₦airaland Forum

This is a queston especially for those of us that live in the west. It is inevitable. Atheism and irreligion is growin. Christian/muslim hypocrites are killing the religions themselves. God is not needed in science classes. Creationism has been thrown out of schools.


How do you feel knowing that your children will be irreligious or at least, if religious will grow up in a non-religious society? There is no denying this fact in the west and advanced countries that religion will be at the margins in 10-30 years time in the west if the growth of irreligion from the 90's continues at the same rate.

Deep Sight: Yawn. More empty rhetoric.

You have been debunked, keep trying again.

Do you know that you havent put any false argument that Dawkins has made about God?

Deep Sight: Yawn.

More empty rhetoric. . . shows you have nothing to say! Maybe you should read thru mine to thehomer. . . but as proven, you do not read anyway, so that's a vain hope.

You have been debunked.

Try again.

Lol....keep this up.

The more you do this the more you look like an empty barrel

Deep Sight: Empty rhetoric! No evidence!

Epic fail. You have been debunked.

Try again.

I love you men.....I have been laughing stright for 5 minutes. You knew you were debunked and so, you start trolling


Anyways, did anyone tell you that imitation is the best form of flattery?

Ubenedictus: Run away from what read in context! I respond to someone who was grading d next pope by race and i said race isnt the criteria! Instead d pope must posses certain qualities and if an african posses such he will be elected. U have turned this into a white vs black arguement, d very tin i advocated against. Anyone whether black, white, pink, yellow, brown or red stands a chance of been d next pope in asmuch has he posseses d right quality.

Seriously? You cant see the flaw in your comment?

Ubenedictus: u are attacking ur own strawman. I never said d white has some qualities blacks didnt have.

There have been white European popes.

You said that when the African gets some particular qualities, the will become popes.



You cant run away from this

Funny how you didnt ban me, if you truly felt that my post was offensive.

Please ban me.


"To avoid being banned, please ensure that your post is not offensive to Islam."

Funny how you didnt ban me, if you truly felt that my post was offensive.

Please ban me.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol once again the strawman: No one said degree in theology is a pre-requisite in order to talk about the existence of God. What we are saying is that when Dawkins talks about the existence of God, he does a piss poor job.[/quote]Did you read the comment that I was replying to? The comment was talking about having studied theology......


As for the existence of God, you are yet to provide one false argument Dawkins has made about God? Anony, you havent put forward any piss poor argument of Dawkins concerning the existence of God.

So, in other words, you are no different from an empty barrel.

deols: I am deleting it right away because-
1.the topic is inciteful
2. you once posted the same topic. why bring it up again?
3. You are being disrespectful to the Muslims here

Really?


Well, I wont argue with you. SMH.

Salaam,

I think this deserves front page;
https://www.nairaland.com/1195953/nairaland-muslims-intellectually-bankrupt

SNCOQ3: -edit-

Amplified version:
...and i think its a catastrophic mistake to have someone like Dawkins to address himself to profound issues of theology, the existence God, the nature of life, he hasn't committed himself to disciplined study in any relevant area of inquiry, he is a crom... philosopher, he doesn't have the rudimentary skills to meticulously assess his own argument.
- David Berlinski

Condensed version:
Dawkins is a philosophical dunce.

So one now needs some degree in philosophy or theology to talk about the existence of God?


I am seeing the foolish reasons why Anony and co believe that Dawkins is a dunce.


You peeps are talking BS

Ubenedictus: u failure to understand a particular position doesnt make it madness! It is about race but qualities and if an african posses such he will be elected. I never said anything abt "africans been inferior".

Why European whites posses these qualities not Africans?

Deep Sight: END OF DISCUSSION.

This answer singularly teaches you why Dawkins is a Philosophical dunce.

When you say that Evolution does not explain the origin of life, how can you then not see the flawed reasoning in Dawkins holding up evolution as that which renders a cause of life such as God, unnecessary? It surely cannot be that which renders such a cause unnecessary, if it is, as you say, no explanation for the cause of life!



And with this my dear Homer returns to his long history of vicious and wildly contradictory notions.

- - -He says in response to me above that NONE of (a) evolution (b) the growth of a child (c) the growth of a plant - explains the origin of life

- - -He then says that indeed "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" believe that evolution renders God unnecessary - in spite of the fact that thehomer acknowledges that evolution DOES NOT explain the origin of life.

As such, it is either that theHomer does not agree with "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" - - - or else, as usual, he is wildly confused.

And finally, if "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" believe such a thing, they must be mad, because the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of first life.

And with this comment, we can see the liar that Deep Sight is. So, your statement that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce is based on something Dawkins didnt say?

I would like to know where Dawkins made the argument that evolution makes God unnecessary in the CAUSE of FIRST life.


