Stephen Hawking is dead ...

Martinghoul said:
I inferred your gender from your "body of work" on this site. I didn't assume it.

At any rate, "liberal twat" is a new one for me. I think I'll take it as a compliment, seeing as it comes from someone like you. You have my thanks.
More...

Infer is a synonym of assume. Your body of work on here would readily explain why you didn't know the difference.
 
fhl said:
Infer is a synonym of assume. Your body of work on here would readily explain why you didn't know the difference.
More...
If you actually bothered to think about this comment of yours, you would appreciate just how silly it is.

At any rate, that's quite enough fun for me in this here thread.
 
Sig said:
So eloquent too, I'm sure this blinding logic is frequently effective, at least if your intended effect is to entertain!

Hey, happens to the best of us, I get Andrew Lloyd Webber and Frank Lloyd Wright confused all the time. Difference is if someone points it out I have the self awareness to be embarrassed about the mistake. I don't pretend to understand music or architecture to the level that I could intelligently critique them let alone call them failures in their field. I don't try to randomly change the subject to talking about a televangelist and a newspaper. And I don't intend to/didn't malign them upon their death.

So how about this, I'll refrain from pontificating on plumbing and drain clog removal and you refrain from pontificating on physics and all other topics that you know fuck all about. Deal?

BTW, if someone's gay or straight has about as much meaning to me as if they're left or right handed. I think "fag" stopped being meaningful around 8th grade in my world and even the 8th graders these days don't use it as an insult. Might want to move into the 2000s at least, if you can't pull yourself all the way to 2018.
More...

Why would I confess to something that's only a figment of your imagination? Is it my problem that elementary logic is over your head? You can't deal with the fact that Hawking's theories without evidence aren't accepted as fact and I pointed it out with the same insult that's frequently used by atheists against God. Not having anything remotely intellectual to counter with, you resort to setting up this fake strawman and refusing to budge from it. Why don't you just try to accept the fact that you didn't see the obvious similarity between athiests calling God a flying spaghetti monster, and me calling out Hawking's theories as no better because they have no evidence behind them?

I've been through all this with you before. Remember the Goldman Sachs in the Obama admin topic? When you actually claimed that 58 former employees of Goldman Sachs in the Obama admin wasn't noteworthy as to their influence on policy unless I personally knew someone from Goldman Sachs, I knew right then and there that I was dealing with someone that will resort to the most irrational, illogical arguments conceivable to defend and inane position.
And now we're at it again. Unable to refute the obvious and that you couldn't put two and two together, here you are making a wild accusation out of the blue to cover up your own pathetic lack of awareness.

Being extremely triggered every time God is mentioned, as you are, generally has a root. And that root is very often spelled Q U E E R.
 
Martinghoul said:
If you actually bothered to think about this comment of yours, you would appreciate just how silly it is.

At any rate, that's quite enough fun for me in this here thread.
More...
I believe "thinking" is highly overrated in fhl's world. Much better to run around the playground yelling "Fag!", so insulting.
 
fhl said:
Being extremely triggered every time God is mentioned, as you are, generally has a root. And that root is very often spelled Q U E E R.
More...
Since I and pretty much everyone who isn't a fundy could give fuck all what you think about their or anyone else's sexual orientation, you again sound like kid lost on the 1990's middle school playground.
If you want to talk physics, I'm happy to indulge that given that you know the first thing about it. However since what you know about science in general could fit on the head of a pin, given your fixation of "proof" in astrophysics, it would be a short conversation. I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed.
 
fhl said:
Being extremely triggered every time God is mentioned, as you are, generally has a root. And that root is very often spelled Q U E E R.
More...

Damn - I was a little bit agreeing with you, but then - this is totally illogical, which is the same criticism you applied to your opponent.
 
dawkins may be a good biologist but when he starts giving lectures about the lack of evidence of a Creator he becomes disingenuous at best.

His arguments against one of the implications of the fine tunings of the physical constants of our universe are disingenuous (based on the videos of his lectures on college campuses.)
Dawkins does not belong in the same thread as Hawking. (I am happy to discuss the weakness of some of Dawkins arguments on another thread.)

Hawking deserves respect in my opinion.


Sig said:
Actually I figured out exactly what was happening inside @fhl's limited little brain and it's hilarious. There's a prominent evolutionary biologist named Richard Dawkins who is famous for refuting theism. One of the arguments he and others who try to reason with religious fundamentalists use is that there's just as much proof of the fundamentalist christian god as there is of a flying spaghetti monster, and just as much reason to worship either. He's a favorite villain of the fundys. Braniac @fhl here got Dawkins confused with Hawkins and thought they were the same guy!. Apparently they have the same ....kins ring to thier names and I guess they are both British, so close enough right? You just can't make this shit up!
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top