Talk:Essay: New Atheist Kyle Kulinski defeated

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Richard Dawkins
The Oxford University Professor Daniel Came wrote to the New Atheist Richard Dawkins:: "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."[1]

Kulinski admires Richard Dawkins because he admires cowards and cowardice! Kulinski predictably ran away from Conservapedia's atheism vs. Christianity debate offer.

Don't you think it would be better to let a 3rd party judge the result? Judging yourself is hardly unbiased. He took on all your points and answered them albeit in an uncouth manner, in fact he spent the best part of half an hour doing so and you come back with the exact same points you posted in your first debate essay. It is only a matter of time before he finds out about the $20000 fiasco and he will tear you to shreds about it forcing you to delete and over-site both essays in their entirety. You have proven you have a knowledgeable and at times insightful brain but I suggest you think before engaging it's gears.--ColeP (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2015 (EDT)

ColeP, Kulinski addressed all the points and answered them? There must be a reason why you are being so vague about your claim? What is it? Was Kulinski's latest video rebutted in this essay? If not, why?
Do you deny that Kyle Kulinski refused our atheism vs. Christianity debate offer? Are you denying that Kyle Kulinski admires Richard Dawkins - a known coward? Conservative (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2015 (EDT)
I do not have time to do an in-depth critique right now but I will come back to you on that later, If I am not blocked in the meantime. The point you just made about Dawkins, that is called ad hominem, it has nothing to do with the argument. I can engage in ad hominem also. Do you admire Vox Day, a known racist and misogynist?--ColeP (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2015 (EDT)
By blocking me you admitted defeat. How do you answer his accusation of you being and anti atheist bigot?.--Cole1 (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2015 (EDT)

ColeP/Cole1, I looked at the recent changes log and see no evidence of you being blocked by me. You were blocked by someone else for violating the 90/10 editing rule which is a reasonable rule.

Second, recently I assisted an atheist/agnostic woman unexpectedly and without prompting (she said she is an atheist, but admitted she is merely an agnostic. See Weak atheism and Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism) and she was so delighted she gave a free gift to someone I know upon my request. Does that sound like an act committed by an anti-atheist bigot? In addition, multiple people have edited using the User: Conservative account. So why do you use the word "you"?

Third, Vox Day is a mixed race person of white, native American and Mexican descent. In addition, atheists/agnosticis/evolutionists have caused more racism than Vox Day ever will. See: Evolutionary racism. I do not admire him, but I do quote him about atheism because unlike many atheists, I do not engage in the genetic fallacy. Why are so many atheists illogical? See: Atheism and logical fallacies. At the same time, I do think his work The Irrational Atheist is a well-researched book and informative and I am not alone in this matter.See: Review of Irrational Atheist by Vox Day and "Day does us all a service by exposing as false some of the glib slogans of atheism." - Todd Seavey, American Council on Science and Health.[2]. Conservative (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2015 (EDT)

ColeP, I looked at your block and saw that you did not technically break the 90/10 editing rule so I reversed the block. In 10 minutes, the unblock will take effect. Conservative (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2015 (EDT)