Nudd Chaa!

Methinks they have confused Ackbar with Tessek.

Neh Jabba no botha. Iz dye woto. Say gotto doh mooty.

Almost as stunning as your one word masterstroke but moments before, Sir Caps-A-Lot!

VAPID

You realize, of course, that you're spending an inordinate amount of time typing in CAPS, repeating vapid retorts as if that somehow legitimizes your statements as arguments, and bickering on the internet, right?

Hey, you've learned how to turn off CAPS - that's progress of a sort. You still need to work on piecing together constructive arguments though, but in time that evolution is possible. Keep plugging away!

CAAAAAAPPPPSSSSS LOOOOOOCK!!!!!

CAPS. THE CAPS. MUST TYPE IN CAPS BECUZ I'VE GOT NOTHING TO SAY. THE CAPS SAY ALL. I'M WHINING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO HAS AN OPINION THAT IT APPEARS OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TOO - BUT I CAN WIN THIS ARGUMENT IF I JUST TRY HARD ENOUGH TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS WITH MY INANE CHATTER.

Reading back what I wrote I think it's apparent I'm off on a tangent and am arguing against points not necessarily represented. I'm guilty of that below with King I think on a few points.

I've often wondered how much help the Russians had in developing their space program or if there was someone akin to Werner von Braun who was instrumental. Helmut Gröttrup is a name that pops up in searches but it seems his activity was fairly limited and that Korolev did most of the heavy lifting.

Hey, no problem! Sometimes I don't think I clearly articulate who my points are directed to and, it's evident, that I underestimated just how well read you seem to be on the topic.

I guess not. Oh wells….

Yes, yes, your post sounds like "noise" to me and I'm incapable of understanding your nuanced response. Thanks for that.

I can have the "final" word eh? That's rich.

Per the burden of proof, as I mentioned somewhere in another reply to this thread, the burden should always be on the individual making the claim — not the person opposing it. If your claim is unfalsifiable than it should be dismissed.

The problem with the "New Atheist" label is that it attempts to group together a number of scientists, philosophers, and intellectuals into a single amorphous mass that has a shared, common vision of atheism. It's lazy and it's inaccurate.

There's certainly a difference between aggressively condemning theists who have been minding their own business and criticizing the beliefs of those who insist on actively referencing them.

If Hitchens and Dawkins aren't your cup of tea (you could do worse than be associated to those two intellectual titans) than check out AC Grayling, Victor Stenger, or Dan Dennett who may be more up your alley.

How, exactly, are New Atheists "fundamentalists"?