Conk Christian Love Letters to Richard Dawkins! LMAO!!

[Cap'n Cat]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso[/youtube]



Dr. Dawkins reads "fan mail" from Conks/Whacked-Out Christian Anti-Evolution fucks!

Fucking hilarious!!!! So much for dem lovin' Christians!!

[Chizzang]

There is no creature on earth more angry terrified vile and hate filled than a religious fundamentalist...



Its really mostly a self fulfilling prophecy that they undergo

[Cap'n Cat]

There is no creature on earth more angry terrified vile and hate filled than a religious fundamentalist...



Its really mostly a self fulfilling prophecy that they undergo

How in the fuck can a "Jesus" person HATE so much?????? I gotta PM Baldy and Tbag to find out.....

They're like those cocksuckers who protest outside family planning clinics, then go home and beat the fuck outta their wives and kids. In other words, they're just CONKS!

[Baldy]

There is no creature on earth more angry terrified vile and hate filled than a religious fundamentalist...



Its really mostly a self fulfilling prophecy that they undergo

How in the fuck can a "Jesus" person HATE so much?????? I gotta PM Baldy and Tbag to find out.....

They're like those cocksuckers who protest outside family planning clinics, then go home and beat the fuck outta their wives and kids. In other words, they're just CONKS!

Now you're calling me a "Jesus person"???

It's like you've aged 20 years over the last 12 months. So much senility. It's sad.

[kalm]

"Fuck you, you fuckitty, fucker"...

[JoltinJoe]

The funniest thing about this are the people who really think people sent these letter to Dawkins.

What a sad, desperate thing to do for attention. "Look at me. Dumb people hate me!"

The monotony of expression in these "letters" reflect they are the product of one or two people. Dawkins needs to learn how to vary his tone and expression when assuming the voice of a fundamentalist Christian.

[Chizzang]

The funniest thing about this are the people who really think people sent these letter to Dawkins.

What a sad, desperate thing to do for attention. "Look at me. Dumb people hate me!"

The monotony of expression in these "letters" reflect they are the product of one or two people. Dawkins needs to learn how to vary his tone and expression when assuming the voice of a fundamentalist Christian.

So you're saying its a hoax...
That guys like Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris don't get hate mail

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... I see



Joe
I get hate mail because I posted a link on my youtube page to Sam Harris
I have hundreds of links posted on all variety of things - only one get any response at all
(I'll give you one guess which one that is)
please pull your head out of your ass - for your own sake
you sound closeted and completely detached from reality

[∞∞∞]

The funniest thing about this are the people who really think people sent these letter to Dawkins.

On another forum I visit (Dbackjon and Flaggy know which), I got a hateful PM once from a "Christian" when I stated my parents were Muslin. If an anonymous message board poster can get an angry PM for one sentence on a sports message board, I can totally believe people sending hateful letters to someone as outspoken and public as Dawkins.

[JoltinJoe]

The funniest thing about this are the people who really think people sent these letter to Dawkins.

What a sad, desperate thing to do for attention. "Look at me. Dumb people hate me!"

The monotony of expression in these "letters" reflect they are the product of one or two people. Dawkins needs to learn how to vary his tone and expression when assuming the voice of a fundamentalist Christian.

So you're saying its a hoax...
That guys like Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris don't get hate mail

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... I see



Joe
I get hate mail because I posted a link on my youtube page to Sam Harris
I have hundreds of links posted on all variety of things - only one get any response at all
(I'll give you one guess which one that is)
please pull your head out of your ass - for your own sake
you sound closeted and completely detached from reality

I don't doubt that Dawkins gets hate mail, but I also have no doubt that he wrote the "letters" he read in that video.

It shocks me you don't get it. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens -- these guys aren't scholars. They are self-promoters selling lightweight thoughts to lazy minds.

