₦airaland Forum

chukwudi44: The fact that you were catholic did not mean most atheists were catholic.Even seun the owner of this site converted from pentecostalism

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.

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

chukwudi44: @scared

This your tales by moonlight how did you come about it?

Which church went underground? You really make me laugh.Not even during the roman persecution was the church cowed!! Underground indeed for more than 1000 yrs

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?

chukwudi44: Are you sure you know anything about the compilation of the bible? Where did u read that the deuteronocanonical books were excluded?

73 books were canonised @ the synod of hippo held in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397CE both councils were presided by St Augustine of Hippo one of the greatest theologians that has ever lived.

@ logicboy

How did u arrive @ this this your conclusion?

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]

vedaxcool: Finally is LOGIC is trampling upon Islamophobia!

vedaxcool: SEARCH not watch SEARCH not watch, feel free to dance around this very simple point! Did the google website specifically says muslims do such SEARCH? If your answer is yes then you are a LIAR if your answer is NO then please shut up! We thought atheist only believe in stuff that has CONCRETE evidence? well we know an average Nigerian relishes in hypocrisy! And what context was the search done? The website did not say for all we know an abdulsleek could have been told: oh do you know atheist in sweden have predilection for sex with animals? abdulsleek say really? He searches it and. Oh boy na wa oh it is true and that is that! Since it is a matter of searching the whole argument is worthless, but in the mind of an islamophobe search = watch hence working themselves into a frenzy, but finally logic, common sense shows clearly SEARCH is not watch, what did they SEARCH it for, WE DON'T KNOW, so why all the tears and hating? I have shown clearly using the wikipedia link posted earlier that po.rn is produce and consumed in large quantities by the WEST! Muslims countries remain amongst the few places that have continued to reject the legality of po.rn!

lols and lmaos sEems aproprite here

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.

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.

Deep Sight: My own words are in the link I gave you.

Ol' boy, there is no "challenge" if you refuse to read.

Do you expect me to go and copy the words there and start pasting them here? How hard really is it for you to click a link and read my own words?

Lazy or frightened, which is it? Or just not up to the discussion?

As far as I am concerned, I will only proceed further on this thread when you respond to my own words - all of them - in the link I gave you.

End of.

Deep Sight: Well since you did not bother to read or respond to that which was provided to you (I gave the link; you did not respond to a single word written there); then how do you expect either Anony or Enigma to be encouraged to bother themselves writing what will not be read?

You see, it is very easy, but very unschorlarly, vacuouss, vacant and bereft of intellect, to give the same standard response to everything that you ask for: namely you just perfectly ignore what has been written and state: "You have no evidence. End of Response."

Who do you expect to ever take you seriously with such vacant responses. It is indeed you who should "commot for road" if you are not prepared to read and respond to that which is given in response to your own queries. Why should anybody write anything if you will not read it and respond directly to it?

Look at the bold in your post above. Now I wrote a lot in the link I gave you. What is the point writing more when you have not addressed yourself to that? Do you expect me to just start dancing because you say so? I don't mind dancing, but the DJ should kindly play the music. You are not playing the music, son.

MacDaddy01: [size=14pt]So, in your own words, please back up your statements that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce[/size]

Deep Sight: You sir, are a veritable clown. It is obvious that you do not read. I gave you a link, and I so knew you would be too lazy to go there and read all the arguments both ways. If you are too lazy to read, why should I do the hardwork and bother to write?

honey001: I just pray all this people parading themselves as atheist return to God their Creator before it's too late. To all Christians here on this forum, do not stop praying for their conversion because nothing is too difficult for God.

Deep Sight: He is a theological and philosophical dunce because he evangelizes on theological, philosophical and cosmological matters which none of his arguments have anything to do with.

This is the central reason.

However I have already given some of my reasons previously.

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9184534

The man is not worth any sensible person's time.

He also makes some of the most hair-raisingly stu.pid remarks and conclusions that any academic has ever made in history. I would be safe to say that he is probably the dimmest person on the planet to be academically honoured.

MacDaddy01: [size=14pt]So, in your own words, please back up your statements that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce[/size]

JeSoul: This is quite embarrasing - especially for one who brandishes 'logic' & 'science' all over the section (in the face of real world scientists like myself - if I may quietly add). Someday (hopefully sooner than later), you'll look back and realize what a hopelessly, utterly & irredeemably farcical statement that is . I can't blame you too much sha...this is clearly a Dawkinian trait and you're merely taking after daddy G.O. Dawkins.

Cheerios, logicboy .

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

JeSoul: Again, no it does not. It is only in your false/flawed understanding of what the bible actually says that there is any conflict.

When it says God made man from dust what comes to your mind? A big dude sits on the ground, crosses his legs and begins molding a human shaped body from the dust?

[rhetorical questions] [/b]Do you know what an allegory is? do you understand the use of imagery in texts? the use of literal & non-literal words/terms/descriptors in language? [b] [/rhetorical questions]

When human being die do they turn into 'dust' in the ground? what does 'dust' mean in this context? Again, there is no conflict between religion & science except that which is conjured up by evangelical practitioners of pseudo science armed with an anti-God agenda.

JeSoul: Oh dear.

See people? this is what I am talking about. Logicboy believes the bible makes "scientific claims", of any kind. Dude, the bible makes religious/spiritual claims and nothing more. The sooner you realize religion IS not science the sooner you and Dawkins can untie the twists in your undies .

sauer: Atheism is freedom in many ways.

JeSoul: Really dude? do you think most people here are 'afraid' of atheists and their 'questions'? Don't mistake lack of participation or engagement as 'fear' - rather the plain truth - we're simply tired of the same arguements & don't have the time but will oblige every now and then so ya'll don't feel like no one can answer.

Now to your post...

Not much to reply/add really. I stand by my first post. Dawkins (say whatever he will "I'm an educator" "I advocate free-thinking" "bla bla bla" ) by way of his fanatical anti-religion evangelicism is trying to pass of himself as an expert on matters he has no business in. Furthermore, I reiterate science & religion are two separate disciplines - and any deists or atheists who attempt to draw imaginary correlations are the true "dunces".

Cheerios.

MacDaddy01: 4) Religion claiming that God created the universe or big bang is a scientific claim. Religion claiming that God created man from dust is a scientific claim. Your logic is upside down because it is religion that is encroaching on science. Dawkins is addressing these issues and showing that religion should not be taught in science class. Even Dawkins said that he doesnt care what people believe as long as they dont interfere with the teaching of science or others public life