₦airaland Forum

toba: u dont know about the two xters more than i do. Deols is not as 'passionate' as tunji

Same difference. It would be like arguing the better of cancer or AIDs....both are bad news


or like

Hitler and Stalin
Vampire and werewolf

thehomer: Actually, the philosophical issues aren't as useless as you think neither are they simply about esoteric things. In fact, the consideration of morality can be and is often done philosophically.



And what makes you think that I haven't spoken about morality and pushing for a secular nation?

I only see you with the real elitist douchebag called DeepSight. Debating about time and numbers and some imaginary shyt like that.

Thats why i assumed that you werent into the social issues.

SimonAndal: Well then research! I've been having a shitty day, and really need someone to blow my trumpet.

I see what you did there, pervert!

toba: seun is very smart. He gave a further explanation as to why the caption was made.

If i were a muslim, i would really feel bad about my religion

lol....Did you notice how vedaxcool failed to quote the sweetest part?

Seun: There is no Christian and Atheist forum. We believe Christians and atheists can debate themselves without resorting to violence.

https://www.nairaland.com/1195331/avoid-being-banned-please-ensure#14308179

thehomer: And what type of atheist do you think I am? And how did you arrive at that conclusion? You speak as if addressing the philosophical issues should be less important than addressing the social issues. What you need to realize is that they're all important but from my point of view, addressing those philosophical issues are more likely to reach the person than the social ones because religions are very different and their practitioners are also very different.

How exactly does a non-elitist douchebag address religion and its adherents? Do they all do it the way you do?

What sort of condemnation do you want to see? People defacing churches or their billboards?



I don't see what bearing this example you've presented with Hitler has to do with anything since you already agree that I address religion in my own way while you're trying to castigate people who according to you, didn't do the right thing and just ran away.

I don't really care whether or not you change your views about me since these are just words written by faceless people online.

Good.


My point is that the philosophical issues are the most intelligent because you need deep thinking but they are also useless to practical life and reality. The paradox of omnipotence is not going to save the child that is accused of witchraft in some fundamentalist church which is a social issue. Everytime you remind people that beating/killing a defenseless child in the name of religion is still assault or murder, you could be stopping a potential supporter of witch beating.This is why the social issues at time carries more weight



Why I call you an elitist douchebag (which of course you are not) is that you seem to care mostly about the philosophical issues, you are hardly into the hard stuff like practical morality and removing religious laws from society etc. Sorry for calling you an elitist douchbag by the way.



Thanks for proving me wrong. Sorry about the Hitler reference too!

toba: deols now a moderator? hmm.

Anyway lets see how it goes. Im sure some excesses of tunji may be tamed now even deols too is also 'passionate' about Islam.

Mukina2

lol....Deols is a female maclatunji, dont be deceived.

ooman: why?

I am not a buddhist and neither is Bill Gates


Buddhism doesnt always make sense. We should not hype it too much. While it is one of the few senseible and pro science religion, there are many sects of it that have mind-numbing foolish practices

ooman: Bill Gate is a Buddhist, I am a Buddhist, we are all Buddhists unconsciously.

You must be high on some atheium (atheist opium)

ifeness: An the believe in a sky god is not witchcraft?

I wonder ooo.

They have the nerve to call another religion witchcraft

Mee234: Bros that boy understood every thing. He needed to waste the so much time he has got and you guys obliged him. Is it not obvious that he is not interested in any intelligent discussion? He is a perfect example of an illogical person and the reason is too much time with nothing to do with the time. Don't be surprise if one day u see thread proclaiming Jesus is Lord or Islam is love by lb. He got to much time with nothing to with it.

Wow...such psychoanalysis

Yeah


Some forms of Buddhism are actually sensible. Some take spirituality as people trying to find the truth or the path. This is why some buddhists chose not to argue with science. Unlike some foolish christians here


The one that pained me was when one foolish christian claimed that Buddhism is Asian witchcraft slowpoke!

Deep Sight: Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

I will be here to respond exhaustively later in the evening. I'm in an office now, waiting for a meeting.

Cheers.

Save 10% of your salary for me

Chrisbenogor: Errrrrrr religion........

I just wanted to make sure, wasnt sure whether you were talking about religion or the end time prophecies or something else.


no probs

thehomer: This is the sort of dishonesty that I find really frustrating. You just throw out assertions like a religious fellow and when asked to back them up, you run away. This is a pattern of behaviour with you and it is terrible.