I suspect that Dawkins probably said one of the following arguments which you misintepreted

-God is not necessary for the origins of the human species since we know that we evolved from apes. That process of evolution works fine without the involvement of a God.

-The beginning of the universe can be explained without God. God isnt necessary in the big bang.
-Evolution is explained without god

Ubenedictus: d church isnt about race, so d sectarianism u are advocating wont work. When an african is seen to posses d qualities dat distinguish him among his peers he will b elected.

In the same sentence, you claimed that the catholic church is not about race but Africans have inferior qualities to be popes.


Madness

thehomer: Maybe or maybe it was just an honest error.

Here is Anony's analogy used to rebutt my argument that Dawkins understands basic philosophy (note that I never said that Dawkins was a master philosopher)


[quote author=Mr_Anony]Yeah and every bookmakers ledger starts with numbers therefore book makers are expert mathematicians[/quote]False analogy anonyism

[quote author=inspiredbyGOD:.]And once again, Catholics were not the sole compilers of the bible. Churches worldwide all had a say in the compilation.[/quote]Gaddem lie.


Read some history

Hey, one last question;


Doesnt working on wall street with the finacial institutions mean that a muslim engages in riba?

[quote author=inspiredbyGOD:.]You have no idea about what I'm talking about. The Apostles and early Christians were never called Catholics, they never practised what the Catholics are now doing. Christianity as we now know it started it's downward spiral when Constantine converted for political reasons. But God knows those that are His (and He isn't bound to any one denomination).[/quote]Yawn, is your understanding of the apostles not a result of the catholics choosing what books in the new testament to put?

thehomer: This is a false analogy. When we conclude that an incident was a murder, it means that we know something about the entity that caused it. It means that we've decided that the cause was a human.

But when we're asking about the origin of the universe, what are we postulating about the entity that did it? You need to have some idea of the being to say that it could even do what you're claiming it did don't you?

Anony thrives on false analogies

Paschal007: You're still an islamophobe or don't you know?

lol

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Of course every disagreement with your master just has to be a lie....[/quote]You lied that Dawkins has little or no knowledge of theology/philosophy. Simple. Something you'd never be able to prove if even it were true.
I gave many examples to show that at least Dawkins has a basic understanding of both pilosophy and theology.............


[quote author=Mr_Anony]Yeah and every bookmakers ledger starts with numbers therefore book makers are expert mathematicians

An every bookmaker's ledger engages in some form of addition, subtraction and multiplication of gambling odds[/quote]See how you engage in strawmen and Anonyism? Expert mathematicians? Did I say Dawkins was an expert philosopher? Mtchew

The point was to show that Dawkins has a fundamental understanding of philosophy, especially with an academic background, much more than a bookmker has a practical basic understanding of maths.



[quote author=Mr_Anony]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.[/quote]Dawkins made excellent points in many debates and is said to have won some. For instance, here is Dawkins taking on your dadd, william craig.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRmKA5zUYBI



[quote author=Mr_Anony]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[/quote]

What does this have to do with Dawkins understanding theology enough to convert christians to atheists with his writing and debates? Mtchew. You want to play to fool. Keep up

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lawyers argue all day in law courts concerning the same constitution, There is therefore no right or wrong law.[/quote]

Again, another reetarded argument. Law has precedents which religion doesnt have. Maybe you should think about that. What lawyers argue is the interpretation of the law or the facts of the case not the law in itself. The precedent (past rulings) shape the interpretation.

Compared to religion, no precedence and whatever interpretation you take has no real life consequences.

[quote author=tpia@]who are these "christian" moderators? [/quote]I wonder. The whole thing smells fishy....like a tilapia

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

F00028: I didn't insult you, logic. stop crying wolf.

but i guess that's my cue. I'll be leaving now. ta!

Shame finally caught up with you

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?

BetaThings: I am really not interested in playing to your agenda
Most of the past attempts to sincerely present Islamic viewpoints to you were met with derision
As an atheist, you are dedicated to the eradication of all religions, especially Islam.
Of course you are very very free to pursue that goal. But I should not become your accomplice
My time is better served exchanging ideas with fellow muslims and non-muslims who sincerely desire to know Islamic viewpoints

Your statement in bold highlights some ignorance and hypocrisy. You do not understand atheism but you are quick to claim that one is not ready to learn about islam.

Who told you that atheism or atheists are dedicated to the eradication of all religions? What kind of ignorant statement is that?

Let me explain what a secular society is;
-A society where everybody can keep their religion/practice it but religion has no place in the politics, govt and law.

So dont care if you practice your religion as long as it is kept far away from the law and my life.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]For the exact same reasons[/quote]#empty barrel

SimonAndal: Do me!

That has many meanings

So what are you asking for exactly?