MacDaddy01:


Yawn....commot for road. Let's leave it to those who have evidence.

Lol. Funny chap. Cannot even respond to a single word of many points put forward in the link I gave him. Not a single response to a single point in all the arguments there. His only answer is "Commot for road". I really doubt you will get Anony or Enigma to dignify your queries. Enigma certainly won't. Because of course, this is the worst case of intellectual vacancy and laziness, where you cannot read or rebutt a single word of that which has been given to you, but simply shout "commot for road" as your argument. Did you grow up in a motor park or something?

Paradoxically, you then act surprised when no one takes you seriously.

Enjoy.

If at anytime you decide to get serious, just go over to that link, read the points made there, respond to them, and I will be happy to return and discuss. If you cannot do that, then have a nice evening.

Deep Sight:

Lol. Funny chap. Cannot even respond to a single word of many points put forward in the link I gave him. Not a single response to a single point in all the arguments there. His only answer is "Commot for road". I really doubt you will get Anony or Enigma to dignify your queries. Enigma certainly won't. Because of course, this is the worst case of intellectual vacancy and laziness, where you cannot read or rebutt a single word of that which has been given to you, but simply shout "commot for road" as your argument. Did you grow up in a motor park or something?

Paradoxically, you then act surprised when no one takes you seriously.

Enjoy.

If at anytime you decide to get serious, just go over to that link, read the points made there, respond to them, and I will be happy to return and discuss. If you cannot do that, then have a nice evening.

Yes, yes, I agree. Just park your empty rhetoric to the side, let others talk about Dawkins

MacDaddy01:


Yes, yes, I agree. Just park your empty rhetoric to the side, let others talk about Dawkins

Not a single response to a single point made there. I guess its beyond your capacity. I dont know why I am amazed. SMH.

Well have a nice evening. I hope Anony and Enigma will be kind and indulgent enough to take up your "challenge". I doubt it though.

As for me, I have nothing to say until and unless you read and respond to the points already made in the link I provided.

Make I go chop pasta joor. Later.

Deep Sight:

Not a single response to a single point made there. I guess its beyond your capacity. I dont know why I am amazed. SMH.

Well have a nice evening. I hope Anony and Enigma will be kind indulgent enough to take up your "challenge".

As for me, I have nothing to say until and unless you read and respond to the points already made in the link I provided.

Make I go chop pasta joor. Later.

Pasta la vista

MacDaddy01:

Pasta la vista

Lol

Reyginus: The reason these people will never take you serious. You don't know that the moment you agree to a 'proof' of a particular thing, asking for the its clarification is an illogical question. Because, before you agree it's a proof, it must be clarified. So, you're indirectly saying, 'this clarified statement of proof must be clarified before I accept'. Dumb if you ask me.

When logicboy asked for proof that dawkins was a philosophy dunce, The first thing that came to my mind was: "how does one go about proving to a philosophy dunce that someone else is a philosophy dunce?"

In order to recognize irrationality, one must first know what good rational thought looks like.

If logicboy cannot see the foolishness in Dawkins demanding proof of proof, then I'm afraid it is no use.

MacDaddy01:

bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRd-jlV82BI

You really should have watched the video

Mr_Anony:
When logicboy asked for proof that dawkins was a philosophy dunce, The first thing that came to my mind was: "how does one go about proving to a philosophy dunce that someone else is a philosophy dunce.
In order to recognize irrationality, one must first know what good rational thought looks like.

If logicboy cannot see the foolishness in Dawkins demanding proof of proof, then I'm afraid it is no use.

Another theist using style to avoid providing evidence that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce.

NEXT

Mr_Anony:
You really should have watched the video

1) I posted the video
2) I clearly mentioned that I have watched the video
3) I have watched the video more than once.


But dont let facts get in your way. Notice how you didnt make any point about the video. What about the video?

MacDaddy01:


Yawn....commot for road. Let's leave it to those who have evidence.

MacDaddy01:
Empty rhetoric.

