And he delivered it in A minor. 

Yikes.

Is this a serious question?

While it’s true that the earliest cave paintings were about hunting, religion was the primary subject of art for the next tens of thousands of years. The desire to interact with or glorify the divine (regardless of whether that is misguided from a philosophical POV) was the motivation for exploring pretty much every…

I’m not suggesting that science isn’t part of architecture; merely that religion drove people to push the limits beyond just basic needs to see what could really be done. For art, even putting aside the commissioning of art, the biggest subject of human art since the dawn of time has been religion. I don’t think that…

I think your first statement absolutely applies to most, and certainly most traditional, atheists. But not the edgy sophomore type that makes the rest of us look bad, talking shit about “sky daddy” and so forth and imagining that that super accessible belief is a mark of genius. I get that a lot of that is a reaction…

I think you are massively exaggerating the collusion required to be at the same banquet.

100% It’s always focused on white evangelism.  So many of the “arguments” you see could double as arguments for why all literature is bad.” I think those two supposedly antithetical groups have so much in common: an inability to understand figurative language.

You seem shaky as fuck on what Christians believe, how evolution works, and how to make nouns plural in English.

What are you even on about? Where do politics come into any of this? Where did I talk about anyone’s identity? How the fuck do those last two sentences work together (critiquing something you mostly agree with is the fucking absolute of viewing everything in black and white)? But did I even do that?

What blow job?

Why?

Adults probably know that taking ANY position on something that is not falsifiable is not scientific; it’s a religious position. From the POV of actual science, theism and atheism are equally valid, which is to say, neither is scientific. Agnosticism is the scientific approach to things that are outside the realm of…

Besides, “cowardly” was Dawkins not even attempting to respond to Gould’s NOMA take until years after he died, because he knew that Gould would eviscerate the bogus arguments in the God Delusion.

I didn’t say anything was. I was replying on this thread, which was citing fucking Richard Dawkins in an argument that there is no “edgelord” angle to contemporary atheism.

It’s not cowardly to recognize that these are non-overlapping magisteria.

There’s a huge gulf separating your standard “I don’t believe in God” atheist from your obnoxious “me not believing in God marks me as an super being with intelligence far beyond anyone religious, ever.”

Two fucking months later?

I agree.  It gets points for a much better team lineup as well. But other than that shortlived show, “best X-Men adaptation is a pretty low bar to cross.

I have to give it to you, this absurd troll character you’ve created is at least fairly original.