• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Intellectuals Laugh At Atheists

tosca1 said:
I don't think this thread will ever be over.
All we have to do is wait for Dawkins and company to open their mouths again.

Dawkins' got a big mouth - he can't help it.

We'll be waiting....
Click to expand...

You really do have a thing for Dawkins don't you. It's good because you know that Dawkins loves you don't you?

This isn't an uncommon trait amongst Yecks it has to be said so, don't feel too bad. It appears to me that they believe that there is some kind of religious structure in place and that attacking prominent people attacks the belief. I think that it derives from their inability to conceive of an activity in life where there isn't an 'authority' that is overseeing and key to it; the idea of an independent thought seems light years away. Perhaps I can explain it to you this way, there is a school of thought that Darwin was probably autistic and having read about his particular attention to order and detail, I could accept this. His potential autism matters about as much as any other trait he might have had, what really matters is that the science he produced has generally held up to scrutiny. If you want to change that, then go away, get some education, spend considerable time working in your field and then create a scientific basis for doing so.

See how I did that without endless cut and pastes and frankly tedious emoticons?
 
grip said:
So, in essence, you believe in things you cannot prove? Interesting?
Click to expand...

I do.

The big difference is that I understand that I accept these things and I can show that accepting them works on a tentative basis.

I believe that reality exists for example but, I cannot prove it, the evidence appears pretty strong that it exists but, I accept that it isn't proven and I am able to function in 'reality' on that basis.
 
zyzygy said:
Same here, except that I know nothing about Dawkins.
Click to expand...

Another email you missed from the Central Atheist Conspiracy Agency?

Your renewed membership could be in doubt if you keep missing this stuff, it's so important to, errr well no one but yecks and creotards really.
 
tosca1 said:
...you should know that.
Click to expand...

So, basically, your assertion here is that intellectuals laugh at atheists because Dawkins won't debate WLC or some other creotard?

Dawkins loves you.
 
grip said:
What always defeats the creation ex nihilo argument is that with all our intelligence, we're not even close to figuring out the design and organization of the universe, more less it's origin. It's of such a complicated and sophisticated nature that our intellects boggle, which means the universe is of a design beyond out intellect. Just because you can't find the active agent for creation doesn't negate it's complexity and inherit architecture. All our intellect does is catalog and give symbolism to the structures that already exist. And of course we mimic nature by manipulating some of its materials into a modern technological society. Our skills compared to nature are pretty puny in comparison.

So, if nature has no active intelligent source, why is it built on an order of higher complexity than our minds can comprehend? Yes, I already know your answer, that there's no Sky Daddy and conscious intelligence arose from a particle soup of an unfathomable beginning. Too me that's no different than saying the letters from a bowl of Campbell's alphabet soup accidentally came together to spell *smart* and out jumped a self aware person. :cool:
Click to expand...

So, because we don't know everything we know nothing and we never will know anything?

We don't know how to create everything so we can create nothing and we will never be able to create anything?

Because something looks complicated and difficult we should just say Goddidit and argue from ignorance.

Define nothing?

Please join us over here http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/207258-intelligent-design-new-evidence.html
 
William Rea said:
I do.

The big difference is that I understand that I accept these things and I can show that accepting them works on a tentative basis.

I believe that reality exists for example but, I cannot prove it, the evidence appears pretty strong that it exists but, I accept that it isn't proven and I am able to function in 'reality' on that basis.
Click to expand...

I know, it's actually difficult to prove very many things with empirical evidence. Most of what we believe we're sure of as certain facts is built upon our limited perception of these properties.

I accept science as true and a majority of the universe understandable, except concepts like infinity or nothing, though I like to theorize about things unknown.



William Rea said:
Methinks you protest even more too much.
Click to expand...

Question; if you met God and were convinced beyond a doubt, would you tell anybody?
 
DDD said:
The word "prove" implies 100% certainty. Only one thing is 100% certain that it will occur.
Click to expand...

And even that might not turn out as expected. I doubt you'll have anymore to say about appearing somewhere else, as you did about appearing here. ;)
 
William Rea said:
So, because we don't know everything we know nothing and we never will know anything?

We don't know how to create everything so we can create nothing and we will never be able to create anything?

Because something looks complicated and difficult we should just say Goddidit and argue from ignorance.

Define nothing?

Please join us over here http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/207258-intelligent-design-new-evidence.html
Click to expand...


I've had this argument several times before. "Nothing" by it's own definition cannot exist, because it is the utter lack of observable, tangible energy/matter/space. And the infinite can only exist as potential energy, but not as an observable phenomenon, because you could never observe it in it's entirety, since you'd be occupied indefinitely trying to realize it. Like calculating the square root of pi, we know that from the data already performed that it's probable that the calculation of digits goes on indefinitely, though we could never prove it.
 
grip said:
And even that might not turn out as expected. I doubt you'll have anymore to say about appearing somewhere else, as you did about appearing here. ;)
Click to expand...

I see an emoticon, so I guess this is a joke :)
 
DDD said:
I see an emoticon, so I guess this is a joke :)
Click to expand...

Were you offered a choice before you were born here? Then I doubt you'll be offered one when you leave. That's kind of a hard one to maneuver around, huh?
 