NEXT!

Once again he covers his ears and goes lalalala! Why should anyone bother if all you'll do is brand the argument a name without even engaging it.

MacDaddy01:
Another theist using style to avoid providing evidence that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce.

NEXT

It's not "using style", you really aren't worth the effort. I don't see the sense in wasting words on you if you won't properly engage with the ones already thrown at you.

MacDaddy01:
Notice how you didnt make any point about the video.

Does this sound familiar?

Notice how you didn't and still havent made any point about the link I gave you?

So please don't expect anybody to bother, since you don't bother either.

That would be unfair, would it not - asking people to do what you refuse to do?

Mr_Anony:
When logicboy asked for proof that dawkins was a philosophy dunce, The first thing that came to my mind was: "how does one go about proving to a philosophy dunce that someone else is a philosophy dunce.
In order to recognize irrationality, one must first know what good rational thought looks like.

If logicboy cannot see the foolishness in Dawkins demanding proof of proof, then I'm afraid it is no use.

LOL...touché! Imagine the guy saying with a straight face that believing God created man is a scientific claim chei!

Mr_Anony:


Once again he covers his ears and goes lalalala! Why should anyone bother if all you'll do is brand the argument a name without even engaging it.


It's not "using style", you really aren't worth the effort. I don't see the sense in wasting words on you if you won't properly engage with the ones already thrown at you.

Exactly. I mean, if anyone actually sits down to exhume all Dawkins arguments, takes extensive time to go through them with a fine comb, sets out in painstaking detail the philosophical idiocies contained therein, and exhaustively answers the OP - what would be the use of such time-consuming pain-staking work, when, rather than a point by point rebuttal, the total response will be "Empty Rhetoric. You have been debunked! Next!"

It is just too funny.

Lol.....All of you can pat yourselves on the back but you are all lving in the denial. Not one of you have provided a case here that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce. All you guys have done is pass ad hominems on logicboy and claim that dawkins is a dunce.


Let me remind you guyz of the op

MacDaddy01: This is a challenge to Deepsight, Anony and Enigma to shame the devil and back up their statements. I am an athiest and I know (not believe) Dawkins not to be so. Not only has he made very clear arguments about God and religion but his arguments are sound.

It is of the highest arrogance of theists like these people to claim that Dawkins is a dunce. You might disagree with him but to call a man who has proven himself with his degrees and formal arguments a philosphical dunce is really immoral.

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
-Dawkins basic arguments have yet to be shown to be dunce-like by Anony, Deepsight and Enigma.



[size=14pt]So, in your own words, please back up your statements that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce[/size]

I am so loving this thread!

Not one piece of evidence so far. Oneof my best treads exposing the empty barrels



Bookmarked!



Or maybe Enigma can save the day!

MacDaddy01:

Let me remind you guyz of the op

And let me remind you that I gave you a LINK to a thread where I discussed the matter. You have not responded to any of the points there. . .

You have no idea how pitiable this makes you appear. Refusing to respond and screaming "no evidence!" "commot for road" "debunked!" and the like. It comes across as quite extremely deranged.

For the umpteenth time I ask you to read the LINK and ALL the arguments I wrote there IN MY OWN WORDS.

Rebutt them.

Then we can discuss your rebuttals and even more. I have finished my pasta now. If you will RESPOND to the points made, I have some time to spare.

But if, as usual, you refuse to read and rebutt, and simply say something like "No evidence," or "debunked" or "commot for road" - - - then, really what on Earth do you expect me or anyone else to do?

MacDaddy01: I am so loving this thread!

Not one piece of evidence so far. Oneof my best treads exposing the empty barrels

I am loving it too because it is a thread that exposes your very deep rooted foolishness. It is a thread that should serve as a warning to anyone that it is a waste of time discussing anything with you. It is a thread that proves conclusively that it is more probable that you have poorly cooked noodles between your ears than that you have high quality pasta therein - these two of course, being the only possibilities.