Why don't you show how I've "surreptitiously retreated" by quoting me? I know what the thread is about but you're yet to actually show me doing anything you're accusing me of by quoting me on this thread.

You've not shown me to contradict myself, you've not shown me to be retreating here and you've not shown the problem with Dawkins' statements. And the article you cited as being damning to Dawkins, doesn't appear to be so since you're unable to actually show the quote that you think is problematic.

I usually expect better from you but you're regularly putting up a very disappointing show.

He has been cornered into a claim without proof. He is trying every escape route.



Speaking of claims, please address this claim I made about you;

The Homer; This guy doesnt know but I truly HATE the kind of atheist he is. He is more into addressing the philosophical issues with Deep Sigh and Anony rather than the social issues. To me, he sounds like an elitist douchebag. Atheists like him are very reserved in condemning religion.

The best way to put it is an example with hitler. Many politicians and scientists knew that Hitler was dangerous but they didnt care because hitler couldnt hurt them as some of their services were necessary to the nation. Some of these guys left germany because they were smart. Now the question is that, if you know something is wrong, why avoid it or run away? Explain yourself, Homer. I will change my views about you.

https://www.nairaland.com/1194798/logicboys-successes-failures-nairaland

Chrisbenogor: No need to be bothered it was a scam anyways, okonkwo would be rolling and laughing in his grave.

What is a scam?

mumumugu: It is their decision. I do my part , leave the rest.

Good

SimonAndal: NL post stats. Ain't that what you're doing?

You are some weird dude. Too much computing and IT has blown your brain.

NL post stats? I just listed some good things that I have done on NL.


You on the other hand are mostly in the IT/Celebrity/Culture section. I would have to do a lot of research to know the things you write about.


Anyways, I wish you goodluck with your windows 8....you will so get so many problems. Windows is best enjoyed about a year after its release when all the bugs and loopholes for scammers/viruses have been closed

Here is the full article




The Improbability of God

by Richard Dawkins

The following article is from Free Inquiry MagazineVolume 18, Number 3.

Much of what people do is done in the name of God. Irishmen blow each other up in his name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up people's sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets cut live animals' throats in his name. The achievements of religion in past history - bloody crusades, torturing inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries, legally enforced resistance to each new piece of scientific truth until the last possible moment - are even more impressive. And what has it all been in aid of? I believe it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is absolutely nothing at all. There is no reason for believing that any sort of gods exist and quite good reason for believing that they do not exist and never have. It has all been a gigantic waste of time and a waste of life. It would be a joke of cosmic proportions if it weren't so tragic.

Why do people believe in God? For most people the answer is still some version of the ancient Argument from Design. We look about us at the beauty and intricacy of the world - at the aerodynamic sweep of a swallow's wing, at the delicacy of flowers and of the butterflies that fertilize them, through a microscope at the teeming life in every drop of pond water, through a telescope at the crown of a giant redwood tree. We reflect on the electronic complexity and optical perfection of our own eyes that do the looking. If we have any imagination, these things drive us to a sense of awe and reverence. Moreover, we cannot fail to be struck by the obvious resemblance of living organs to the carefully planned designs of human engineers. The argument was most famously expressed in the watchmaker analogy of the eighteenth-century priest William Paley. Even if you didn't know what a watch was, the obviously designed character of its cogs and springs and of how they mesh together for a purpose would force you to conclude "that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use." If this is true of a comparatively simple watch, how much the more so is it true of the eye, ear, kidney, elbow joint, brain? These beautiful, complex, intricate, and obviously purpose-built structures must have had their own designer, their own watchmaker - God.
So ran Paley's argument, and it is an argument that nearly all thoughtful and sensitive people discover for themselves at some stage in their childhood.

Throughout most of history it must have seemed utterly convincing, self-evidently true. And yet, as the result of one of the most astonishing intellectual revolutions in history, we now know that it is wrong, or at least superfluous. We now know that the order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about through an entirely different process, a process that works without the need for any designer and one that is a consequence of basically very simple laws of physics. This is the process of evolution by natural selection, discovered by Charles Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Russel Wallace.

What do all objects that look as if they must have had a designer have in common? The answer is statistical improbability.