[Chizzang]

So you're saying its a hoax...
That guys like Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris don't get hate mail

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... I see



Joe
I get hate mail because I posted a link on my youtube page to Sam Harris
I have hundreds of links posted on all variety of things - only one get any response at all
(I'll give you one guess which one that is)
please pull your head out of your ass - for your own sake
you sound closeted and completely detached from reality

I don't doubt that Dawkins gets hate mail, but I also have no doubt that he wrote the "letters" he read in that video.

It shocks me you don't get it. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens -- these guys aren't scholars. They are self-promoters selling lightweight thoughts to lazy minds.

Joe,
You just described yourself and inserted them in your place.... (Hilarious)
The old psych 101 rule still applies I guess
We become what we hate


It's also alarming to me how poorly you know your people Joe,
You are either in complete denial or vastly out of touch with the present demeanor of the Fundamentalist

[JoltinJoe]

I don't doubt that Dawkins gets hate mail, but I also have no doubt that he wrote the "letters" he read in that video.

It shocks me you don't get it. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens -- these guys aren't scholars. They are self-promoters selling lightweight thoughts to lazy minds.

Joe,
You just described yourself and inserted them in your place.... (Hilarious)
The old psych 101 rule still applies I guess
We become what we hate


It's also alarming to me how poorly you know your people Joe,
You are either in complete denial or vastly out of touch with the present demeanor of the Fundamentalist

That's your response? "We become what we hate?"

You liken me to a fundamentalist?

What a soft, lazy response. But what do I expect from a guy who raves about Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins?

[Chizzang]

Joe,
You just described yourself and inserted them in your place.... (Hilarious)
The old psych 101 rule still applies I guess
We become what we hate


It's also alarming to me how poorly you know your people Joe,
You are either in complete denial or vastly out of touch with the present demeanor of the Fundamentalist

That's your response? "We become what we hate?"

You liken me to a fundamentalist?

What a soft, lazy response. But what do I expect from a guy who raves about Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins?

Joe,
I think Dawkins is pretty much a hack with the occasional decent point
You'll never find me endorsing him - I don't always disagree with where he's trying to go
But he does not interest me in the least

However:
Sam Harris is a different perspective all together and far beyond your scope Joe
You've got nothing but "faith alone" to go after Sam Harris with - and he's out of your league

Also Note:
Yes, we do become a very real version of what we hate - as simple and sad as that seems - its true
All we need to do is honestly look in the mirror

[JoltinJoe]

That's your response? "We become what we hate?"

You liken me to a fundamentalist?

What a soft, lazy response. But what do I expect from a guy who raves about Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins?

Joe,
I think Dawkins is pretty much a hack with the occasional decent point
You'll never find me endorsing him - I don't always disagree with where he's trying to go
But he does not interest me in the least

However:
Sam Harris is a different perspective all together and far beyond your scope Joe
You've got nothing but "faith alone" to go after Sam Harris with - and he's out of your league

Also Note:
Yes, we do become a very real version of what we hate - as simple and sad as that seems - its true
All we need to do is honestly look in the mirror

So we agree on Dawkins.

Now Sam Harris. Ok, he's got a BA in Philosophy and a PhD in Neural Science. Wonderful. But he thinks that gives him the right to claim connection between the two, as if there is always some biologically based reason for what a human feels or experiences. And perhaps there is, but that's what is a really a matter of "faith alone" right now.

Let's start with this. What is Sam Harris' most significant contribution to the field of philosophy?

(I do have to admit Sam Harris is the most clever of the new atheist charlatans).

[Chizzang]

Joe,
I think Dawkins is pretty much a hack with the occasional decent point
You'll never find me endorsing him - I don't always disagree with where he's trying to go
But he does not interest me in the least

However:
Sam Harris is a different perspective all together and far beyond your scope Joe
You've got nothing but "faith alone" to go after Sam Harris with - and he's out of your league

Also Note:
Yes, we do become a very real version of what we hate - as simple and sad as that seems - its true
All we need to do is honestly look in the mirror

So we agree on Dawkins.

