• 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

You really need to read something beyond Answers in Genesis or whatever religious websites you're going to.


You ought to learn how to read. Period. That way you won't be wondering how responses addressed your statement(s).




Fine tuned for what?









 
Last edited:
You ought to learn how to read. Period. That way you won't be wondering how responses addressed your statement(s).














This is exactly the kind of response I've come to expect from you.
 
You ought to learn how to read. Period. That way you won't be wondering how responses addressed your statement(s).














Fine tuned for what? For us? That does deserve some silly emoticons.
 
The numerous complex, varying, and shifting hypotheses.
Explanations are not evidences. Of course we're talking about macro-evolution.


Anyway, Occam's razor is not irrefutable, I think?

I would like you define how you are using some terms.

What do you mean Occam's razor is, and how does it apply to this discussion.

What is YOUR definitions of 'macro-evolution', in your own words. What do you think the definition of evolution is, (the biological kind, so there is no logical fallacy of equivocation.). Can you explain, in your own words, what the relationship of 'macro-evolution' to the biological version of evolution, I would like to see evidence that you had a clue about what you are talking about.
 
I would like you define how you are using some terms.

What do you mean Occam's razor is, and how does it apply to this discussion.


If you're quick, you'd see that Occam's razor was already explained. Though not explicitly explained - the way it was delivered is easy to deduce what it is. Why don't you backtrack?

Hint: #335




Can you explain, in your own words, what the relationship of 'macro-evolution' to the biological version of evolution, I would like to see evidence that you had a clue about what you are talking about.

Sorry. That you have to ask me to explain Occam's razor is dead give-away why I shouldn't bother proving myself to you. Not only that, you even asked how it applies to this topic!

WHO BROUGHT UP OCCAM'S RAZOR? :lol:

I don't need your validation, thank you.
 
Last edited:
If you're quick, you'd see that Occam's razor was already explained. Though not explicitly explained - the way it was delivered is easy to deduce what it is. Why don't you backtrack?

Hint: #335






Sorry. That you have to ask me to explain Occam's razor is dead give-away why I shouldn't bother proving myself to you. Not only that, you even asked how it applies to this topic!

WHO BROUGHT UP OCCAM'S RAZOR? :lol:

I don't need your validation, thank you.

335 merely refers to it. It does not explain it, or show an understanding of it. What part of 'why don't you define it, and descibe what it says so I know you understand what you are talking about' don't you understand??

I want to make sure you actually understand the terms you are throwing around. It is not enough to throw terms around if they are misapplied, because they are not being understood. I do not see any evidence that you actually understand what those terms are referring to.
 
Fine tuned for what? For us? That does deserve some silly emoticons.

Her reactions are simply a way to distract from the original question. She's not interested in a conversation but a verbal sparing match. I for one have had my fill.
 
335 merely refers to it. It does not explain it, or show an understanding of it. What part of 'why don't you define it, and descibe what it says so I know you understand what you are talking about' don't you understand??

I want to make sure you actually understand the terms you are throwing around. It is not enough to throw terms around if they are misapplied, because they are not being understood. I do not see any evidence that you actually understand what those terms are referring to.

What is there to explain? That conversation was between me and another poster - and there was a reason why I talked about Occam's razor. It was a response to another's. You're butting in into something that doesn't really concern you, actually.....and as you yourself asked, how does this apply to the topic?


Perhaps you should direct your question to the one who brought it up in the first place? You're barking at the wrong tree.


If #335 isn't clear enough for you, perhaps you ought to research about it.
Why do I have to prove myself to you? Like I said, I don't need your validation.

If you're obsessing with Occam's razor - then start your own thread devoted to it. That way, you can show us through your OP how much you know about it.

Challenging someone to explain what she understands about it, isn't evidence that you, yourself, know anything about it at all.
Actually, chances are you don't. ESPECIALLY, after you commented on #335, and the questions you just asked. :lol:




What I'd stated about it, is there - it explains. In a nutshell.
The follow-up posts also show how I was applying it!

However, you can't deduce from those explanations - well, that's not my problem anymore. By your insistence for "detailed" explanation, you prove that the problem is with your understanding, not mine.


Btw, do you know what "deduce" means?


Anyway, I don't have to spoon-feed you, and I don't care what you think of me. Take it or leave it.


Bye-bye for now, Ramoss...... until you've got something worth responding to.
 
Last edited:
Her reactions are simply a way to distract from the original question. She's not interested in a conversation but a verbal sparing match. I for one have had my fill.

I am sure that many intellectuals laugh at believers.
 
What is there to explain? That conversation was between me and another poster - and there was a reason why I talked about Occam's razor. It was a response to another's. You're butting in into something that doesn't really concern you, actually.....and as you yourself asked, how does this apply to the topic?


Perhaps you should direct your question to the one who brought it up in the first place? You're barking at the wrong tree.


If #335 isn't clear enough for you, perhaps you ought to research about it.
Why do I have to prove myself to you? Like I said, I don't need your validation.

If you're obsessing with Occam's razor - then start your own thread devoted to it. That way, you can show us through your OP how much you know about it.

Challenging someone to explain what she understands about it, isn't evidence that you, yourself, know anything about it at all.
Actually, chances are you don't. ESPECIALLY, after you commented on #335, and the questions you just asked. :lol:




What I'd stated about it, is there - it explains. In a nutshell.
The follow-up posts also show how I was applying it!

However, you can't deduce from those explanations - well, that's not my problem anymore. By your insistence for "detailed" explanation, you prove that the problem is with your understanding, not mine.


Btw, do you know what "deduce" means?


Anyway, I don't have to spoon-feed you, and I don't care what you think of me. Take it or leave it.


Bye-bye for now, Ramoss...... until you've got something worth responding to.

In other words, yo don't know what you are talking about, you throw words around that you don't understand, and you want to talk about how 'intellectuals' laugh at atheists??

That sounds rather ironic .
 
Back
Top Bottom