If we find a transparent pebble washed into the shape
of a crude lens by the sea, we do not conclude that it must have been designed by an optician: the unaided laws of physics are capable of achieving this result; it is not too improbable to have just "happened." But if we find an elaborate compound lens, carefully corrected against spherical and chromatic aberration, coated against glare, and with "Carl Zeiss" engraved on the rim, we know that it could not have just happened by chance. If you take all the atoms of such a compound lens and throw them together at random under the jostling influence of the ordinary laws of physics in nature, it is theoretically possible that, by sheer luck, the atoms would just happen to fall into the pattern of a Zeiss compound lens, and even that the atoms round the rim should happen to fall in such a way that the name Carl Zeiss is etched out. But the number of other ways in which the atoms could, with equal likelihood, have fallen, is so hugely, vastly, immeasurably greater that we can completely discount the chance hypothesis. Chance is out of the question as an explanation.

This is not a circular argument, by the way. It might seem to be circular because, it could be said, any particular arrangement of atoms is, with hindsight, very improbable. As has been said before, when a ball lands on a particular blade of grass on the golf course, it would be foolish to exclaim: "Out of all the billions of blades of grass that it could have fallen on, the ball actually fell on this one. How amazingly, miraculously improbable!" The fallacy here, of course, is that the ball had to land somewhere. We can only stand amazed at the improbability of the actual event if we specify it a priori: for example, if a blindfolded man spins himself round on the tee, hits the ball at random, and achieves a hole in one. That would be truly amazing, because the target destination of the ball is specified in advance.

Of all the trillions of different ways of putting together the atoms of a telescope, only a minority would actually work in some useful way. Only a tiny minority would have Carl Zeiss engraved on them, or, indeed, any recognizable words of any human language. The same goes for the parts of a watch: of all the billions of possible ways of putting them together, only a tiny minority will tell the time or do anything useful. And of course the same goes, a fortiori, for the parts of a living body. Of all the trillions of trillions of ways of putting together the parts of a body, only an infinitesimal minority would live, seek food, eat, and reproduce. True, there are many different ways of being alive - at least ten million different ways if we count the number of distinct species alive today - but, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead!

We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being?

The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. [/b]These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure. Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. [b]A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the species and become the norm. The stage is
now set for the next small change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next, the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too complex to have come about in a single act of chance.

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too large. The "correct" recipe involves changes in a huge number of genes simultaneously. The correct recipe is one particular combination of changes out of trillions of equally probable combinations of chances. We can certainly rule out such a miraculous coincidence. But it is perfectly plausible that the modern eye could have sprung from something almost the same as the modern eye but not quite: a very slightly less elaborate eye. By the same argument, this slightly less elaborate eye sprang from a slightly less elaborate eye still, and so on. If you assume a sufficiently large number of sufficiently small differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor, you are bound to be able to derive a full, complex, working eye from bare skin. How many intermediate stages are we allowed to postulate? That depends on how much time we have to play with. Has there been enough time for eyes to evolve by little steps from nothing?

The fossils tell us that life has been evolving on Earth for more than 3,000 million years. It is almost impossible for the human mind to grasp such an immensity of time. We, naturally and mercifully, tend to see our own expected lifetime as a fairly long time, but we can't expect to live even one century. It is 2,000 years since Jesus lived, a time span long enough to blur the distinction between history and myth. Can you imagine a million such periods laid end to end? Suppose we wanted to write the whole history on a single long scroll. If we crammed all of Common Era history into one metre of scroll, how long would the pre-Common Era part of the scroll, back to the start of evolution, be? The answer is that the pre-Common Era part of the scroll would stretch from Milan to Moscow. Think of the implications of this for the quantity of evolutionary change that can be accommodated. All the domestic breeds of dogs - Pekingeses, poodles, spaniels, Saint Bernards, and Chihuahuas - have come from wolves in a time span measured in hundreds or at the most thousands of years: no more than two meters along the road from Milan to Moscow. Think of the quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese; now multiply that quantity of change by a million. When you look at it like that, it becomes easy to believe that an eye could have evolved from no eye by small degrees.

It remains necessary to satisfy ourselves that every one of the intermediates on the evolutionary route, say from bare skin to a modern eye, would have been favored by natural selection; would have been an improvement over its predecessor in the sequence or at least would have survived. It is no good proving to ourselves that there is theoretically a chain of almost perceptibly different intermediates leading to an eye if many of those intermediates would have died. It is sometimes argued that the parts of an eye have to be all there together or the eye won't work at all.
Half an eye, the argument runs, is no better than no eye at all. You can't fly with half a wing; you can't hear with half an ear. Therefore there can't have been a series of step-by-step intermediates leading up to a modern eye, wing, or ear.
This type of argument is so naive that one can only wonder at the subconscious motives for wanting to believe it. It is obviously not true that half an eye is useless. Cataract sufferers who have had their lenses surgically removed cannot see very well without glasses, but they are still much better off than people with no eyes at all. Without a lens you can't focus a detailed image, but you can avoid bumping into obstacles and you could detect the looming shadow of a predator.

