• 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.
 

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
 

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.
 


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.
 


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:



 
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.
 

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?
 
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.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…