For; you have shown here a refusal to read and respond to a single word of an entire thread you were referred to.

Surely you don't expect anyone to write all over again what he has written before? And even if I did, what would be your response?

"Debunked! Next!"

Who takes such as serious argumentation, son?

Deep Sight:

And let me remind you that I gave you a LINK to a thread where I discussed the matter. You have not responded to any of the points there. . .

You have no idea how pitiable this makes you appear. Refusing to respond and screaming "no evidence!" "commot for road" "debunked!" and the like. It comes across as quite extremely deranged.

For the umpteenth time I ask you to read the LINK and ALL the arguments I wrote there IN MY OWN WORDS.

Rebutt them.

Then we can discuss your rebuttals and even more. I have finished my pasta now. If you will RESPOND to the points made, I have some time to spare.

But if, as usual, you refuse to read and rebutt, and simply say something like "No evidence," or "debunked" or "commot for road" - - - then, really what on Earth do you expect me or anyone else to do?

lolololol....butthurt.

Feel free to make the fresh arguments here. Simple. No excuses. It costs you nothing.

I always present my arguments when asked. I expect the same courtesy. If not, commot for road, empty barrel

MacDaddy01:



lolololol....butthurt.

Feel free to make the fresh arguments here. Simple. No excuses. It costs you nothing.

I always present my arguments when asked. I expect the same courtesy. If not, commot for road, empty barrel

smh....

MacDaddy01:



lolololol....butthurt.

Feel free to make the fresh arguments here. Simple. No excuses. It costs you nothing.

It costs me cutting, quoting, pasting, which is all very tiresome. Now what does it cost you to click on a link?

Just one finger stroke, and you're there.

You would be quite silly to expect me to start writing the same epistle all over again each time someone asks me the same question? So its your expectation that when next someone asks me this, I should write all over again? And so on ad infinitum? Get serious. The logical first step is to show that person what I have written previously. Then you comment on those and why they are bad arguments. And then we take it from there.

If you cannot do that, if you are too lazy to click a simple link, too bad.

I always present my arguments when asked. I expect the same courtesy. If not, commot for road, empty barrel

Lol. You do indeed.

Deep Sight:

It costs me cutting, quoting, pasting, which is all very tiresome. Now what does it cost you to click on a link?

Just one finger stroke, and you're there.

You would be quite silly to expect me to start writing the same epistle all over again each time someone asks me the same question? So its your expectation that when next someone asks me this, I should write all over again? And so on ad infinitum? Get serious. The logical first step is to show that person what I have written previously. Then you comment on those and why they are bad arguments. And then we take it from there.

If you cannot do that, if you are too lazy to click a simple link, too bad.



Lol. You do indeed.

Lol indeed he most certainly does

It is amazing how irrational one man can be.

Mr_Anony:
Lol indeed he most certainly does

It is amazing how irrational one man can be.

You dont realise that I enjoy it the more you guyz comment without addressing the op. Some christian out there is losing faith by seeing your shenanigans. Frankly. keep up the Anonyism

Deep Sight:

It costs me cutting, quoting, pasting, which is all very tiresome. Now what does it cost you to click on a link?

Just one finger stroke, and you're there.

You would be quite silly to expect me to start writing the same epistle all over again each time someone asks me the same question? So its your expectation that when next someone asks me this, I should write all over again? And so on ad infinitum? Get serious. The logical first step is to show that person what I have written previously. Then you comment on those and why they are bad arguments. And then we take it from there.

If you cannot do that, if you are too lazy to click a simple link, too bad.



Lol. You do indeed.

Yawn. the barrel is empty.

Simple rules one can not follow;

MacDaddy01:
So, in your own words, please back up your statements that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce

MacDaddy01:


You dont realise that I enjoy it the more you guyz comment without addressing the op. Some christian out there is losing faith by seeing your shenanigans. Frankly. keep up the Anonyism

Lol. Your question has been addressed: and exhaustively so. If you can't click a link and address the arguments, that's your bad son.

