Why Intellectuals Laugh At Atheists

[Manc Skipper]

I preferred on the wings of a nightingale. Shame it was a swan song!

 

[zyzygy]

I preferred on the wings of a nightingale. Shame it was a swan song!

I'm trying to remember who wrote that. I refuse to google.

 

[RAMOSS]

I'm trying to remember who wrote that. I refuse to google.

It was not the one who last recorded it as a swan song... it was written 15 years earlier.

 

[tosca1]

Based on the thread, "IS RICHARD DAWKINS A FRAUD"......there is some irony here.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/208196-richard-dawkins-fraud-8.html



Like I said, Richard Dawkins write for Anti-Religion, God-haters Neo-Darwinists. He doesn't give a hoot about the critics of his books.


If Intellectuials are laughing at atheists.....Richard Dawkins shows contempt for his followers who lapped at everything he says and writes, as he laughs all the way to the bank.


You're being taken for a ride.

 

[zyzygy]

Based on the thread, "IS RICHARD DAWKINS A FRAUD"......there is some irony here.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/208196-richard-dawkins-fraud-8.html



Like I said, Richard Dawkins write for Anti-Religion, God-haters Neo-Darwinists. He doesn't give a hoot about the critics of his books.


If Intellectuials are laughing at atheists.....Richard Dawkins shows contempt for his followers who lapped at everything he says and writes, as he laughs all the way to the bank.


You're being taken for a ride.

I don't hate any god. I don't hate any imaginary being.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I'm trying to remember who wrote that. I refuse to google.

Everly Brothers' last hit, written by fanboy Paul MacCartney IRRC.

 

[William Rea]

Based on ... being taken for a ride.[/B]

Dawkins loves you, you just have to accept him.

 

[tosca1]

#34


Atheists love to give short-liners.
Like this one who quipped about Dawkins in IS RICHARD DAWKINS A FRAUD. He said,

Fraud? No. A blowhard? Undeniable.

Silly me. I thought he wanted to discuss, out of courtesy I should say something......and since it's been a long thread it crossed my mind that he'd overlooked at the arguments already presented.

Thus I responded:

Yeah, blowhard -I agree with you.

About the title of the topic, have you considered these arguments? Why he is accused of being a fraud?


Postures as a Theologian - #12, #13 page 2

Postures as a Philosopher - #33, #40 page 4

Non-credible Scientist: #72, #73, 74 page 8, #109 page 11

His response is a classic.

Who cares?

I guess they tend to wander about, lost in their own thoughts .....or sumthin?
Anyway, he's lost. Ambiguously-speaking.

Moral of the story: Beware of the wandering short-liner atheist. :lol:

 

[CMPancake]

#34


Atheists love to give short-liners.
Like this one who quipped about Dawkins in IS RICHARD DAWKINS A FRAUD. He said,




Silly me. I thought he wanted to discuss, out of courtesy I should say something......and since it's been a long thread it crossed my mind that he'd overlooked at the arguments already presented.

Thus I responded:




His response is a classic.




I guess they tend to wander about, lost in their own thoughts .....or sumthin?
Anyway, he's lost. Ambiguously-speaking.

Moral of the story: Beware of the wandering short-liner atheist. :lol:

I suggest you read up on "Occam's Razor."

 

[tosca1]

I suggest you read up on "Occam's Razor."

Yes, atheists do give so many complex assumptions and hypotheses when it comes to the origin of life, and evolution. The most plausible theory - following Occam principle - would have to be Design, due to its simplicity.

 

[CMPancake]

Yes, atheists do give so many complex assumptions and hypotheses when it comes to the origin of life, and evolution. The most plausible theory - following Occam principle - would have to be Design, due to its simplicity.

What is so complex about evolution? Evolution can be explained in 60 seconds at the very least.

If you used Occam's Razor and came to conclusion of design, then you're not using it correctly.

 

[tosca1]

What is so complex about evolution? Evolution can be explained in 60 seconds at the very least.

If you used Occam's Razor and came to conclusion of design, then you're not using it correctly.

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?

 

[CMPancake]

The numerous complex, varying, and shifting hypotheses.