Now Sam Harris. Ok, he's got a BA in Philosophy and a PhD in Neural Science. Wonderful. But he thinks that gives him the right to claim connection between the two, as if there is always some biologically based reason for what a human feels or experiences. And perhaps there is, but that's what is a really a matter of "faith alone" right now.

Let's start with this. What is Sam Harris' most significant contribution to the field of philosophy?

(I do have to admit Sam Harris is the most clever of the new atheist charlatans).

So Sam Harris is a charlatan..?
And you ask me to define his contributions to Philosophy as if this charlatan (Sam Harris) needs more credibility than Jimmy Swaggart or the thousand other charlatans that make claims of "knowing what God wants"

Seriously Joe... you've flown the coop
Harris makes no claims about special knowledge
And your entire field is based on "special knowledge" that must be delivered through an interpreter

Come on Joe i'm stunned
Christianity is entirely based on pretending you know something you don't know
Sam Harris makes no claims of any special knowledge

Please identify where he makes charlatan style claims of special knowledge
I eagerly await

[Grizalltheway]

Joe,
I think Dawkins is pretty much a hack with the occasional decent point
You'll never find me endorsing him - I don't always disagree with where he's trying to go
But he does not interest me in the least

However:
Sam Harris is a different perspective all together and far beyond your scope Joe
You've got nothing but "faith alone" to go after Sam Harris with - and he's out of your league

Also Note:
Yes, we do become a very real version of what we hate - as simple and sad as that seems - its true
All we need to do is honestly look in the mirror

So we agree on Dawkins.

Now Sam Harris. Ok, he's got a BA in Philosophy and a PhD in Neural Science. Wonderful. But he thinks that gives him the right to claim connection between the two, as if there is always some biologically based reason for what a human feels or experiences. And perhaps there is, but that's what is a really a matter of "faith alone" right now.

Let's start with this. What is Sam Harris' most significant contribution to the field of philosophy?

(I do have to admit Sam Harris is the most clever of the new atheist charlatans).

Actually there are plenty biologically based reasons for what humans feel and experience.

I guess there isn't a lot of Church-endorsed research on it, so that might explain why you eschew it so easily.

[JoltinJoe]

So we agree on Dawkins.

Now Sam Harris. Ok, he's got a BA in Philosophy and a PhD in Neural Science. Wonderful. But he thinks that gives him the right to claim connection between the two, as if there is always some biologically based reason for what a human feels or experiences. And perhaps there is, but that's what is a really a matter of "faith alone" right now.

Let's start with this. What is Sam Harris' most significant contribution to the field of philosophy?

(I do have to admit Sam Harris is the most clever of the new atheist charlatans).

Actually there are plenty biologically based reasons for what humans feel and experience.

I guess there isn't a lot of Church-endorsed research on it, so that might explain why you eschew it so easily.

Reading is fundamental. I said as if there is "always" some biologically based reason for what humans feel and experience. Huge distinction.

There is plenty of philosophical discussion on this point, so I don't know why you eschew my point so easily.

[JoltinJoe]

So we agree on Dawkins.

Now Sam Harris. Ok, he's got a BA in Philosophy and a PhD in Neural Science. Wonderful. But he thinks that gives him the right to claim connection between the two, as if there is always some biologically based reason for what a human feels or experiences. And perhaps there is, but that's what is a really a matter of "faith alone" right now.

Let's start with this. What is Sam Harris' most significant contribution to the field of philosophy?

(I do have to admit Sam Harris is the most clever of the new atheist charlatans).

So Sam Harris is a charlatan..?
And you ask me to define his contributions to Philosophy as if this charlatan (Sam Harris) needs more credibility than Jimmy Swaggart or the thousand other charlatans that make claims of "knowing what God wants"

Seriously Joe... you've flown the coop
Harris makes no claims about special knowledge
And your entire field is based on "special knowledge" that must be delivered through an interpreter

Come on Joe i'm stunned
Christianity is entirely based on pretending you know something you don't know
Sam Harris makes no claims of any special knowledge

Please identify where he makes charlatan style claims of special knowledge
I eagerly await

You evaded my question, and then tried to place the burden on me to go forward.

