Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intelligent design Yay! God? no!!!

IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:19:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Don't have time to watch the video, but I've seen many atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) advocate for extraterrestrial intelligent design. I believe that position is equivalent to a position about a God that didn't create the universe -- which I'm sure they don't agree with it; thus, it's just disagreeing with themselves. Meh.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:04:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

Declares Hitchian! Now wave your magic wand, wiggle your nose, and hope you magically have the power to declare what flies and what does not for all of humanity. Good work.
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:05:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:19:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
Don't have time to watch the video, but I've seen many atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) advocate for extraterrestrial intelligent design. I believe that position is equivalent to a position about a God that didn't create the universe -- which I'm sure they don't agree with it; thus, it's just disagreeing with themselves. Meh.

So greater beings are definately possible. Just not THAT great...
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:08:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You're being silly, the question is whether it's on purpose or not. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He confesses is inability to refute an argument, which, incidentally, doesn't even deal with God. His inability to refute an argument is not tantamount to the acceptance of that argument. Get that through your heard.

You're that far off.
And desperate to pin some ludicrous statement on him in hopes of, by extension, blemishing atheism as a whole.
Crystal Clear.

But go ahead.
Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:11:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:08:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You're being silly, the question is whether it's on purpose or not. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He confesses is inability to refute an argument, which, incidentally, doesn't even deal with God. His inability to refute an argument is not tantamount to the acceptance of that argument. Get that through your heard.

You're that far off.
And desperate to pin some ludicrous statement on him in hopes of, by extension, blemishing atheism as a whole.
Crystal Clear.

But go ahead.
Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

There's a difference. No one has observed a spaghetti monster. Jesus actually walked the Earth.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:12:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:04:20 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

Declares Hitchian! Now wave your magic wand, wiggle your nose, and hope you magically have the power to declare what flies and what does not for all of humanity. Good work.

No, not for all humanity. After all, I'm not the paroquial Christian threatening everyone who doesn't agree with me with eternal torment.

I'm glad you couldn't provide a single point refuting my own and resorted to same old same old.

It does speak volumes.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:14:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:11:54 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:08:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You're being silly, the question is whether it's on purpose or not. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He confesses is inability to refute an argument, which, incidentally, doesn't even deal with God. His inability to refute an argument is not tantamount to the acceptance of that argument. Get that through your heard.

You're that far off.
And desperate to pin some ludicrous statement on him in hopes of, by extension, blemishing atheism as a whole.
Crystal Clear.

But go ahead.
Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

There's a difference. No one has observed a spaghetti monster. Jesus actually walked the Earth.

So you cannot disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster I have observed, can you?
Roger.
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:15:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:08:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You're being silly, the question is whether it's on purpose or not. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He confesses is inability to refute an argument, which, incidentally, doesn't even deal with God. His inability to refute an argument is not tantamount to the acceptance of that argument. Get that through your heard.

You're that far off.
And desperate to pin some ludicrous statement on him in hopes of, by extension, blemishing atheism as a whole.
Crystal Clear.

But go ahead.
Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Many Atheists believe in evolution and the great possibility of other life, possibly much greater life and many believe intelligent design is posdible somewhere in our reality. These are the same concepts in logic as creationism. But creationism is far fetched, yet intelligent designers and advanced beings is not. Genius!
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:16:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:15:33 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:08:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You're being silly, the question is whether it's on purpose or not. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He confesses is inability to refute an argument, which, incidentally, doesn't even deal with God. His inability to refute an argument is not tantamount to the acceptance of that argument. Get that through your heard.

You're that far off.
And desperate to pin some ludicrous statement on him in hopes of, by extension, blemishing atheism as a whole.
Crystal Clear.

But go ahead.
Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Many Atheists believe in evolution and the great possibility of other life, possibly much greater life and many believe intelligent design is posdible somewhere in our reality. These are the same concepts in logic as creationism. But creationism is far fetched, yet intelligent designers and advanced beings is not. Genius!