What shifting hypotheses? The scientific community is in agreement that Evolution is real.

Explanations are not evidences. Of course we're talking about macro-evolution.

Do you even understand what Macro-evolution is?

 

[tosca1]

What shifting hypotheses? The scientific community is in agreement that Evolution is real.
Do you even understand what Macro-evolution is?

I believe evolution is real, too. I'm referring to micro-evolution.

Do you understand the difference between the two? The reason I asked is due to your response....that explaining evolution is so simple.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Yes, atheists do give so many complex assumptions and hypotheses when it comes to the origin of life, and evolution. The most plausible theory - following Occam principle - would have to be Design, due to its simplicity.

False. Design requires a designer, which by definition is far more complex than the design itself.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I believe evolution is real, too. I'm referring to micro-evolution.

Do you understand the difference between the two? The reason I asked is due to your response....that explaining evolution is so simple.

There is only the artificial difference you impose on the simple concept of evolution.

 

[tosca1]

False. Design requires a designer, which by definition is far more complex than the design itself.

Actually, that Design requires a designer, is what makes it simplest. It can't get any simpler than that.

 

[zyzygy]

Actually, that Design requires a designer, is what makes it simplest. It can't get any simpler than that.

Who says that there is a design? That is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Econ4every1]

Actually, that Design requires a designer, is what makes it simplest. It can't get any simpler than that.

Ironic....Since you don't understand the concept of evidence in your thinking you've failed to recognize it when you employ it, though in your case you've made a fatal error.

Design requires a designer. How do we know this? We see a painting, how do we know it required a designer? because we've all seen a painter creating the paining it of course. What about a house, we've seen houses being built, we have evidence for their design, we know what the creators look like and the methods they employ. What about things we've never seen built? Have you ever seen how they make CPU's or rifle barrels? What about LED's or control rods in nuclear power plants?

If we've never seen them built, aren't we just going on faith? Well, can you Google any of these, can you find evidence? What about the stuff you can't find? Can you simply assume based on the principles of engineering that humans employ what is and is not possible? Think about Mars, every time we find something that seems familiar (a fossilized leg bone or a face) we infer the possibility of design.

So what about the "designer". Has anyone ever seen an eyeball designed? Has anyone seen the creator of an eyeball? How about a universe? Is there any evidence of a universe that is designed beyond the assertion that because things created in a reality that we can see and have evidence for, that the universe itself must have a designer? Well, given that this is the only universe we know of we really don't know. This could be the only one, or it could be one of an infinite number, but until we see the evidence of design, like a painter that creates the painting, all you've done is infer based on facts that you know are true based on evidence.

 

[tosca1]

Ironic....Since you don't understand the concept of evidence in your thinking you've failed to recognize it when you employ it, though in your case you've made a fatal error.

Design requires a designer. How do we know this? We see a painting, how do we know it required a designer? because we've all seen a painter creating the paining it of course. What about a house, we've seen houses being built, we have evidence for their design, we know what the creators look like and the methods they employ. What about things we've never seen built? Have you ever seen how they make CPU's or rifle barrels? What about LED's or control rods in nuclear power plants?

If we've never seen them built, aren't we just going on faith?

You're the one who's full of errors!
Your error is in thinking that you have to know how something is made for it to have been designed by a designer/creator.

You don't have to know how the designer/creator looks like! You may have an idea if the product says made in China :lol: - but that is still an assumption. You don't have to know the methods they employ, either.

But one thing is certain - somebody designed/created that thing.

You go to a restaurant and place your order. Do you follow the waitress all the way to the kitchen to see your cook and how he did his cooking? Doesn't the food just come to your table ready to be enjoyed?
So what are you saying? You don't know how this food came to be? Because you didn't see any cooks, let alone seen the kitchen?


How could that be just going on faith when you already know that everything that's been designed and made was done by a designer or creator? You even enumerated so many examples!

Thus we know, design requires a designer! That's just simple common sense.


We may not know the details how they make CPUs or rifle barrels but we'll have an idea if they show us how.

