>>40
if that is so, why are you not answering in substance, chump? you see invectives and the logic automatically becomes bunk? sorry, but your answer is not devastating or even correct, you're just contesting hard logic plus vitriolic tone with hollow rhetoric and a straw man. also, I would like to point to
>>39 and then have you explain me how the accusations of dawkins being an "extremist" are correct. someone does not become an extremist just by talking
passionately about their
ideals, but it's very convenient for theists to use that
ad hominem argument against dawkins logic instead of addressing the points he makes.
also, I think you meant bible "thumpers" not "bashers".