{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/15/2013 1:02:14 AM
14
I have nothing against atheists in general, but I've always though Dawkins and Atheists that are condescending to theists and treat themselves like some sort of intellectually superior master race were kinda dick-ish.
English
-
No I have not, but when a book made in '76 causes "a silent and almost immediate revolution in biology" it hardly makes him an idiot. Especialy when, like I said, he has a doctrite in science. Please, tell me how he's an idiot.
-
There's no point in talking to you if you haven't read the book. Go do a little research before riding the guy's dick. His book, like social darwinism, is just an excuse for rich white guys to oppress the rest of the world.
-
I did, I took a look at wikipedia and the reception of it. If it was well received, it isn't exactly like yuo describe. And I see how yuo fail to tell me how he's an idiot. He has a awarded a doctrite from Oxfod university, by that alone is simply can't be an idiot.
-
I'm sorry, but this is kinda what I meant. I keep my religion and science separate. To put it how I feel and in terms of my religion, the Bible is not a science book, nor should it be used as one. I respect people of all religions and lack thereof to believe what they please without telling them they are going to burn in hell, things like that, but why some atheists think that simply because some people are religious that they are all simpletons that devote the entirety of their time to a "magic sky being" is beyond me.