As for the argument that you can't fly with only half a wing, it is disproved by large numbers of very successful gliding animals, including mammals of many different kinds, lizards, frogs, snakes, and squids. Many different kinds of tree-dwelling animals have flaps of skin between their joints that really are fractional wings. If you fall out of a tree, any skin flap or flattening of the body that increases your surface area can save your life. And, however small or large your flaps may be, there must always be a critical height such that, if you fall from a tree of that height, your life would have been saved by just a little bit more surface area. Then, when your descendants have evolved that extra surface area, their lives would be saved by just a bit more still if they fell from trees of a slightly greater height. And so on by insensibly graded steps until, hundreds of generations later, we arrive at full wings.

Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step. That would be like having the almost infinite luck to hit upon the combination number that opens a large bank vault. But if you spun the dials of the lock at random, and every time you got a little bit closer to the lucky number the vault door creaked open another chink, you would soon have the door open! Essentially, that is the secret of how evolution by natural selection achieves what once seemed impossible. Things that cannot plausibly be derived from very different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only slightly different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently long series of such slightly different predecessors, you can derive anything from anything else.

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God. But is there any evidence that evolution actually has happened? The answer is yes; the evidence is overwhelming. Millions of fossils are found in exactly the places and at exactly the depths that we should expect if evolution had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found in any place where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this could very easily have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would be enough to disprove the evolution theory.

The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees. The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended from one single ancestor. The evidence for evolution is so compelling that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume
that God deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look as if evolution had happened. In other words, the fossils, the geographical distribution of animals, and so on, are all one gigantic confidence trick.

Does anybody want to worship a God capable of such trickery? It is surely far more reverent, as well as more scientifically sensible, to take the evidence at face value. All living creatures are cousins of one another, descended from one remote ancestor that lived more than 3,000 million years ago.

The Argument from Design, then, has been destroyed as a reason for believing in a God. Are there any other arguments? Some people believe in God because of what appears to them to be an inner revelation. Such revelations are not always edifying but they undoubtedly feel real to the individual concerned. Many inhabitants of lunatic asylums have an unshakable inner faith that they are Napoleon or, indeed, God himself. There is no doubting the power of such convictions for those that have them, but this is no reason for the rest of us to believe them. Indeed, since such beliefs are mutually contradictory, we can't believe them all.

There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural selection explains a lot, but it couldn't start from nothing. It couldn't have started until there was some kind of rudimentary reproduction and heredity. Modern heredity is based on the DNA code, which is itself too complicated to have sprung spontaneously into being by a single act of chance. This seems to mean that there must have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and which provided the medium in which a primitive form of cumulative natural selection could get started. DNA was a later product of this earlier cumulative selection.
Before this original kind of natural selection, there was a period when complex chemical compounds were built up from simpler ones and before that a period when the chemical elements were built up from simpler elements, following the well-understood laws of physics. Before that, everything was ultimately built up from pure hydrogen in the immediate aftermath of the big bang, which initiated the universe.

There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to explain the evolution of complex order once the universe, with its fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a God to explain the origin of all things. This idea doesn't leave God with very much to do: just set off the big bang, then sit back and wait for everything to happen. The physical chemist Peter Atkins, in his beautifully written book The Creation, postulates a lazy God who strove to do as little as possible in order to initiate everything. Atkins explains how each step in the history of the universe followed, by simple physical law, from its predecessor. He thus pares down the amount of work that the lazy creator would need to do and eventually concludes that he would in fact have needed to do nothing at all!
The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity. For me, the important point is that, even if the physicist needs to postulate an irreducible minimum that had to be present in the beginning, in order for the universe to get started, that irreducible minimum is certainly extremely simple. By definition, explanations that build on simple premises are more plausible and more satisfying than explanations that have to postulate complex and statistically improbable beginnings. And you can't get
much more complex than an Almighty God!

Deep Sight: Your Lord is most merciful, gracious, patient, compassionate.



