Mr_Anony:
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.

^^^ Especially when your criticism runs something along the lines of claiming that their script writers do not exist since you can see everything needed for the stage scenes already on set.

MacDaddy01:

Is that how Dawkins phrased it?

Can you post a link or something?

Empty Rhetoric. Logicboyism.

You have been debunked.

Next!

Mr_Anony:
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.

But there you lie again. How can you claim that Dawkins has little or no knowledge of theology or philosophy?


Simple reasoning that escapes you
Arguments on Dawkins side
-Every sicentific research paper or thesis begins with philosophy- a hypothesis and then, the evidence supporting or rebutting the hypothesis
-Every scientific research paper or thesis engages in some form of philosophical approach; positivism or empiricism etc
-Dawkins has engaged in formal debates unlike Deepsight, Anony and Enigma


As for theology, Dawkins was a christian. And he clearly knows the chritian faith enough to get christians to leave it. Have you ever thought about that? Have you ever converted one into christianity?


Furthermore, the catholics believe that one should honour(and ask her to intercede in prayers mary as she is the mother of god and they are also trinitarians, a foolish theology for many christians.

There is no right or wrong in theology.

Deep Sight:

Empty Rhetoric. Logicboyism.

You have been debunked.

Next!

Fail

Mr_Anony:
Thanks

You're welcome.

Deep Sight:

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

I didn't miss it. Those nations are secular nations.

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.

Neither Dawkins nor other atheists say this so it is looking like a strawman argument.

MacDaddy01:

Is that how Dawkins phrased it?

Can you post a link or something?

How does that differ from explaining how life and the universe change over time while rejecting an ultimate origin

thehomer:

Neither Dawkins nor other atheists say this so it is looking like a strawman argument.

How does that differ from explaining how life and the universe work and change over time while rejecting an ultimate origin/cause?

Mr_Anony:
How does that differ from explaining how life and the universe change over time while rejecting an ultimate origin

Yawn, you clearly know that Deepsight lied.


You must be joking. Your statement is one of the most meaningless BS that I have ever read? Ultimate origin? Is that a scientific term?

Rejecting your nonsense that some Yahweh created the universe is not a bad theology rather a sensible approach to ridding science of religious encroachment into science.

Stop reading comic. "ultimate origins" my azz

Mr_Anony:
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 have respect for philosophy but not theology because theology is a non-field.

Mr_Anony:
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.

You can be bad at theater arts, political science and military strategy because there are right and wrong answers to many of the questions they raise. Although theater arts is more about self expression.

But how can you be bad at theology?

thehomer:

I have respect for philosophy but not theology because theology is a non-field.



You can be bad at theater arts, political science and military strategy because there are right and wrong answers to many of the questions they raise. Although theater arts is more about self expression.

But how can you be bad at theology?

For the exact same reasons

Mr_Anony:
For the exact same reasons

#empty barrel

Mr_Anony:
How does that differ from explaining how life and the universe work and change over time while rejecting an ultimate origin/cause?

The ultimate origin as far as we know is explained by the big bang theory. I still don't see how theology actually answers it other than by a mere assertion that some God did it. And there's no consensus on the God that did it.

thehomer:

Neither Dawkins nor other atheists say this so it is looking like a strawman argument.

On the contrary this is exactly what Dawkins says. Exactly to a tee. Nothing more and nothing less.

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.

I have no problem with looking like a child, silly you. Also, other than toying with you, what makes you think I care about what you in particular think? World is centered around me anonysm. And where did I throw out an insult? That's some more stoopid right there.

SNCOQ3:

I fear that those who deny the Lord Jesus for 'logic' may end up bowing down to the 'Counterfeit-Jesus'. Atheism will give way for magic, mysticism, spiritism when he who restrains is taken out of the way ....Atheism is just a diabolic means to a diabolic end.

me: well, it is xtianity that stands between anything goes of world domination intention of the atheist and their satanic supporter and right to worship God.

Really? What can we do to stop this??!

A silly post deserves as silly riposte, no? And y'all flocked together, 3 stoogies style, around some (as usual) silly arguments. Therefore I used xtian, not just sn00, as it seems you all believe in this bit of nonsense. See?

By the way, the whole world domination quote is from a memorable sweetnecta post. It's good, no?

Deep Sight:

On the contrary this is exactly what Dawkins says. Exactly to a tee. Nothing more and nothing less.