This thread will be a great reference point for future nairalanders. I will be happy to refer them here to see how discussions are held, RER style.

Sad, I actually had the time for a discussion.

MacDaddy01:





Yawn. the barrel is empty.

Simple rules one can not follow;

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ! ! !

Enjoy! I have wasted enuf time. Whenever you read the arguments I gave you and respond to them, i will come and play ten-ten with you, ok?

Deep Sight:

Lol. Your question has been addressed: and exhaustively so. If you can't click a link and address the arguments, that your bad son.

This thread will be a great reference point for new future nairalanders. I will be happy to refer them here to see how discussions are held, RER style.

Sad, I actually had the time for a discussion.

lol....keep decieving yourself.


Not one of you made an argument here. At least Jesoul tried.




#empty barrels exposed

MacDaddy01:


You dont realise that I enjoy it the more you guyz comment without addressing the op. Some christian out there is losing faith by seeing your shenanigans. Frankly. keep up the Anonyism

In a weird way, we also enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself. Even more hilarious and pitiful is how you are so oblivious of it.

You asked for an argument, DeepSight, Reyginus and JeSoul have given you what you asked for. Rather than respond to them you've stuck your fingers in your ears and sang lalalala like loyal dawkins sheep.

When you start giving serious responses to the arguments presented to you, then perhaps I'll give you the benefit of dialogue. For now you haven't earned that right.

And no, labelling people and labelling arguments with phrases like "anonyism", "empty barrel" and "empty rhetoric" do not count as valid responses.

Macdaddy01:You dont realise that I enjoy it the more you guyz comment without addressing the op. Some christian out there is losing faith by seeing your shenanigans. Frankly. keep up the Anonyism


No christian is loosing faith anywhere cos we're watching from the back seat and can see clearly the hypocrisy u portray.I'm certaian u've read the link from DeepSight but you know clearly his arguements beat u completely.Didn't u click n read/watch all u learned about Dawkins or he copied and pasted them on ur doorstep.Face it they beat u without even trying & as for me I go back to the back seat & keep watching with the rest irrespecting of what ur next rantings will be.

Neddivine: Macdaddy01:You dont realise that I enjoy it the more you guyz comment without addressing the op. Some christian out there is losing faith by seeing your shenanigans. Frankly. keep up the Anonyism


No christian is loosing faith anywhere cos we're watching from the back seat and can see clearly the hypocrisy u portray.I'm certaian u've read the link from DeepSight but you know clearly his arguements beat u completely.Didn't u click n read/watch all u learned about Dawkins or he copied and pasted them on ur doorstep.Face it they beat u without even trying & as for me I go back to the back seat & keep watching with the rest irrespecting of what ur next rantings will be.

Yawn. You people keep making claims. Feel free to explain how Deepsight's argument beat the op. Very simple taks in which £1,000 says you will fail.

Mr_Anony:
In a weird way, we also enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself. Even more hilarious and pitiful is how you are so oblivious of it.

You asked for an argument, DeepSight, Reyginus and JeSoul have given you what you asked for. Rather than respond to them you've stuck your fingers in your ears and sang lalalala like loyal dawkins sheep.

When you start giving serious responses to the arguments presented to you, then perhaps I'll give you the benefit of dialogue. For now you haven't earned that right.

And no, labelling people and labelling arguments with phrases like "anonyism", "empty barrel" and "empty rhetoric" do not count as valid responses.

Yawn.


Simple question; so Jesoul's and Reginius's comments clearly prove that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce? You wanna play that card?


mtchew



Empty barrels.


Keep up the good work, more and more christians can see the frauds that you guys are. Simple request and all of you are using escape tactics

^^^ I am still cringing at this level of stoopidity. I never thought it humanly possible. Anyways, enuff said. Sleep well.

Deep Sight:
^^^ I am still cringing at this level of stoopidity. I never thought it humanly possible. Anyways, enuff said. Sleep well.

#Butthurt DeepSight