Thou wicked and slothful servant, thy Lord will indulge thee: upon the conditions of his angels as follows -

1. Thou will be the one to open such a thread

2. Thou will be the one to go to that link and fetch those quotes and paste them there in your OP

3. Thou will respond to the points there as part of your OP before we commence

4. There will be a FIRM RULE in the thread, that posts will be limited to Points and Counter-Points. In other words you cannot react to a point by merely writing something like "debunked" or "epic fail" or "empty rhetoric". Every Point must be specifically addressed by a counter point which lucidly proves and shows clearly why the point in question is wrong or flawed.

Every single point raised must be so addressed.

https://www.nairaland.com/1196280/dawkins-vs-deepsight


I did my best. Your comment was disjointed and needed proper editing for a rebuttal (quoting and bolding)

After reading your comments, I have come to the conclusion that you are full of elitist shyt. Nothing you wrote there proves that Dawkins is a dunce. Rather, you have a hatred for him.

Deep Sight:

Richard Dawkins

The following article is from Free Inquiry MagazineVolume 18, Number 3.

Much of what people do is done in the name of God. Irishmen blow each other up in his name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up people's sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets cut live animals' throats in his name.

It is noteworthy that the write-up itself states that these were done in the “name” of God, and not “by God.”

That is an important distinction, and already in itself conveys the reality of manipulation by human beings which has nothing whatever to do with God.

What point are you trying to make here? Are you and Dawkins not saying the same thing that religion is man made?

Deep Sight:

Dawkins; The achievements of religion in past history - bloody crusades, torturing inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries, legally enforced resistance to each new piece of scientific truth until the last possible moment - are even more impressive.

Here the writer himself states – “the achievements of religion in past history”. . . .if he could read at all, he would recognize that that in itself speaks volumes – for as he himself knows and believes – religion is a creation of man and not any “god” or “gods”. It is thus silly and contradictory to set up a refutation of the existence of God based on religions that were set up by men in deference to Gods that do not exist.

Dawkins is not saying that because religious people do bad things, God doesnt exist. You chose such interpretation. This quote is from the introduction of the article. A preface on some of the terrifying things done in the name of this great god.

You twist Dawkins words then claim that he is doing poor philosophy.

Deep Sight:

Dawkins We now know that the order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about through an entirely different process, a process that works without the need for any designer and one that is a consequence of basically very simple laws of physics. This is the process of evolution by natural selection, discovered by Charles Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Russel Wallace.

This is so starkly devoid of reasoning or depth, I would be astonished, if not already acquainted with the shallow quality of the mind of Richard Dawkins. I state this for –


1. It is well known that the theory of evolution addresses the development of living things and says nothing about the development of the universe and support systems for such living things.


2. The question therefore remains the source or cause of the entire super-system.


3. The basic laws of cause and effect state most clearly that you cannot have effects without causes. This is corroborated within the standard laws of motion. The fact thus remains that it remains ridiculous to commence an argument seeking to render a creator non-existent, from the point of view of living things only, when the super-question remains the existence of all things – living and non living – and the articulated source of all things. To frame the question the timelessly simple philosophical fashion – why something instead of nothing?


4. Even as an argument built up from the point of view of living things, it is very well documented from the experiments of the French Scientist Louis Pasteur and several others that life is known to emerge from pre-existing life. It is thus a staggering claim from Dawkins to state that science now confirms that the wonders of life may emerge through odd  chance in a pre-biotic soup. As it happens, he does not even address this necessary commencement and the irredeemable riddle contained therein at all: he simply


    a. Assumes the existence of things already


    b. Avoids the question of the first instance of generation of living things and


    c. Commences his discussion with a full fledged biological evolutionary process already magically in place –


And thereby assumes that this suffices to obviate the requirement for an initial causative factor going beyond the scenario that he has ridiculously commenced with.

First of all, Dawkins doesnt say "evolution disproves the exiostence of God". You hang your whole rebuttal on a comment he never made. I dont know how you got there from the Dawkins quote you put there. Dawkins is simply saying that the process of evolution is expalined without the need for a god.

2) Begging the question, why assume a cause not causes? A source not sources? Why are the polytheists wrong? Afterall, from human experience most esxtensively designed and orderly mass produced creations are manufactured by more than one person- eg iphone

3) If evrything has a cause, we are left with an infinite regreess. Saying that there is a creator will raise the question "what created the creator". Cause and effect do not happen beyond time. If the big bang is the beginning of time, how can one have cause and effect prior to the big bang.

4) life comes from pre-existing life? Does this mean that your deist god is just another lifeform? But wait, he doesnt have matter or occupies space or is regulated by time, how can he be living?