Feel free to provide a link or back your claims on Dawkins making such a statement.


Shouldnt be hard if you are telling the truth? Or DeepSight going to abuse/ignore Macdaddy?

Mr_Anony:
For the exact same reasons

What exact same reason are you talking about?

Deep Sight:

On the contrary this is exactly what Dawkins says. Exactly to a tee. Nothing more and nothing less.

Where did he say this?

thehomer:

The ultimate origin as far as we know is explained by the big bang theory.

Thou wicked and slothful servant, I gave thee a talent, and knowing me to be a hard master, thou did nothing with the talent that I gave thee. How is it that after our discussions on the big b.ang and time, you could still say this?

And there's no consensus on the God that did it.

I see you are indulging in self deceit here. I know you are surely more intelligent than this, or has logicboy or Idehn hacked into your account? Are you looking for Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, Brahman, Krishna, Olodumare, Chineke, Zeus, or other such names in a cosmological discussion about the origin of the universe? If you wish to stall the discussion at that, then you cannot be taken any more seriously than the religionist you condemn.

Mr_Anony:
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. . . . .

And of course, proper and sound scientists and intellectually honest people generally all have respect for theology.

I have used the example below in the past and it is again appropriate here. It was a statement by Lord Rees, then Britain's "official" number one scientist --- in the wake of statements attributed to even Stephen Hawking (who commands greater respect as a scientist than the theological dunce Dawkins).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/martin-rees-we-shouldnt-attach-any-weight-to-what-hawking-says-about-god-2090421.html

He {Lord Rees} is equally scathing about Hawking's more recent comments about there being no need for God in order to explain creation. "Stephen Hawking is a remarkable person whom I've known for 40 years and for that reason any oracular statement he makes gets exaggerated publicity. I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read very little philosophy and even less theology, so I don't think we should attach any weight to his views on this topic," he said.

And on the false dichotomy between Science and Religion, he observes further:

"I would support peaceful co-existence between religion and science because they concern different domains," Lord Rees said. "Anyone who takes theology seriously knows that it's not a matter of using it to explain things that scientists are mystified by."

thehomer:

Where did he say this?

This is what he has said in all his works. Particularly in his article, The Improbability of God.

Deep Sight:

Thou wicked and slothful servant, I gave thee a talent, and knowing me to be a hard master, thou did nothing with the talent that I gave thee. How is it that after our discussions on the big b.ang and time, you could still say this?

So far you haven't given me a good reason to say or think otherwise.

Deep Sight:
I see you are indulging in self deceit here. I know you are surely more intelligent than this, or has logicboy or Idehn hacked into your account? Are you looking for Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, Brahman, Krishna, Olodumare, Chineke, Zeus, or other such names in a cosmological discussion about the origin of the universe? If you wish to stall the discussion at that, then you cannot be taken any more seriously than the religionist you condemn.

The fact that you're a deist doesn't mean that others share that view with you. The gods you named have been asserted theologically to be reasons for the origin of the universe whether you agree or not. And that indicates one of the huge failings of theology. If you have something to add, I'm willing to hear it.

Deep Sight:

This is what he has said in all his works. Particularly in his article, The Improbability of God.

Do you have a quote? You seemed to indicate that you had a quote.

thehomer:

Where did he say this?

This is what he has said in all his works and debates and speeches and also in his article, The Improbability of God.

Small by small, we are seeing that these theists have no backing or evidence for the attacks and harsh claims they make of Dawkins.

This is good.

-philosophical dunce (yet not one example of an illogical argument from Dawkins)
-theological dunce (when there is no right or wrong in theology)
-Dawkins made a comment (which Deepsight can not point to or prove with a link)





Good times

thehomer:

So far you haven't given me a good reason to say or think otherwise.

Of course I have. I summarized your wild and excitable contradictions on the matter for the sake of posterity before leaving that thread. So you can go back and read them, I will not waste my energy restating them here. Or re arguing them.

The fact that you're a deist doesn't mean that others share that view with you. The gods you named have been asserted theologically to be reasons for the origin of the universe whether you agree or not. And that indicates one of the huge failings of theology. If you have something to add, I'm willing to hear it.