Very little in that paragraph makes sense.
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:21:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:16:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:15:33 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:08:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You're being silly, the question is whether it's on purpose or not. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He confesses is inability to refute an argument, which, incidentally, doesn't even deal with God. His inability to refute an argument is not tantamount to the acceptance of that argument. Get that through your heard.

You're that far off.
And desperate to pin some ludicrous statement on him in hopes of, by extension, blemishing atheism as a whole.
Crystal Clear.

But go ahead.
Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Many Atheists believe in evolution and the great possibility of other life, possibly much greater life and many believe intelligent design is posdible somewhere in our reality. These are the same concepts in logic as creationism. But creationism is far fetched, yet intelligent designers and advanced beings is not. Genius!

Very little in that paragraph makes sense.

Then you will need to get someone who speaks English. They should be able to translate it easily.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:25:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:21:42 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:16:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:15:33 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:08:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You're being silly, the question is whether it's on purpose or not. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He confesses is inability to refute an argument, which, incidentally, doesn't even deal with God. His inability to refute an argument is not tantamount to the acceptance of that argument. Get that through your heard.

You're that far off.
And desperate to pin some ludicrous statement on him in hopes of, by extension, blemishing atheism as a whole.
Crystal Clear.

But go ahead.
Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Many Atheists believe in evolution and the great possibility of other life, possibly much greater life and many believe intelligent design is posdible somewhere in our reality. These are the same concepts in logic as creationism. But creationism is far fetched, yet intelligent designers and advanced beings is not. Genius!

Very little in that paragraph makes sense.

Then you will need to get someone who speaks English. They should be able to translate it easily.

I was courteous enough not to bring up that kind of issues in your post. Perhaps you would care to rephrase it?
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:32:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:21:42 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:16:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:15:33 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:08:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You're being silly, the question is whether it's on purpose or not. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He confesses is inability to refute an argument, which, incidentally, doesn't even deal with God. His inability to refute an argument is not tantamount to the acceptance of that argument. Get that through your heard.

You're that far off.
And desperate to pin some ludicrous statement on him in hopes of, by extension, blemishing atheism as a whole.
Crystal Clear.

But go ahead.
Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Many Atheists believe in evolution and the great possibility of other life, possibly much greater life and many believe intelligent design is posdible somewhere in our reality. These are the same concepts in logic as creationism. But creationism is far fetched, yet intelligent designers and advanced beings is not. Genius!

Very little in that paragraph makes sense.

Then you will need to get someone who speaks English. They should be able to translate it easily.

I am silly and you don't read English. It's quite a crossroad. I can negative up my English to sound more Atheistlike. Would thst be helpful? Okay. Here I go.

The nongodbotherers believe in really smart beings greater than humans, and they even believe a designer is possible. Just not certain types of intelligent designers. If they cannot understand everything about the designer and be comfortable with the designer's traits, the designer cannot exist. But if the designer fits their model for what a designer can and should be like(this creator is obviously an Atheist), then he can exist.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:55:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:32:36 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:21:42 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:16:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:15:33 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:08:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You're being silly, the question is whether it's on purpose or not. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He confesses is inability to refute an argument, which, incidentally, doesn't even deal with God. His inability to refute an argument is not tantamount to the acceptance of that argument. Get that through your heard.

You're that far off.
And desperate to pin some ludicrous statement on him in hopes of, by extension, blemishing atheism as a whole.
Crystal Clear.

But go ahead.
Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Many Atheists believe in evolution and the great possibility of other life, possibly much greater life and many believe intelligent design is posdible somewhere in our reality. These are the same concepts in logic as creationism. But creationism is far fetched, yet intelligent designers and advanced beings is not. Genius!

Very little in that paragraph makes sense.

Then you will need to get someone who speaks English. They should be able to translate it easily.

I am silly and you don't read English. It's quite a crossroad. I can negative up my English to sound more Atheistlike. Would thst be helpful? Okay. Here I go.