But here is my response to your inquiry. Sam Harris propounds that every human emotion, including spirituality, is biologically based. Harris says human spirituality results from a neurological impulse or stimulus. And he has no genuine proof of that. It is as a big of a leap as faith as any religion. In fact, it is a faith disguised as reason.

Now back to my question: what is Harris' greatest contribution to philosophy.

[Chizzang]

So Sam Harris is a charlatan..?
And you ask me to define his contributions to Philosophy as if this charlatan (Sam Harris) needs more credibility than Jimmy Swaggart or the thousand other charlatans that make claims of "knowing what God wants"

Seriously Joe... you've flown the coop
Harris makes no claims about special knowledge
And your entire field is based on "special knowledge" that must be delivered through an interpreter

Come on Joe i'm stunned
Christianity is entirely based on pretending you know something you don't know
Sam Harris makes no claims of any special knowledge

Please identify where he makes charlatan style claims of special knowledge
I eagerly await

You evaded my question, and then tried to place the burden on me to go forward.

But here is my response to your inquiry. Sam Harris propounds that every human emotion, including spirituality, is biologically based. Harris says human spirituality results from a neurological impulse or stimulus. And he has no genuine proof of that. It is as a big of a leap as faith as any religion. In fact, it is a faith disguised as reason.

Now back to my question: what is Harris' greatest contribution to philosophy.

No he does not... he says its more reasonable and logical to look in that direction
He (AGAIN) makes no such claims as you suggest

He argues that religions are based on Iron Age folklore and legend
and that is a far less reasonable place to look for answers than evolutionary development

That ^ is what he argues
along with pointing out all the idiotic gibberish and mumbo jumbo in the Bible
as a kind of "piling on" maneuver - its unnecessary but illustrates his main point

Joe,
Get your argument straight first - then come back and make a point about something

[JoltinJoe]

You evaded my question, and then tried to place the burden on me to go forward.

But here is my response to your inquiry. Sam Harris propounds that every human emotion, including spirituality, is biologically based. Harris says human spirituality results from a neurological impulse or stimulus. And he has no genuine proof of that. It is as a big of a leap as faith as any religion. In fact, it is a faith disguised as reason.

Now back to my question: what is Harris' greatest contribution to philosophy.

No he does not... he says its more reasonable and logical to look in that direction
He (AGAIN) makes no such claims as you suggest

He argues that religions are based on Iron Age folklore and legend
and that is a far less reasonable place to look for answers than evolutionary development

That ^ is what he argues
along with pointing out all the idiotic gibberish and mumbo jumbo in the Bible
as a kind of "piling on" maneuver - its unnecessary but illustrates his main point

Joe,
Get your argument straight first - then come back and make a point about something

15 YARDS FOR PURPOSEFUL EVASION.

This isn't about what I think -- which I freely admit is a matter of faith.

This is about what Harris has contributed to philosophy.

You've still cited nothing.

And Harris most certainly contends human spirituality and morality are biologically based. And that is, despite his misrepresentations to the contrary, as big of a leap of faith as any religious faith is. Which is why Harris has really contributed nothing of significance to philosophy.

Taking this environment-based approach, Harris presents contemporary research from neuroscience throughout his book. After describing the neurological precursors and correlates of behavior, he dismisses the notion of free will, citing additional biological data to suggest that it is the brain—and not an agent of free will—that is responsible for behavior. He makes a familiar argument for a deterministic framework, in which the historical and contemporary environments (including neurological states) are responsible for behavior. After dismantling free will, Harris describes ramifications for the justice system. With this knowledge, we can no longer hold people accountable for their actions because they are determined by historical and contemporary events. This view negates a justice system based on punishment or retribution. Consistent with a behavioral position (e.g., Chiesa, 2003), Harris suggests that, with increased knowledge about the brain (for which we may be able to substitute behavior without losing any meaning, because the brain necessarily belongs to a complete organism), reforms of the justice system may be necessary. A reformed justice system would be more compassionate based on its more accurate understanding of causes of behavior (i.e., the environment and biological states). Harris takes this position to an extreme, proposing that it may even be immoral to fail to consider environmental and biological factors within the context of the justice system. Here, there is a fundamental compatibility between the approach that Harris is advocating and a behavioral worldview.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501430/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice try. You can BS others perhaps, but you can't BS me.

