davidylan:
you mean they havent told us this yet? Perhaps they dont know?

Don't mind them....they remind me of Vladmir Lenin's Useful Idiots - fanatically dedicated to proselytizing an ideology they have absolutely no understanding of.

Mr_Anony:
Don't mind them....they remind me of Vladmir Lenin's Useful Idiots - dedicated proselytizing an ideology they have absolutely no understanding of.

Well that more than sums up what it looks like watching these folks babble on about "science". Including those who barely scored a C4 in WAEC chemistry

Another person who knows a thing or two about philosophy comments on Dawkins' ability below even while commending Dawkins' general literary skills.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/12/3475939.htm

Per Alvin Plantinga

Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer; he is also an extremely gifted writer. (For example, his account of bats and their ways in his earlier book The Blind Watchmaker is a brilliant and fascinating tour de force.) The God Delusion, however, contains little science. It is mainly philosophy, theology and evolutionary psychology, along with a substantial dash of social commentary decrying religion and its allegedly baneful effects.

But despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy (Dawkins is not a philosopher, but a biologist), much of the philosophy he purveys is remarkably jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best undergraduate, but that would be unfair to undergraduates. The fact is many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a basic philosophy class.

Mr_Anony:
Not at all. You just blabbed some unintelligible garb I that I don't understand. That's all really.

You didn't have a question, then why the question marks?

Kill the messenger when his message becomes too hot to handle.

It amazes me how christians on this thread didn't bother to watch the debate and comment on the points made in the debate. They will rather attack the person of Richard Dawkins needlessly.

What is even more amazing is those who has never published any peer reviewed scientific journal or contributed anything to science or human knowledge can call a world-renowned and world - celebrated scientist a dunce, just because his statements disagreed with their religious beliefs.

Face it, guys, dogmatic faith is dying already, scientific knowledge is advancing and religion is on its way out. There is so much religion can do to suppress scientific evidences and truths that debunks dogmatic and superstitious religious beliefs

Our great grandchildren will read threads like this and laugh at how their fore fathers used to believe the superstitious stories of the Bible and the Quran

Mr_Anony:
Mtchew telling lies again? Why don't you scroll up to post 14 and see the exact comment you facepalmed.




Also, Enigma is justified in calling Dawkins a dunce as far as theology and philosophy are concerned. You didn't dispute that. All you did was pander to his biology credentials - which by the way we all applaud - but that as fantastic as it may be does nothing to change the fact that Dawkins is a dunce in respect to philosophy and theology.

P/s: When you shoot off your response as you are wont to do, don't forget to tell us exactly what major contributions your hero Dawkins has made to science.

You christians are the ones that make other christians turn into atheists with your lies and Anonyism.

1)My post came before Enigma's post. He was replying to my comment that I said that Enigma hasnt contributed the way Dawkings has contributed to science. So when you try and claim I huld look at post 14, look at the original post 12 and see the strawman you and Enigma are trying to play. I notice how you guys added "major" when it was not in my original comment.

I clearly said that Dawkins has contributed to science in the way he has championed the teaching of evolution. By the way, every Phd or Masters thesis is a contribution to the field of the degree. Guess you smartazzes didnt know that.


2) Please define "philosophical dunce".
a) Every man is his own philosopher. I would like to know how hard philsophy is.
b) I want to know how many formal debates you have been in to criticize Dawkins philosphy
c) I also want to know why you people (Enigma and coP) have not yet put forward one philosophically wrong argument of Dawkins

Someone or other said Christians on this board have not watched the video or are not tackling Dawkins' argument. RUBBISH.

As I said before Dawkins' are the same juvenile nonsense and idiotic rants that the dunce's lapdogs repeat here ad nauseam. Who's going to waste his time with that.

Dawkins is a theological and philosophical dunce. End of.

Enigma: Another person who knows a thing or two about philosophy comments on Dawkins' ability below even while commending Dawkins' general literary skills.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/12/3475939.htm

Per Alvin Plantinga

You and Alvin Platinga are liars.

I read the article and it does nothing to rebutt Dawkins philosophy. All it does is complain and give already rebutted answers to the problem of evil and the intelligent design problems

I am yet to see one christian explain the problem of evil and the problem of intelligent design

Your Platinga's argument against the problem of evil is that "God is Complex". Sorry, that is a foolish and lazy argument. If God is all just and good, he cant not have negative qualities and allow people suffer unjustly as we see here on earth and also then send them to hell/destroiy them etc.