The nongodbotherers believe in really smart beings greater than humans, and they even believe a designer is possible. Just not certain types of intelligent designers. If they cannot understand everything about the designer and be comfortable with the designer's traits, the designer cannot exist. But if the designer fits their model for what a designer can and should be like(this creator is obviously an Atheist), then he can exist.

Listen, you're obviously distracted.
You even managed to quote the wrong post.

You don't get it, do you? Even if Dawkins believed the things you say he believes, which he evidently does not, so what? Dawkins is not the high priest of atheism. He can say whatever he wants. Perhaps the concept of a loosely-knit movement with no central authority is alien to you, but that would be your limitation. Whatever Dawkins says is not binding on atheists. Do you finally, at long last, get that?

He can say he believes reality is a simulation running on Android Lollipop, that Baby Jesus is a corn waffle, or that Elvis just crossed fifth avenue buck naked. His words. They are meaningless when it comes to assessing the disbelief in god or gods.

You take it up with Dawkins.
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 7:07:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:55:42 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:32:36 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:21:42 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:16:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:15:33 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:08:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You're being silly, the question is whether it's on purpose or not. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He confesses is inability to refute an argument, which, incidentally, doesn't even deal with God. His inability to refute an argument is not tantamount to the acceptance of that argument. Get that through your heard.

You're that far off.
And desperate to pin some ludicrous statement on him in hopes of, by extension, blemishing atheism as a whole.
Crystal Clear.

But go ahead.
Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Many Atheists believe in evolution and the great possibility of other life, possibly much greater life and many believe intelligent design is posdible somewhere in our reality. These are the same concepts in logic as creationism. But creationism is far fetched, yet intelligent designers and advanced beings is not. Genius!

Very little in that paragraph makes sense.

Then you will need to get someone who speaks English. They should be able to translate it easily.

I am silly and you don't read English. It's quite a crossroad. I can negative up my English to sound more Atheistlike. Would thst be helpful? Okay. Here I go.

The nongodbotherers believe in really smart beings greater than humans, and they even believe a designer is possible. Just not certain types of intelligent designers. If they cannot understand everything about the designer and be comfortable with the designer's traits, the designer cannot exist. But if the designer fits their model for what a designer can and should be like(this creator is obviously an Atheist), then he can exist.

Listen, you're obviously distracted.
You even managed to quote the wrong post.

You don't get it, do you? Even if Dawkins believed the things you say he believes, which he evidently does not, so what? Dawkins is not the high priest of atheism. He can say whatever he wants. Perhaps the concept of a loosely-knit movement with no central authority is alien to you, but that would be your limitation. Whatever Dawkins says is not binding on atheists. Do you finally, at long last, get that?

He can say he believes reality is a simulation running on Android Lollipop, that Baby Jesus is a corn waffle, or that Elvis just crossed fifth avenue buck naked. His words. They are meaningless when it comes to assessing the disbelief in god or gods.

You take it up with Dawkins.

Do you guys have a pope?

Dawkins is an example of an Atheist, who is a biologist(an expert in his field) and intelligent design does not seem improbable to him. Advanced beings are not improbable to him. And this is a scientist who is anti belief in any god. So, we have an unbiased scientific expert telling us that the concept of intelligent design is pretty logical. Are most Atheists scientific experts? Probably not.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 7:22:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatever.

To have design you have to have a designer or it isn't design.

To have intelligent design such as we see around us everywhere in the Universe, you have to have a phenomenally intelligent designer, and that is Jehovah, the God and creator of the universe and everything in it, as well as those things outside it.

Just because some are scared stiff to admit the existence of Jehovah because of the demands that would make on their lives and time, does not mean that he does not exist, and they can squirm all they like but the truth will eventually catch up with them.

Simple as, sorry.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 7:06:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 7:22:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatever.

To have design you have to have a designer or it isn't design.

Unless it's a design that designs itself through a long process of filtering out bad designs aka evolution.

