic, if you say you can't be certain you're agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism answer two different questions; whether you believe and whether you claim to know for certain that your belief is true.
You still don't get it.
Atheism or theism describes your belief in God; if you have a belief you're theist, if you don't you're atheist.
Agnosticism or gnosticism describes your claim to know for certain whether God does or doesn't exist; if you claim you know for certain, you're gnostic, if you say you can't be certain you're agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism answer two different questions; whether you believe and whether you claim to know for certain that your belief is true.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous K double-posted this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,152
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,153
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,154
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,155
@252,151 (K)
In theory, you are correct. But in application, one cannot be an atheist or a theist without being also a gnostic or an agnostic.
A lack of belief in the existence of something is not the same as a rejection of the existence of something.
In theory, you are correct. But in application, one cannot be an atheist or a theist without being also a gnostic or an agnostic.
A lack of belief in the existence of something is not the same as a rejection of the existence of something.
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,156
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,157
@252,155 (M)
> But in application, one cannot be an atheist or a theist without being also a gnostic or an agnostic.
Precisely! You're either a gnostic atheist, or agnostic atheist - and likewise you're either a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.
> But in application, one cannot be an atheist or a theist without being also a gnostic or an agnostic.
Precisely! You're either a gnostic atheist, or agnostic atheist - and likewise you're either a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,158
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,159
@252,156 (M)
you consistently talk down to people and often end statements with lol.
you consistently talk down to people and often end statements with lol.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,160
@252,157 (K)
Yes, you can either reject the existence of god or you can be unsure. This is called "weak atheism" but is never usually classed as atheism in practise. If you asked an agnostic atheist what they thought you would hear something like "I am not sure, maybe there is, but maybe not."
Yes, you can either reject the existence of god or you can be unsure. This is called "weak atheism" but is never usually classed as atheism in practise. If you asked an agnostic atheist what they thought you would hear something like "I am not sure, maybe there is, but maybe not."
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,161
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,163
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,165
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,167
@252,160 (M)
> This is called "weak atheism" but is never usually classed as atheism in practise.
> is never usually classed as atheism in practise.
Yes it is. It's an agnostic atheism. Almost all atheists are agnostic atheists, the atheists that claim they are certain there is no God (gnostic atheists) are in the minority.
> This is called "weak atheism" but is never usually classed as atheism in practise.
> is never usually classed as atheism in practise.
Yes it is. It's an agnostic atheism. Almost all atheists are agnostic atheists, the atheists that claim they are certain there is no God (gnostic atheists) are in the minority.
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,170
@252,165 (M)
whatever you say. It doesn't surprise me that can't see these things about yourself. Inner reflection doesn't seem to be your thing.
whatever you say. It doesn't surprise me that can't see these things about yourself. Inner reflection doesn't seem to be your thing.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,171
@252,167 (K)
Do you, or do you not, deny that if you asked an agnostic atheist in the street what they think, they would say "I am not sure, maybe there is, but maybe not."?
Do you, or do you not, deny that if you asked an agnostic atheist in the street what they think, they would say "I am not sure, maybe there is, but maybe not."?
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,172
@252,170 (buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY)
I don't know who you think I am, but I am probably not them. I would also like to ask you to stop doing this to people. It is very rude.
I don't know who you think I am, but I am probably not them. I would also like to ask you to stop doing this to people. It is very rude.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,173
@252,171 (M)
Yes, they probably would answer that. So?
I know you're never going to admit you're wrong. :D
Yes, they probably would answer that. So?
I know you're never going to admit you're wrong. :D
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,174
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,175
@252,173 (K)
How can you be an atheist if you admit that there is a possibility that god exists? You cannot.
How can you be an atheist if you admit that there is a possibility that god exists? You cannot.
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,176
@252,174 (buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY)
No it isn't. Trying to "identify" people posting as anon. If it is the correct ex-namefag then it is offensive to them (since they dropped the name for a purpose and you are subverting it) and if it is some stranger then it is very annoying. Now you have wasted a lot of my, and your own, time typing attacks because you assumed that I was somebody I am not.
No it isn't. Trying to "identify" people posting as anon. If it is the correct ex-namefag then it is offensive to them (since they dropped the name for a purpose and you are subverting it) and if it is some stranger then it is very annoying. Now you have wasted a lot of my, and your own, time typing attacks because you assumed that I was somebody I am not.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,177
@252,175 (M)
Hurr durr.