As for the second argument on intelligent design, he acknowledged that Dakings argument was right but still proceeded to fill in a God of the gaps and invoking the divine




Please, state what is wrong with Dawkins philosophy before you call him philosophical dunce

Enigma: Someone or other said Christians on this board have not watched the video or are not tackling Dawkins' argument. RUBBISH.

As I said before Dawkins' are the same juvenile nonsense and idiotic rants that the dunce's lapdogs repeat here ad nauseam. Who's going to waste his time with that.

Dawkins is a theological and philosophical dunce. End of.

Again, put the problem with Dawkins argument and show how his philosophy is dunce-like.


#christians making claims that they cant back up

Enigma ran away?


Enigma and Anony, where is your evidence of Dawkins dunce-like philosophy? Where is his dunce-like argument?

cyrexx:
Our great grandchildren will read threads like this and laugh at how their fore fathers used to believe the superstitious stories of the Bible and the Quran

One million 'Likes'

tchaik:

One million 'Likes'

2 billion likes

cyrexx: Kill the messenger when his message becomes too hot to handle.

It amazes me how christians on this thread didn't bother to watch the debate and comment on the points made in the debate. They will rather attack the person of Richard Dawkins needlessly.

What is even more amazing is those who has never published any peer reviewed scientific journal or contributed anything to science or human knowledge can call a world-renowned and world - celebrated scientist a dunce, just because his statements disagreed with their religious beliefs.

Face it, guys, dogmatic faith is dying already, scientific knowledge is advancing and religion is on its way out. There is so much religion can do to suppress scientific evidences and truths that debunks dogmatic and superstitious religious beliefs

Our great grandchildren will read threads like this and laugh at how their fore fathers used to believe the superstitious stories of the Bible and the Quran

Funny enough I did watch the debate and not only was Dawkins the weakest on his team, he didn't even tackle the argument at all, he just argued a tangent and expected cambridge students to applaud him. I would challenge you to point at one argument that your Dawkins made that was relevant to the topic. None whatsoever.

wiegraf:

You didn't have a question, then why the question marks?

Because I felt like it

MacDaddy01:



You and Alvin Platinga are liars.

I read the article and it does nothing to rebutt Dawkins philosophy. All it does is complain and give already rebutted answers to the problem of evil and the intelligent design problems

I am yet to see one christian explain the problem of evil and the problem of intelligent design

Your Platinga's argument against the problem of evil is that "God is Complex". Sorry, that is a foolish and lazy argument. If God is all just and good, he cant not have negative qualities and allow people suffer unjustly as we see here on earth and also then send them to hell/destroiy them etc.

As for the second argument on intelligent design, he acknowledged that Dakings argument was right but still proceeded to fill in a God of the gaps and invoking the divine




Please, state what is wrong with Dawkins philosophy before you call him philosophical dunce

It is comments like this that reassure me of your irrationality. What is the point in showing you anything when all you'll do is cover your eyes and ears, stamp your feet and shout "lalalala".

You still haven't us these contributions to science that your master Dawkins has made.

Mr_Anony:
It is comments like this that reassure me of your irrationality. What is the point in showing you anything when all you'll do is cover your eyes and ears, stamp your feet and shout "lalalala".

You still haven't us these contributions to science that your master Dawkins has made.

You made a claim, back it up. Dawkins is a philosophical dunce? Show his poor philosophy then?

MacDaddy01:


You christians are the ones that make other christians turn into atheists with your lies and Anonyism.

1)My post came before Enigma's post. He was replying to my comment that I said that Enigma hasnt contributed the way Dawkings has contributed to science. So when you try and claim I huld look at post 14, look at the original post 12 and see the strawman you and Enigma are trying to play. I notice how you guys added "major" when it was not in my original comment.

I clearly said that Dawkins has contributed to science in the way he has championed the teaching of evolution. By the way, every Phd or Masters thesis is a contribution to the field of the degree. Guess you smartazzes didnt know that.


