[003]
JulietWolf
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Um, no. Russel\'s Teapot is not saying theism is \
to:
Um, no. Russel\\\'s Teapot is not saying theism is \\\"a random thought with no basis to be taken seriously\\\", it\\\'s an argument against the idea that \\\"you can\\\'t prove god DOESN\\\'T exist, therefore it\\\'s valid\\\". Why don\\\'t you actually get to know what the arguments are actually about before criticizing them, as someone on the main page accuses Dawkins of...
* Maybe you should take your own advice and read what you\\\'re talking about more closely. The guy\\\'s complaint is specifically about \\\"Some people [who] use a variation of Russel\\\'s Teapot as a stand-alone argument for atheism\\\" and said in the discussion that those who use it in its proper context aren\\\'t wrong in any way. - [[Tropers/JulietWolf Juliet]]
* Maybe you should take your own advice and read what you\\\'re talking about more closely. The guy\\\'s complaint is specifically about \\\"Some people [who] use a variation of Russel\\\'s Teapot as a stand-alone argument for atheism\\\" and said in the discussion that those who use it in its proper context aren\\\'t wrong in any way. - [[Tropers/JulietWolf Juliet]]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Um, no. Russel\'s Teapot is not saying theism is \
to:
Um, no. Russel\\\'s Teapot is not saying theism is \\\"a random thought with no basis to be taken seriously\\\", it\\\'s an argument against the idea that \\\"you can\\\'t prove god DOESN\\\'T exist, therefore it\\\'s valid\\\". Why don\\\'t you actually get to know what the arguments are actually about before criticizing them, as someone on the main page accuses Dawkins of...
* Maybe you should take your own advice and read what you\\\'re talking about more closely. The guy\\\'s complaint is specifically about \\\"Some people [who] use a variation of Russel\\\'s Teapot as a stand-alone argument for atheism\\\" and said in the discussion that those who use it in its proper context aren\\\'t wrong in any way. - [[Tropers/JulietWolf Juliet]]
* Maybe you should take your own advice and read what you\\\'re talking about more closely. The guy\\\'s complaint is specifically about \\\"Some people [who] use a variation of Russel\\\'s Teapot as a stand-alone argument for atheism\\\" and said in the discussion that those who use it in its proper context aren\\\'t wrong in any way. - [[Tropers/JulietWolf Juliet]]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Um, no. Russel\'s Teapot is not saying theism is \
to:
Um, no. Russel\\\'s Teapot is not saying theism is \\\"a random thought with no basis to be taken seriously\\\", it\\\'s an argument against the idea that \\\"you can\\\'t prove god DOESN\\\'T exist, therefore it\\\'s valid\\\". Why don\\\'t you actually get to know what the arguments are actually about before criticizing them, as someone on the main page accuses Dawkins of...
* Maybe you should take your own advice and read what you\\\'re talking about more closely. The guy\\\'s complaint is specifically about \\\"Some people [who] use a variation of Russel\\\'s Teapot as a stand-alone argument for atheism\\\". Whether or not that was Russel\\\'s original point has nothing to do with anything. - [[Tropers/JulietWolf Juliet]]
* Maybe you should take your own advice and read what you\\\'re talking about more closely. The guy\\\'s complaint is specifically about \\\"Some people [who] use a variation of Russel\\\'s Teapot as a stand-alone argument for atheism\\\". Whether or not that was Russel\\\'s original point has nothing to do with anything. - [[Tropers/JulietWolf Juliet]]