> How can you be an atheist if you admit that there is a possibility that god exists? You cannot.
Do you still not understand what an atheist is? That would only be true if an "atheist" was someone who claimed they knew with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist, in which case they would be a gnostic atheist.
Agnostic atheists don't have a belief in God, but don't claim they're certain he doesn't exist. How many more times do I need to say this before you understand?
Hurr durr.
> How can you be an atheist if you admit that there is a possibility that god exists? You cannot.
Do you still not understand what an atheist is? That would only be true if an "atheist" was someone who claimed they knew with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist, in which case they would be a gnostic atheist.
Agnostic atheists don't have a belief in God, but don't claim they're certain he doesn't exist. How many more times do I need to say this before you understand?
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,178
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,179
Atheists have the most retarded arguments.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,180
@252,177 (K)
> Do you still not understand what an atheist is?
An atheist is somebody who denies the existence of god.
> Do you still not understand what an atheist is?
An atheist is somebody who denies the existence of god.
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,181
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,182
@previous (buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY)
You all sound like lunatics when you talk about religion on the internet.
You all sound like lunatics when you talk about religion on the internet.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,183
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,184
@252,180 (M)
Stop trolling immediately. Please re-read this (@252,089 (K)) post until you understand. Thanks.
Stop trolling immediately. Please re-read this (@252,089 (K)) post until you understand. Thanks.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,185
@previous (K)
"Weak atheism" is just an easy-to-understand term that does not reflect reality. It is like saying that political parties are left-wing or right-wing -- that is just a massive oversimplification.
"Weak atheism" is just an easy-to-understand term that does not reflect reality. It is like saying that political parties are left-wing or right-wing -- that is just a massive oversimplification.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,186
@previous (M)
Stop trolling immediately. Please re-read this (@252,089 (K)) post until you understand. Thanks.
Stop trolling immediately. Please re-read this (@252,089 (K)) post until you understand. Thanks.
Anonymous K double-posted this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,187
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,188
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,189
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,190
@252,180 (M)
> An atheist is somebody who denies the existence of god.
Please be trolling. You couldn't possibly be this retarded.
> An atheist is somebody who denies the existence of god.
Please be trolling. You couldn't possibly be this retarded.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,191
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,192
@252,188 (M)
Weak atheism is still atheism. Atheism isn't just gnostic atheism as you claim, it also encompasses agnostic atheism.
Weak atheism is still atheism. Atheism isn't just gnostic atheism as you claim, it also encompasses agnostic atheism.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,193
@252,190 (P)
You should read the entire thread before replying. It is bad netiquette to do otherwise.
You should read the entire thread before replying. It is bad netiquette to do otherwise.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,194
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,195
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,196
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,197
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,198
@252,192 (K)
It is not atheism because it does not exist in real life. It is a theoretic-only position and an over-simplification.
It is not atheism because it does not exist in real life. It is a theoretic-only position and an over-simplification.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,199
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,201
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,202
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,203
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,204
first
Anonymous Q double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,205
100th post
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,206
100 GET
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,207
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,208
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,209
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,210
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,211
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,212
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,213
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,214
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,215
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,216
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #252,251
@252,201 (K)
Got any with pink heads? I prefer my black cocks to be uncut with pink heads. Just tastes better to me that way.
Also, this: @252,194, (K) is not a black cock. I've seen Korean dudes with bigger hogs than that. Definitely too small to go interracial over.
Got any with pink heads? I prefer my black cocks to be uncut with pink heads. Just tastes better to me that way.
Also, this: @252,194, (K) is not a black cock. I've seen Korean dudes with bigger hogs than that. Definitely too small to go interracial over.
boop !Bz2S2BFeXI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #252,258
@251,868 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
> He would agree with you. You haven't read or seen very much of what he says.
I'm not going to buy one of his books and meticulously read through the entire thing just to hear him say "be careful not to turn atheism into a religion" and I shouldn't have to, it should be the core of his argument, he should say it 5 times before breakfast.
> He would agree with you. You haven't read or seen very much of what he says.
I'm not going to buy one of his books and meticulously read through the entire thing just to hear him say "be careful not to turn atheism into a religion" and I shouldn't have to, it should be the core of his argument, he should say it 5 times before breakfast.