Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

(48,181 posts)

8. in reply to message deleted:

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:58 PM

Apr 2014

When the thesis itself is a fallacy there is no need to read the supporting text.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Richard Dawkins is so wrong it hurts: What the science-vs.-religion debate ignores [View all] undeterred Apr 2014 OP

The first sentence is a pathetic strawman argument. Warren Stupidity Apr 2014 #1

^^ +100 Atman Apr 2014 #2

Indeed, and a discussion of the merits Warren Stupidity Apr 2014 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author undeterred Apr 2014 #5

in reply to message deleted: Warren Stupidity Apr 2014 #8

As a scientist I'm sure she has a theory ... GeorgeGist Apr 2014 #6

Yup. More atheist strawmanning. longship Apr 2014 #7

hmmmm RainDog Apr 2014 #9

it's called the "conflict thesis," and it's deader than phlogiston MisterP Apr 2014 #10

What conversation does science want to have with religion RainDog Apr 2014 #11