DDD said:
To confirm that it was a bait thread.
Click to expand...

Since it's flatly stated what this thread is meant to be.... perhaps you ought to apply it to the definition of an EXPOSE'.
 
tosca1 said:
Since it's flatly stated what this thread is meant to be.... perhaps you ought to apply it to the definition of an EXPOSE'.
Click to expand...

You haven't exposed anything.
 
csbrown28 said:
Z, don't you see whats happening here? She isn't interested in "seeing". She is interested only in trying to re-enforce the opinion she already holds. This is why she won't debate the issues, but rather attack some that isn't here to defend himself asking us to do it as if we can or even care to.

Don't defend Dawkins, he's no prophet, his area of expertise is biology. He is a prominent outspoken figure, but if I can offer some friendly advice to anyone that debates people like her is to find out what the real issues are and try to engage in a conversation between you and that person and the beliefs that you and the other person hold.

I tried but it's obvious to me she's not interested in real conversation about the issues that she claims to hold so dear, rather she attempts to discredit atheism as a theological position rather than a rational one.

She has deployed "Christian thinking" by attacking Dawkins as if he is any kind of authority on what atheists should believe. As atheists, we question Christian claims and ideas that admit of no possible error lest they undermine the foundation of Christian belief. The Christian in her thinks she can undermine "atheism" the same way.
Click to expand...


Is that how you understood what's been written and shown? :lol:

If you can't understand what's been said, and shown....and it's written and said in simple layman's language.....what more when you read heavy philosophical stuff?

You and zyzygy have that in common. What's with the "pairing" and side-kicks here anyway?
In the other thread, we have Batman and his robin...and now, it's Superman and his superboy! :lol:

In other forums, atheists got their "mariachi band," coming out in full force to try to drown out anyone who try to discuss sensibly about Religion, Intelligent Design and Evolution.
Shrieking and shrill deflecting, is their "sensible" way of discussing.


You should invite zyzygy to discuss with you. At least you'll understand each other....you'll be on the same page all the time. :lol:



You cannot show someone like her the "truth" only invite her to discuss it. The harder you try the more she will retreat viewing your persistence as fear of the truth that she believes she already knows

That's an example of your "philosophy." Thank you for confirming that I'm right to decline to participate in your kind of so-called, "philosophical discussion." :)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#32


PART 1: Atheists are riddled with contradictions! And they don't even realize it.


1. They spend their time fighting about something they believe doesn't exists. They even put their reputation against it, AND GET SHAMED FOR IT.

That's like someone who doesn't believe Casper exists, repeatedly and obsessively poking at Casper!


2. They spend more time in Religion sections of forums, or responding to Christian blogs, than they do on their own.
They add fuel to the fire they don't think exists.


3. They love to act intellectual, and they love to use the term, "reason" and "rational thinking" a lot.....and yet, all you have to do is read and listen to what they say. Once you poke a hole and question something....all their pretense at "reason" and "rational thinking" truly fly out the window.

And your jaw drops, and you could only stare with.....amused bafflement, and incredulity.....

....and you ask yourself: Are they the missing link?
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Is ...
Click to expand...

At least your whining and moaning about being contradicted are original words from you. It is marginally more welcome than your cut'n'pastefests because, at least we get some idea of where you are at on the subjects in hand.
 
tosca1 said:
Is that how you understood what's been written and shown? :lol:

If you can't understand what's been said, and shown....and it's written and said in simple layman's language.....what more when you read heavy philosophical stuff?

You and zyzygy have that in common. What's with the "pairing" and side-kicks here anyway?
In the other thread, we have Batman and his robin...and now, it's Superman and his superboy! :lol:

In other forums, atheists got their "mariachi band," coming out in full force to try to drown out anyone who try to discuss sensibly about Religion, Intelligent Design and Evolution.
Shrieking and shrill deflecting, is their "sensible" way of discussing.


You should invite zyzygy to discuss with you. At least you'll understand each other....you'll be on the same page all the time. :lol:



You cannot show someone like her the "truth" only invite her to discuss it. The harder you try the more she will retreat viewing your persistence as fear of the truth that she believes she already knows

That's an example of your "philosophy." Thank you for confirming that I'm right to decline to participate in your kind of so-called, "philosophical discussion." :)
Click to expand...

Funny! Keep 'em coming! Her? I am a hermaphrodite spirit sent by the Lord to test your faith.
 
Last edited:
grip said:
Were you offered a choice before you were born here? Then I doubt you'll be offered one when you leave. That's kind of a hard one to maneuver around, huh?
Click to expand...

I agree that we do not have a choice whether to leave or not, but "appearing somewhere else" was the issue in the above post?
 
tosca1 said:
#14

Conservative Christians

Stewart's The Daily Show (Jon Stewart is an atheist by the way) did a hit piece on Christian apologist Matt Slick by editing a conversation he had with them. But first they told him they'll give a fair view of his conservative stance on gays, lesbians and homosexuality. It ends up they tried to make him look like a homophobe instead, by suggesting he claimed homosexuals go out and try to physically hurt heterosexuals!
Click to expand...
Jon Stewart is not an atheist. If the persom who created this video didn't know that then how could they call themselves an intellectual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom