Religious Nonsense

Status
Not open for further replies.
Musika said:
I was simply citing a turn of events that saw Dawkins lose support. If you feel his statements are not stupid, a vast majority of other (atheists) beg to differ.
Click to expand...
I have not experienced abuse in the manner that Dawkins and others have described, so I’m not in a position to judge their interpretation of it, but for some reason you feel that you are. Why is that?

Why do you appear to be so secretive about your personal religious views? Most people would consider superior personal beliefs something to be showcased as an example of model behavior. Why the need to hoard your riches?
 
Capracus said:
I have not experienced abuse in the manner that Dawkins and others have described, so I’m not in a position to judge their interpretation of it, but for some reason you feel that you are. Why is that?

Why do you appear to be so secretive about your personal religious views? Most people would consider superior personal beliefs something to be showcased as an example of model behavior. Why the need to hoard your riches?
Click to expand...
Its got zero to do with me.
Dawkins tends to profit more from my lack of support.
All I am indicating are historical incidents of Dawkins perceived stupidity amongst his supporters.
The jury hath spoken.
 
Musika said:
Needless to say, others beg to differ.
Click to expand...
No need to beg to differ ...differ away☺.

I appplaud you not seeking to defend the church for their indefensible action or rather non action with raping priests... but it is worth noting their management of raping priest is perhaps a subject more worthy of examination than Richard Dawkins brief commentary where it seems he tries to, in his mind, minimise the damage to him as a victim.

His sad experience may have been responsible for his lifes work to expose all that he seeks to expose.
But he was stupid to think folk would listern to his words and not use his sincerity to push their barrow and divert attention away from the serious issue of multiple cases of raping priest and the churches lack of decent and responsible action.

It is lamentable their lack of compassion for the victims.

Evil really.

Have you seen Dawkins completly demolish intelligent design?

So clever and in a short review absolutely demonstrates intelligent design is nonsense.

I mean anyone can see the notion of intelligent design is just more wishful thinking from believers trying to find something to match real science other than their superstitious good book.

Well of course they can not match real science and most of them dismiss a theory because their limited understanding has them thinking a theory is just some unsupported idea that popped into existence.

... well I can understand why they would think that..the "theory" of intelligent design certainly is a believers approach to "theory" being a sneaky thought bubble arrived at to try and match real science.

I like the way advocates of intelligent design, when asked who their intelligent designer may be, say they dont know and to assume it may be god would not be scientific.

I dont know if they are very sneaky or very stupid ... what do you think?

Anyways I suspect you as a clever thinker must go with Dawkins on intelligent design being nonsense.

What I find hillarious is that proponents of intelligent design wanted it taught in schools as alternative science.

That shows how they lack all understanding of scientific method.

As we all know, believers excluded I expect, a scientific model or theory can gain recognition simply by following the scientific method and making a better case than the theory it seeks to replace...alternative theory what a joke...do they even realise how silly their demand to be considered as science sounds to even a non scientist mug like me...heck I know so little but miles ahead of those pretenders.

Is even the dumbest atheist smarter than the most clever believer?

It certainly seems that way.

What theory would intelligent design replace...evolution maybe?

Well there is another laugh for all of us.

Evolution has been demonstrated to be correct so much and so often one wonders why one would waste time formulating a hypothisis on intelligent design.

Believers do not seem to inderstand that the Earth is a very old place and that life has had unimaginable periods to evolve...some think the Earth is only about 6000 years old and why they would think such is hard to fathom...why only 6000 years old ...what science suggests that?

Has Dawkins received a knighthood?

He should...maybe a couple for his calm arguement and determination to inform folk about the various flaws of religion.

He shows religion as little more than unsupported superstition with no support for the various lies it tells over and over.

Anyways I will now let you say more nice things about Dawkins as I expect he must be someone who you admire for his high intellect and sound reasoning and outstanding arguement.

One thing you must also admire about Dawkins is he stands up for what he believes and makes no secret about his belief and it is a pity more believers could not be so open and honest.

I do think I know why believers keep their thoughts to themselves however...I bet they realise that if they talk about the nonsense they are forced to follow any thinker listening will easily point out that their belief is no more than unsupported superstition and so they tend to keep quiet and play the players rather than to play the ball...in any event they are happy to give away a free kick rather than try to explain their superstitions openly.

I was thinking about stupid believers today..at first I thought Ken Ham was stupid but you know he may not be and actually a very clever chap who has capitalised on the ignorance of believers with his ark attraction.

He must have realised the ark story was made up when he started to make lists of the contractors required to build an ark.

He must have known the task would be way beyond a six hundred year old man and two hundred year old sons...but he was smart enough to realise he could make a quid and kept his realisation that it never could have happened and seized the business opportunity.

Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
No need to beg to differ ...differ away☺.

I appplaud you not seeking to defend the church for their indefensible action or rather non action with raping priests... but it is worth noting their management of raping priest is perhaps a subject more worthy of examination than Richard Dawkins brief commentary where it seems he tries to, in his mind, minimise the damage to him as a victim.

His sad experience may have been responsible for his lifes work to expose all that he seeks to expose.
But he was stupid to think folk would listern to his words and not use his sincerity to push their barrow and divert attention away from the serious issue of multiple cases of raping priest and the churches lack of decent and responsible action.

It is lamentable their lack of compassion for the victims.

Evil really.

Have you seen Dawkins completly demolish intelligent design?

So clever and in a short review absolutely demonstrates intelligent design is nonsense.

I mean anyone can see the notion of intelligent design is just more wishful thinking from believers trying to find something to match real science other than their superstitious good book.

Well of course they can not match real science and most of them dismiss a theory because their limited understanding has them thinking a theory is just some unsupported idea that popped into existence.

... well I can understand why they would think that..the "theory" of intelligent design certainly is a believers approach to "theory" being a sneaky thought bubble arrived at to try and match real science.

I like the way advocates of intelligent design, when asked who their intelligent designer may be, say they dont know and to assume it may be god would not be scientific.

I dont know if they are very sneaky or very stupid ... what do you think?

Anyways I suspect you as a clever thinker must go with Dawkins on intelligent design being nonsense.

What I find hillarious is that proponents of intelligent design wanted it taught in schools as alternative science.

That shows how they lack all understanding of scientific method.

As we all know, believers excluded I expect, a scientific model or theory can gain recognition simply by following the scientific method and making a better case than the theory it seeks to replace...alternative theory what a joke...do they even realise how silly their demand to be considered as science sounds to even a non scientist mug like me...heck I know so little but miles ahead of those pretenders.

Is even the dumbest atheist smarter than the most clever believer?

It certainly seems that way.

What theory would intelligent design replace...evolution maybe?

Well there is another laugh for all of us.

Evolution has been demonstrated to be correct so much and so often one wonders why one would waste time formulating a hypothisis on intelligent design.

Believers do not seem to inderstand that the Earth is a very old place and that life has had unimaginable periods to evolve...some think the Earth is only about 6000 years old and why they would think such is hard to fathom...why only 6000 years old ...what science suggests that?

Has Dawkins received a knighthood?

He should...maybe a couple for his calm arguement and determination to inform folk about the various flaws of religion.

He shows religion as little more than unsupported superstition with no support for the various lies it tells over and over.

Anyways I will now let you say more nice things about Dawkins as I expect he must be someone who you admire for his high intellect and sound reasoning and outstanding arguement.

One thing you must also admire about Dawkins is he stands up for what he believes and makes no secret about his belief and it is a pity more believers could not be so open and honest.

I do think I know why believers keep their thoughts to themselves however...I bet they realise that if they talk about the nonsense they are forced to follow any thinker listening will easily point out that their belief is no more than unsupported superstition and so they tend to keep quiet and play the players rather than to play the ball...in any event they are happy to give away a free kick rather than try to explain their superstitions openly.

I was thinking about stupid believers today..at first I thought Ken Ham was stupid but you know he may not be and actually a very clever chap who has capitalised on the ignorance of believers with his ark attraction.

He must have realised the ark story was made up when he started to make lists of the contractors required to build an ark.

He must have known the task would be way beyond a six hundred year old man and two hundred year old sons...but he was smart enough to realise he could make a quid and kept his realisation that it never could have happened and seized the business opportunity.

Alex
Click to expand...
The problems with Dawkins statements are that they can be lent to contextualizations beyond his experience. He had been talking of his experiences with a certain priest as a child for many years during his lead up to atheist stardom. It was only when he started dropping a few doozies around 2010 or so that his supporters started to sort of wonder about him.
 
Musika said:
Its got zero to do with me.
Dawkins tends to profit more from my lack of support.
All I am indicating are historical incidents of Dawkins perceived stupidity amongst his supporters.
The jury hath spoken.
Click to expand...
It’s got everything to do with you. You made yourself part of the jury by calling his opinions on the matter of his abuse stupid.

Dawkins has the courage of his convictions to state his personal experiences regarding religion to make a case against it, thereby allowing you and your ilk to criticized his him. Apparently you haven’t the courage to do likewise. You dish out criticism to others, but you can't take it yourself.
 
Capracus said:
It’s got everything to do with you. You made yourself part of the jury by calling his opinions on the matter of his abuse stupid.

Dawkins has the courage of his convictions to state his personal experiences regarding religion to make a case against it, thereby allowing you and your ilk to criticized his him. Apparently you haven’t the courage to do likewise. You dish out criticism to others, but you can't take it yourself.
Click to expand...
It was more the harsh criticism he copped from persons who were otherwise supportive of him that granted him the designated "stupid" position. I already thought he was silly way before then, but my opinions, in this regard, are neither here nor there, since the jury hath spoken.
 
Musika said:
"Done.
Now - back to the thread? Anything?"
Last I checked Dawkins still hasn't lived down this (and series of other stupidities) that robbed him of his posterboy atheist status .... so it appears the greater task is still before you.
Click to expand...
So nothing thread-relevant, and the pretext used for dishonest personal attack.
The overt Abrahamic theist posts on a science forum.

The question is: why? What's their agenda?
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
So nothing thread-relevant, and the pretext used for dishonest personal attack.
The overt Abrahamic theist posts on a science forum.

The question is: why? What's their agenda?
Click to expand...
What distinguishes overt abrahamic from abrahamic, IYHO?
 
Beer w/Straw said:
Well, this is the "religious section" so you can't fault him for posting.
Click to expand...
Or in any other section - nobody's faulted for merely posting.

But posting nothing - seriously, nothing - but bad faith irrelevance, slander, and pretexts for dishonest personal attacks on scientists, science, and anyone stereotypically connected with science and/or scientists (such as "atheists" not associated with religion, and the like),
raises the question of motive, agenda, etc.

Since these guys have no interest in discussion, never address issues or matters at hand, and so forth, why are they posting here at all? It's a legitimate question. They are not, for example, ordinary trolls - they are too consistent, with each other as well as within their own posting.

They have a characteristic rhetorical approach, similar to the one familiar from Fox News punditry and the like.

That is interesting, no?
 
Musika said:
To answer that we would have to first determine what Iceaura means by the word, since his usage appears far from conventional.
Click to expand...

No first we need to define " answer" and what may be defined as an answer in this context.

For examaple must this answer need to offer opinion with or without support or is an answer by way of cast off still capable as qualifying as an answer.
And perhaps we should address the term conventional.

I am starting to wonder exactly how we can define conventional given that different groups may consider their norms conventional whereas another group may consider their conventionial norms unconventional.

So how do you feel about intelligent design☺

Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
No first we need to define " answer" and what may be defined as an answer in this context.

For examaple must this answer need to offer opinion with or without support or is an answer by way of cast off still capable as qualifying as an answer.
And perhaps we should address the term conventional.

I am starting to wonder exactly how we can define conventional given that different groups may consider their norms conventional whereas another group may consider their conventionial norms unconventional.

So how do you feel about intelligent design☺

Alex
Click to expand...
Its actually a genuine inquiry. I haven't got the foggiest what sent Iceaura off on his abrahamic escapades.
So how do you feel about intelligent design☺
Click to expand...
It feels pretty good.
 
Last edited:
Musika said:
To answer that we would have to first determine what Iceaura means by the word, since his usage appears far from conventional.
Click to expand...
That's obviously silly - Musika et al would of course use their own meanings, to answer a question put to them. (They don't capitalize "Abrahamic", my reference has been to theism rather than religion, and so forth).

But any bs of the right kind will do, when the agenda is what it is and the rhetorical techniques are what they are with these guys (never answering questions, for example).

They only question of any substance involving their posting is: why is it here?
 
iceaura said:
That's obviously silly - Musika et al would of course use their own meanings, to answer a question put to them. (They don't capitalize "Abrahamic", my reference has been to theism rather than religion, and so forth).

But any bs of the right kind will do, when the agenda is what it is and the rhetorical techniques are what they are with these guys (never answering questions, for example).

They only question of any substance involving their posting is: why is it here?
Click to expand...
Call me a fanatic, but I exclusively employ the term "abrahamic" as an umbrella term for islamic, judaic and christian religions.
 
Musika said:
Its actually a genuine inquiry.
Click to expand...
Absolutely I can see that it is .... while we are waiting I must ask...what do you think about intelligent design.

You could start by asking me what do I mean by design and then we could discuss intelligence and if it is or is not required for design as we would need to consider design by insects which presumably we will or may observe in their world and if, assuming such insect design does indeed qualify as design do we treat that design resident in the area we refer to loosley as instint and the ramification of instinct and indeed if instinct should be classed as intelligence and overall set some arena to express yourself freely.
So you start☺
Alex
 
Musika said:
Call me a fanatic, but I exclusively employ the term "abrahamic" as an umbrella term islamic, judaic and christian religions.
Click to expand...
You misuse so many words here that guessing your meaning from context is too unreliable to bother with.
Besides, except in attempts to disparage me you don't use that word at all around here - and I am not talking about religions, but theists and their deities. So -- - -

So once again nothing relevant, nothing answered, basing an attempt at personal disparagement the only role of the pretext.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top