To have intelligent design such as we see around us everywhere in the Universe, you have to have a phenomenally intelligent designer, and that is Jehovah, the God and creator of the universe and everything in it, as well as those things outside it.

Damn, we have a JW, RUN.

Kidding. nonetheless, why do you assume Jehovah did it? Why not Vishnu, Buddha, Aztec Gods or whatever. Why YOUR God? Furthermore, "intelligent design" is an allusion in life. Have you ever seen a snowflake? Very pretty, and also very symmetrical. Seems intelligently designed. Was it? Probably not.

Also, your God seems, for a divine engineer, very sloppy in his designs. Don't forget to thank him for: Pathogens, weak body, inefficient back bone, weirdly wired eyes, small pelvis, overly complicated feet, chock hazard throat, etc etc etc.

Just because some are scared stiff to admit the existence of Jehovah because of the demands that would make on their lives and time, does not mean that he does not exist, and they can squirm all they like but the truth will eventually catch up with them.

Ooooooohhhh...yes I'm...frightened out of my wits...hold me, I'm so cold...

But no, people don't admit the existence of Jehovah for the same reason they don't admit the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...because there is no evidence for them. Not because we're scared! Good Jehovah, where in hells name (not that he'll exists) did you get that conclusion?

Simple as, sorry.

No, not simple as...well, it may be to you because you seem to live in a fantasy world.

BTW, how are those children molested in the JW church? Oh, and when is 'Armageddon' coming? So far you JWs have said it was in: 1873, 1874, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1942 and 1975.

Now you lot are saying its is "imminent" for the last 20 years to save yourself further embarrassment. Your God is a funny bloke isn't he?

Shall that be an extra couple hours of preaching on your report? And pray for me as I am an atheist/agnostic! I wouldn't want to die eternally for not being a gullible idiot!
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 9:20:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 7:07:29 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:55:42 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:32:36 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:21:42 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:16:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:15:33 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:08:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You're being silly, the question is whether it's on purpose or not. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He confesses is inability to refute an argument, which, incidentally, doesn't even deal with God. His inability to refute an argument is not tantamount to the acceptance of that argument. Get that through your heard.

You're that far off.
And desperate to pin some ludicrous statement on him in hopes of, by extension, blemishing atheism as a whole.
Crystal Clear.

But go ahead.
Disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Many Atheists believe in evolution and the great possibility of other life, possibly much greater life and many believe intelligent design is posdible somewhere in our reality. These are the same concepts in logic as creationism. But creationism is far fetched, yet intelligent designers and advanced beings is not. Genius!

Very little in that paragraph makes sense.

Then you will need to get someone who speaks English. They should be able to translate it easily.

I am silly and you don't read English. It's quite a crossroad. I can negative up my English to sound more Atheistlike. Would thst be helpful? Okay. Here I go.

The nongodbotherers believe in really smart beings greater than humans, and they even believe a designer is possible. Just not certain types of intelligent designers. If they cannot understand everything about the designer and be comfortable with the designer's traits, the designer cannot exist. But if the designer fits their model for what a designer can and should be like(this creator is obviously an Atheist), then he can exist.

Listen, you're obviously distracted.
You even managed to quote the wrong post.

You don't get it, do you? Even if Dawkins believed the things you say he believes, which he evidently does not, so what? Dawkins is not the high priest of atheism. He can say whatever he wants. Perhaps the concept of a loosely-knit movement with no central authority is alien to you, but that would be your limitation. Whatever Dawkins says is not binding on atheists. Do you finally, at long last, get that?

He can say he believes reality is a simulation running on Android Lollipop, that Baby Jesus is a corn waffle, or that Elvis just crossed fifth avenue buck naked. His words. They are meaningless when it comes to assessing the disbelief in god or gods.

You take it up with Dawkins.

Do you guys have a pope?