You see, this reminds me of a certain respected poster here years ago who had the habit of making me explain everything at least ten times before he would grasp it. I have already explained to you previously that as far as theistic - atheistic discourses on the existence of God go, the common denominator is that God is said to be an eternal being that caused the universe to come into existence. Not one theistic position or rendition of God holds otherwise. As such, stalling the discussion by pandering to the details of Islamic or Christian or other further notions about the nature of the said deity is at best pedantic, on the average, pathetic, and at worst intellectually dubious.

The question, as far as these discussions are concerned, is whether an eternal being caused the universe. Period.

You cannot seriously canvass as a point, disputes on whether that being prefers amala to pounded yam.

MacDaddy01:
But there you lie again. How can you claim that Dawkins has little or no knowledge of theology or philosophy?

Of course every disagreement with your master just has to be a lie....

Simple reasoning that escapes you
Arguments on Dawkins side
-Every sicentific research paper or thesis begins with philosophy- a hypothesis and then, the evidence supporting or rebutting the hypothesis

Yeah and every bookmakers ledger starts with numbers therefore book makers are expert mathematicians

-Every scientific research paper or thesis engages in some form of philosophical approach; positivism or empiricism etc

An every bookmaker's ledger engages in some form of addition, subtraction and multiplication of gambling odds

-Dawkins has engaged in formal debates unlike Deepsight, Anony and Enigma

Singing on a stage doesn't make you a vocalist, it is the quality of your voice that counts. In the same way, Arguing with people on a raised platform doesn't make you smart, it is the quality of your argument that counts.

As for theology, Dawkins was a christian. And he clearly knows the chritian faith enough to get christians to leave it. Have you ever thought about that? Have you ever converted one into christianity?

Yeah and I acted drama in primary school...therefore I must be a theatre arts genius. I also correctly predicted who will be voted class captain in secondary school. I must be a political analyst

Furthermore, the catholics believe that one should honour(and ask her to intercede in prayers mary as she is the mother of god and they are also trinitarians, a foolish theology for many christians.

There is no right or wrong in theology.

Lawyers argue all day in law courts concerning the same constitution, There is therefore no right or wrong law.

MacDaddy01: Small by small, we are seeing that these theists have no backing or evidence for the attacks and harsh claims they make of Dawkins.

This is good.

-philosophical dunce (yet not one example of an illogical argument from Dawkins)
-theological dunce (when there is no right or wrong in theology)
-Dawkins made a comment (which Deepsight can not point to or prove with a link)





Good times

Not one example? Lol, you are a disgrace to your education. I gave loads of examples, but obviously your fingers froze over the link as some ancient congenital epilepsy must have seized you when you tried to click the link.

If you can keep saying this, despite the presence of that link on that thread, I am sorry, but you are a stark raving frothing lunatic.

As to photosynthesis and growing babies; yes: this is exactly what Dawkins contends in all his works. Exactly. Not a dime of a difference. Spot on.

Deep Sight:

This is what he has said in all his works and debates and speeches and also in his article, The Improbability of God.

I don't think that is what he said. Just scan through the article you named here and tell me how you arrived at that conclusion from reading it.

Deep Sight:

You see, this reminds me of a certain respected poster here years ago who had the habit of making me explain everything at least ten times before he would grasp it. I have already explained to you previously that as far as theistic - atheistic discourses on the existence of God go, the common denominator is that God is said to be an eternal being that caused the universe to come into existence. Not one theistic position or rendition of God holds otherwise. As such, stalling the discussion by pandering to the details of Islamic or Christian or other further notions about the nature of the said deity is at best pedantic, on the average, pathetic, and at worst intellectually dubious.

The question, as far as thee discussions are concerned, is whether and eternal being caused the universe. Period.

You cannot seriously canvass as a point, disputes on whether that being prefers amala to pounded yam.

Exactly!

thehomer:

I don't think that is what he said. Just scan through the article you named here and tell me how you arrived at that conclusion from reading it.

Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou playful minion of thy master, thou proddest thy master into teaching thee what thou ought to know?

Thy master is patient, benevolent indeed.

Now, lesson 1 - Answer thy master this -

1. What is the common denominator between (a) evolution (b) the growth of a plant (c) the growth of a child?

2. Which of these three processes explains the origin of living things?

3. Does Dawkins not argue, that on account of the process of evolution, "God just isn't necessary"?

When you are done with this lesson I shall take you to lesson 2 on Physics vs Biology.

Run along now little Peter, will you, and catch the school bus. Don't forget your sandwiches.