SquiddyCracker
Banned
Ravi so far through morals:
-Demonizing with ambiguous poems
-Acting like a handful of historical correlations show causation
-Quoting half of an answer Dawkins gave it dodge the challenge it gave to you
-Acting like the lack of easy answers means a framework has no answers
-Using the Nazis to say atheism will lead to moral bankruptcy
-Quoting a song that ignores history to act like we recently fell from a lack of evil
The whole time raising his voice through his weakest points to try and make them sound more convincing. Typical charlatan. Moving rapidly from point to point on the note of a question each time to make it seem like no one has ever given answers to those questions.
Now he is moving on to meaning of life and I'm getting bored.
BY THE BEARD OF ZEUS he's defending and praising Mother Teresa. After a story spun to glorify her he quoted the title of Christopher Hitchens' book to call it vulgar (as a representation of atheism on the whole) and said that is all Hitchens had to say... Uh, really? All the pages of that book were blank? You are literally judging a book by its cover? Intellectually bankrupt. This is a sermon.
Edit: He has truly gone off the rails. He was always a fan of drawing emotional conclusions from limited data, but I don't remember him having a habit of falsely characterizing people's positions for a few toss-in strawmen, some to beat up and some to stand next to him as allies. I can only conclude that this is because he feels unable to take on their actual positions. Whatever his reasons, it is insulting to the people he references, those listening to him, and the academic institution who brought him on to say something meaningful.
Sounds awful.