Or, we can listen to a guy who makes them describe the details to you. In that case, since we know diddly squat about making CPUs or rifle barrels - we can choose to take his words in faith, that what he's telling us is indeed how they're made.

 

[Econ4every1]

You're the one who's full of errors!
Your error is in thinking that you have to know how something is made for it to have been designed by a designer/creator.

You don't have to know how the designer/creator looks like! You may have an idea if the product says made in China :lol: - but that is still an assumption. You don't have to know the methods they employ, either.

But one thing is certain - somebody designed/created that thing.

You go to a restaurant and place your order. Do you follow the waitress all the way to the kitchen to see your cook and how he did his cooking? Doesn't the food just come to your table ready to be enjoyed?
So what are you saying? You don't know how this food came to be? Because you didn't see any cooks, let alone seen the kitchen?

How could that be just going on faith when you already know that everything that's been designed and made was done by a designer or creator? You even enumerated so many examples!

Thus we know, design requires a designer! That's just simple common sense.[/quote]

We may not know the details how they make CPUs or rifle barrels but we'll have an idea if they show us how.

Or, we can listen to a guy who makes them describe the details to you. In that case, since we know diddly squat about making CPUs or rifle barrels - we can choose to take his words in faith, that what he's telling us is indeed how they're made.[/QUOTE]

You really didn't understand what I wrote.

Let's simplify this....

Have you ever seen a painter paint a painting? Yes

If you came across a painting in a field all by itself, would you really have to question weather or not it was painted by person? No

Why?

Because you've seen people make paintings. You have evidence.

If you come across something you've never seen before, but obviously it was created by a person, do you really wonder if it fell from heaven or spontaneously created itself? Nope, because you know what people are capable of. You know what manufacturing is and I hope you know what kind of reasonably simple items people can create. Because you've probably seen manufacturing on TV, maybe the news, maybe you've seen "How It's Made", but the point is you have evidence.

Have you ever seen a god create a universe?...Nope, you haven't and therefore saying that a paining requires a painter it does not follow that a universe requires a universe maker. This is false equivocation and really saying something you want to be true based on intuition, which by the way is an awful way to make decisions.

 

[tosca1]

You really didn't understand what I wrote.

Let's simplify this....

Have you ever seen a painter paint a painting? Yes

If you came across a painting in a field all by itself, would you really have to question weather or not it was painted by person? No

Why?

Because you've seen people make paintings. You have evidence.

If you come across something you've never seen before, but obviously it was created by a person, do you really wonder if it fell from heaven or spontaneously created itself? Nope, because you know what people are capable of. You know what manufacturing is and I hope you know what kind of reasonably simple items people can create. Because you've probably seen manufacturing on TV, maybe the news, maybe you've seen "How It's Made", but the point is you have evidence.

Those evidences had established that a design requires a designer.

Have you ever seen a god create a universe?...Nope, you haven't and therefore saying that a paining requires a painter it does not follow that a universe requires a universe maker. This is false equivocation and really saying something you want to be true based on intuition, which by the way is an awful way to make decisions.

Have you ever heard of a CPU before it was designed and made?
Have you ever heard of a designer of the CPU before it was designed and made?



Furthermore, it's not as if scientists merely look up the sky. They have empirical evidences to say that the universe is fine-tuned!

Scientists already have a consensus on that - the only thing that they're not in agreement is the cause of this fine-tuned universe.

 

[zyzygy]

Scientists already have a consensus on that - the only thing that they're not in agreement is the cause of this fine-tuned universe.[/b]

A sky daddy is the least likely cause.

 

[Econ4every1]

Those evidences had established that a design requires a designer.

For things here on earth, yes, for universes, no.


Have you ever heard of a CPU before it was designed and made?
Have you ever heard of a designer of the CPU before it was designed and made?

Wow, what are you talking about? How does any of that address what I said?

the only thing that they're not in agreement is the cause of this fine-tuned universe.[/COLOR][/b]

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

Fine tuned for what?

 

[zyzygy]

Wow, what are you talking about? How does any of that address what I said?



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

Fine tuned for what?

So that life could exist in this tiny corner of the universe.