Dawkins is an example of an Atheist, who is a biologist(an expert in his field) and intelligent design does not seem improbable to him. Advanced beings are not improbable to him. And this is a scientist who is anti belief in any god. So, we have an unbiased scientific expert telling us that the concept of intelligent design is pretty logical. Are most Atheists scientific experts? Probably not.

Could you please provide a link to Dawkins stating that intelligent design is not improbable to him, and appears logical to him. Many thanks.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 9:29:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
These are Professor Dawkins own words about the interview he had with Ben Stein :

"Just read Dawkins' own words from his own blog: "Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish... and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. ... I was most emphatically NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it... and my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed".
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 10:48:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:05:50 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:19:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
Don't have time to watch the video, but I've seen many atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) advocate for extraterrestrial intelligent design. I believe that position is equivalent to a position about a God that didn't create the universe -- which I'm sure they don't agree with it; thus, it's just disagreeing with themselves. Meh.

So greater beings are definately possible. Just not THAT great...

if you do believe that gods exist, then are any of your gods even capable of convincing me of their existence?
that is a simple yes or no.
if your god isn't able to convince me, then what happened that you were convinced?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 1:34:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 10:48:13 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:05:50 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:19:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
Don't have time to watch the video, but I've seen many atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) advocate for extraterrestrial intelligent design. I believe that position is equivalent to a position about a God that didn't create the universe -- which I'm sure they don't agree with it; thus, it's just disagreeing with themselves. Meh.

So greater beings are definately possible. Just not THAT great...

if you do believe that gods exist, then are any of your gods even capable of convincing me of their existence?
that is a simple yes or no.
if your god isn't able to convince me, then what happened that you were convinced?

If you cannot accept the masses of evidence that are all around you then no, nobody and nothing will.

You are like those described at Matthew 13:15.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 7:43:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 1:34:36 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/13/2015 10:48:13 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:05:50 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:19:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
Don't have time to watch the video, but I've seen many atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) advocate for extraterrestrial intelligent design. I believe that position is equivalent to a position about a God that didn't create the universe -- which I'm sure they don't agree with it; thus, it's just disagreeing with themselves. Meh.

So greater beings are definately possible. Just not THAT great...

if you do believe that gods exist, then are any of your gods even capable of convincing me of their existence?
that is a simple yes or no.
if your god isn't able to convince me, then what happened that you were convinced?

If you cannot accept the masses of evidence that are all around you then no, nobody and nothing will.

You are like those described at Matthew 13:15.

why do you follow such a weak god that can't even convince me that it exists?
every religion has a creation myth, why do you assume that yours is actually true?
sounds like those people got tired of listening to fairy tales
i'm sure most religions would say the same about christians
i love reading the bible, reading the bible is the main reason that i'm an atheist
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 2:34:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 7:43:23 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/13/2015 1:34:36 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/13/2015 10:48:13 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/12/2015 6:05:50 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:19:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
Don't have time to watch the video, but I've seen many atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) advocate for extraterrestrial intelligent design. I believe that position is equivalent to a position about a God that didn't create the universe -- which I'm sure they don't agree with it; thus, it's just disagreeing with themselves. Meh.

So greater beings are definately possible. Just not THAT great...

if you do believe that gods exist, then are any of your gods even capable of convincing me of their existence?
that is a simple yes or no.
if your god isn't able to convince me, then what happened that you were convinced?

If you cannot accept the masses of evidence that are all around you then no, nobody and nothing will.

You are like those described at Matthew 13:15.

why do you follow such a weak god that can't even convince me that it exists?
every religion has a creation myth, why do you assume that yours is actually true?
sounds like those people got tired of listening to fairy tales
i'm sure most religions would say the same about christians
i love reading the bible, reading the bible is the main reason that i'm an atheist

There is nothing weak about Jehovah.

The problem is that the reason he cannot convince you is because you don;t really want the answers.

If you did you would have asked the questions which would have made his existence obvious to you much sooner.

Anyone who has to be forced to recognised truth is not a man who is concerned enough about truth to be worth the effort.