[Chizzang]

Joe,
You've lost your marbles
Nowhere in that REVIEW of Sam Harris is Sam Harris actually quoted...
But:
Does Harris elude to human biological evolutionary development as the pace science should look - Yes
Does Harris say that is a more likely place that it will be found - than Studies of Iron Age myths - Yes

You're trying so hard Joe... its cute

Try quoting Sam Harris - like a real authentic complete quote
Not some other guys review or your sloppy defensive conclusions

Keep trying Bro...

[JoltinJoe]

Joe,
You've lost your marbles
Nowhere in that REVIEW of Sam Harris is Sam Harris actually quoted...
But:
Does Harris elude to human biological evolutionary development as the pace science should look - Yes
Does Harris say that is a more likely place that it will be found - than Studies of Iron Age myths - Yes

You're trying so hard Joe... its cute

Try quoting Sam Harris - like a real authentic complete quote
Not some other guys review or your sloppy defensive conclusions

Keep trying Bro...

It's funny that, in order to defend Harris, you have to falsify his position.

And then claim that I've lost my marbles.

And never once answer the question about what his most significant contribution to philosophy is.

We both know you haven't fared too well here.

[Cap'n Cat]

Man, Joe. You're just an idiot.......

[kalm]

Joe,
You've lost your marbles
Nowhere in that REVIEW of Sam Harris is Sam Harris actually quoted...
But:
Does Harris elude to human biological evolutionary development as the pace science should look - Yes
Does Harris say that is a more likely place that it will be found - than Studies of Iron Age myths - Yes

You're trying so hard Joe... its cute

Try quoting Sam Harris - like a real authentic complete quote
Not some other guys review or your sloppy defensive conclusions

Keep trying Bro...

It's funny that, in order to defend Harris, you have to falsify his position.

And then claim that I've lost my marbles.

And never once answer the question about what his most significant contribution to philosophy is.

We both know you haven't fared too well here.

Where did Chizzy falsify his position? You're trying to hard by rejecting Harris out of hand.

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”

Robert Pirsig

[JoltinJoe]

Man, Joe. You're just an idiot.......

Just checking. Is that Harris' greatest contribution to philosophy? He calls his philosophical opponents idiots?

How come no one can answer a simple question?

(I know, you're afraid if you answer the question, I'll answer. Easier just to call me a name.)

Good job, Mr. UNI College Equivalency Degree holder.

[JoltinJoe]

It's funny that, in order to defend Harris, you have to falsify his position.

And then claim that I've lost my marbles.

And never once answer the question about what his most significant contribution to philosophy is.

We both know you haven't fared too well here.

Where did Chizzy falsify his position? You're trying to hard by rejecting Harris out of hand.

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”

Robert Pirsig

Chizzèng would be mighty proud of you defending him with a quote from Pirsig. Peas in a pod. Two counter-culture hippies right out of the time capsule.

Read Harris and see if you can fairly say he is not dogmatic about all human actions, feelings, emotions, spirituality being biologically based.

BTW, if you look up this thread, you would see that I did say Harris "may be right." BUT, he is misrepresenting the facts when he says science compels such a conclusion -- there is no science which establishes what he claims -- and he is a charlatan for claiming otherwise.

He should just be honest and say that he takes his position based on his faith in science. It's just another belief, another leap of faith.

Harris, Pirsig are limited by an insistence that ultimate rationality must be based on tangible human experience or explanation.