Your criticism of Dawkins here makes no sense. Evolution starts from the existence of life already not pre-life.

Deep Sight:

Dawkins; For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable.

I was actually going to continue responding to the rest of the write-up, but the quote above has stopped me in my tracks. It takes the all time award for grand st.upidity.


Just read it. This fellow ends his own comments by alluding to the very same inconceivability of the emergence of the eye which Darwin himself noted.


Ridiculous, plain ridiculous. The painful thing is just how many shallow minds read this c.rap and feel on top of the world in their ill-considered atheistic world-view on account of this baloney.

All you have done is to abuse Dawkins with big words and poor philosophy.

Dawkins is simply saying that in theory an eye can spring from sheer chance but not practically. The Odds are 1 to a gazillion but that is impossible in reality. Very simple.

The overall point is that sheer chance can not explain life/evolution. He was saying that there is a series of chance and other mechanisms to put things in place not just sheer chance alone because that is highly improbable





All you have done is show your poor philosophy and hatred for Dawkins,.

SimonAndal: Oh my god, you dirty, perverted man! Not do me do me, do me. My stats.

(although I'm not averse to the other.......*wink*)

What stats? I mean, you have to be more precise. Explain further please.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]...and how does this comment change the fact that Deep Sight mimicked your argument style accurately?[/quote]He mimicked my "mocking style" accurately.

Deep Sight: Your Lord is most merciful, gracious, patient, compassionate.



Thou wicked and slothful servant, thy Lord will indulge thee: upon the conditions of his angels as follows -

1. Thou will be the one to open such a thread

2. Thou will be the one to go to that link and fetch those quotes and paste them there in your OP

3. Thou will respond to the points there as part of your OP before we commence

4. There will be a FIRM RULE in the thread, that posts will be limited to Points and Counter-Points. In other words you cannot react to a point by merely writing something like "debunked" or "epic fail" or "empty rhetoric". Every Point must be specifically addressed by a counter point which lucidly proves and shows clearly why the point in question is wrong or flawed.

Every single point raised must be so addressed.

but....but.....according to Anony, I cant debate without shouting "debunked" or "epic fail".....dont take these privileges away from me



No problem deepsight. Give me some few minutes let me prepare the thread. Oh, you're so gonna get your azz handed to you.

[quote author=tpia@]are you onila?

why do you keep repeating born in london with every post.[/quote]Thank you jo....

scarred: We can agree to disagree on that...shall we?

no probs

scarred: I have no issue with that, to be very honest, I would hope and pray that I do a good enough Job that my Children and Grandchildren are Irreligious. In my opinion Religion has overseen and is responsible for some of the worst atrocities that mankind as ever faced. There is nothing more potent or powerful than a mob galvanized by religious zeal, for in its name we have seen the Inquisition, Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing. We have seen wars fought over doctrine, children raped and killed because of differences in Religious doctrine.

As a system of control, Religion is a powerful tool, making disparate groups forget legitimate concerns in exchange of some dim hope of paradise, forging zeal in the least within our society and equipping them with the fervor to commit atrocities. Religion is a terrible thing, it blinds you to your own faults, whilst accentuating the faults of others. Allowing you to state boldly, I am better than you. I will bring up my children without religion, because I do not want their minds paralysed by the dogma and doctrine of corruptible, contemptible men.

I am not a religious person, because I truly believe that Religion is a construct of man, but I also believe that everyone should work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, what you believe is deeply personal. You are trying to get to the point where HIS spirit agrees with your spirit and says that you are his child. You are striving to get to the point that you know that nothing can seperate you from HIS love. And this journey, has nothing to do with man or religion, this has to do with you and what you believe...

you spoilt a good post with the bulshyt in the last paragraph

[quote author=tpia@]what's a tilapia?[/quote]Long form of tpia

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lololol, I hope you do realize that what Deepsight did there is exactly the way you argue.[/quote]So predictable.....I exoected such comment.


You must have ignored all the lenghty replies i have written on this thread defending Dawkins.


Yet, with all your lies, you think you are someone to talk about morality

Reyginus: Oh! Finally, I've been debunked.

You have problems

donroxy: wao.....my Bad......I never sensed u don't Belief in God from ur Original post...mayb I woulda take another dimension!!


Anyway,whomsoever wants his generations to be religious really has a great deal of work to be done.........Sincerely,the world has already changed!!!

True talk bro

Reyginus: Lololol. This boy, you need to learn how to understand.

mtchew