Take evolution.

The only reason people can believe in evolution is because they don;t ask the myriad questions which prove it cannot give any answers worthwhile at all. The sort of questions which gave birth to the intelligent design school of thought.

There are so many things in creation which could not possible have evolved a bit at a time because they had to come about already perfected or they would never have come about at all, and those things range from the relatively complex "gearboxes"
found in very simple but motile animals, to the 9 month process brings about the development and birth of a human child.

Satan relies on people not asking questions, especially "why" and "how".
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 4:09:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:18:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
doesn't intelligent design normally entail an intelligent designer...

Yes. So the question is: How do you recognize design?
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 7:22:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 2:34:46 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
why do you follow such a weak god that can't even convince me that it exists?
every religion has a creation myth, why do you assume that yours is actually true?
sounds like those people got tired of listening to fairy tales
i'm sure most religions would say the same about christians
i love reading the bible, reading the bible is the main reason that i'm an atheist

There is nothing weak about Jehovah.

The problem is that the reason he cannot convince you is because you don;t really want the answers.

oh i see, your god needs my permission to act. . . . tell your god it has my permission, i want proof that your god is real, i want a life changing event, no matter what it takes.


If you did you would have asked the questions which would have made his existence obvious to you much sooner.

Anyone who has to be forced to recognised truth is not a man who is concerned enough about truth to be worth the effort.

Take evolution.

The only reason people can believe in evolution is because they don;t ask the myriad questions which prove it cannot give any answers worthwhile at all. The sort of questions which gave birth to the intelligent design school of thought.

great, because i don't believe in evolution, next?
it's too bad no credible scientists have stepped forward with that information to show how superior ID is over evolution, can't they get enough funding from churches.
i just saw a church buy a pastor a personal jet for $50+million, why wouldn't every church in america pay to support a couple of scientists overthrow evolution?


There are so many things in creation which could not possible have evolved a bit at a time because they had to come about already perfected or they would never have come about at all, and those things range from the relatively complex "gearboxes"
found in very simple but motile animals, to the 9 month process brings about the development and birth of a human child.

Satan relies on people not asking questions, especially "why" and "how".
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 7:47:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 6:02:16 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:40:51 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:54:16 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
An Atheist tells us how this could be a simulation and advocates intelligent design.(Just not certain kinds of designers...like God.)

http://youtu.be...

Do not even attempt to be dishonest.
It's not going to fly.

Brian Greene, not Dawkins, recounts the conjecture by a third party. When asked about it, Dawkins says he doesn't know how one would refute the argument. That reply might possibly stem from the same reason why other people claim the philosophical problem of hard solipsism has no solution.

You take Dawkin's confession that he wouldn't know how to refute the assertion to mean Dawkins agrees? Only if you know very little about epistemology.

I can see what you're trying to do. You essentially saying "Look at the foolishness of what this high-profile atheist is saying!" and from there you are insinuating the alleged foolishness of atheism as a whole. Atheism is not a religion and it shows. Unlike in most organized religions where authorities dictate what members are to believe, Dawkins and Greene would be able to say the most outlandish things on planet Earth and still those things would no be binding on all atheists. In fact, they would be binding to no one but themselves.

What you've attempted is a cheap tactic.
And it's not going to fly.

One cannot refute the argument, but be an Atheist anyway. Pure genius...

You can have arguments that could be shown to be wrong if they were, but aren't.

You can also have arguments that can never be shown to be wrong, even if they are.

You can also have arguments that can never be shown to be wrong, even if they are, but you can reasonably presume or conclude they are highly implausible, but not impossible.

Throughout your replies here, you seem to be confusing all these three things together.

The Spaghetti monster existing, is implausible, but not impossible; and can never shown to be wrong even if it was.

The original argument is one that can never shown to be wrong even if it was.

Yet you seem to be confusing impossible with implausible; and cannot be shown to be wrong, even if it was; with things that could be shown to be wrong but aren't.