2) Please define "philosophical dunce".
a) Every man is his own philosopher. I would like to know how hard philsophy is.
b) I want to know how many formal debates you have been in to criticize Dawkins philosphy
c) I also want to know why you people (Enigma and coP) have not yet put forward one philosophically wrong argument of Dawkins

Mr_Anony:
Funny enough I did watch the debate and not only was Dawkins the weakest on his team, he didn't even tackle the argument at all, he just argued a tangent and expected cambridge students to applaud him. I would challenge you to point at one argument that your Dawkins made that was relevant to the topic. None whatsoever.

The highlight of Dawkins' presentation was his "joke" making an oblique reference to a pen.is (although the reference may not be obvious to non-UK English speakers).

Yawn

To Enigma and Anony;
https://www.nairaland.com/1194709/anony-enigma-deepsight-prove-dawkins

Mr_Anony:
Because I felt like it

Ah, I see. That's silly though. You're not one that enjoys being perceived as silly I believe, no?

wiegraf:

Ah, I see. That's silly though. You're not one that enjoys being perceived as silly I believe, no?

Are you saying that to feel like putting in question marks right after someone types some unintelligible garb is silly? lol how so? ....go and sleep. Right now you look like a child throwing a petty insult and watching for a reaction.

Mr_Anony:
Are you saying that to feel like putting in question marks right after someone types some unintelligible garb is silly? lol how so? ....go and sleep. Right now you look like a child throwing a petty insult and watching for a reaction.

Anony the mature guy. Every adversary is childish to him.

MacDaddy01:

Anony the mature guy. Every adversary is childish to him.

Logicboy the immature guy. Childish to every adversary

O my word. How I long for the return on those atheists on this forum who actually used to think. We are now saddled with a gang of nursery school toddlers who cannot even understand where the milk they need is.

Mr_Anony:
Amidst all the "facepalming", it didn't escape my notice how they couldn't mention a major scientific contribution by Dawkins

There's a selection of his works here.

davidylan:

Perhaps you should take your own advice. Western nations like the UK and the US are still predominantly christian nations.

Several points to be made here. Many other western nations aren't predominantly Christian nations other than their citizens being culturally Christian. In fact, the U.K and the U.S aren't christian nations unless your only criteria for determining what makes a nation Christian is the number of people who self profess to belong to a certain religion.

thehomer:

There's a selection of his works here.

Thanks

Mr_Anony:
Mtchew telling lies again? Why don't you scroll up to post 14 and see the exact comment you facepalmed.




Also, Enigma is justified in calling Dawkins a dunce as far as theology and philosophy are concerned. You didn't dispute that. All you did was pander to his biology credentials - which by the way we all applaud - but that as fantastic as it may be does nothing to change the fact that Dawkins is a dunce in respect to philosophy and theology.

P/s: When you shoot off your response as you are wont to do, don't forget to tell us exactly what major contributions your hero Dawkins has made to science.

What exactly makes someone a "dunce" in philosophy? And what is theology? I know some think that theology is a serious field of study but frankly many people don't think that it is because there are simply no right answers.

You can see my previous post about a selection of Dawkins' works.

thehomer:

Several points to be made here. Many other western nations aren't predominantly Christian nations other than their citizens being culturally Christian. In fact, the U.K and the U.S aren't christian nations unless your only criteria for determining what makes a nation Christian is the number of people who self profess to belong to a certain religion.

^^^ How did you miss the word "predominantly"?

thehomer:

What exactly makes someone a "dunce" in philosophy?

Explaining photosynthesis and thereby concluding that Trees are self existent. Or explaining how nutrition helps babies grow and thereby concluding that they weren't born.

That's what makes someone a philosophical dunce.

thehomer:

What exactly makes someone a "dunce" in philosophy? And what is theology? I know some think that theology is a serious field of study but frankly many people don't think that it is because there are simply no right answers.

You can see my previous post about a selection of Dawkins' works.

The fact that you personally have no respect for theology and philosophy doesn't make it therefore impossible for someone to be bad at it.

I might have little or no respect for fields like theater arts, political science or military strategy but that wouldn't mean that one can't possibly be bad at it. I would also say that one will be justified in calling me a theater arts dunce if I jumped into the field and started criticizing their work with little or no knowledge of the basis of it.

Deep Sight:

Explaining photosynthesis and thereby concluding that Trees are self existent. Or explaining how nutrition helps babies grow and thereby concluding that they weren't born.

That's what makes someone a philosophical dunce.

Is that how Dawkins phrased it?

Can you post a link or something?