| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
there are plenty of other religions out there who don�t believe in the Christian story.. but atheists seem to a have a beef with Christians..
that�s because 90% of them were ex Christians!! |
And we were raised in Christian nations where Christian politicians seeks to impose their morality on secular law.
| Quote: |
why not try spending some time reading some other books..
ohhh thats right.. you are closed minded! |
Actually most atheists read a lot from the other side. I don't know many Christians that read Dawkins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So the ad homonyms switch to Dawkings.
No matter who amazingly educated the person, or how respected in his field, the blind religious types will simply attack the messenger (like showing 4 sentences of a review of a book with more than 1300 pages). The reason? They don't read books, or, if they do they are about being Left Behind.
Do not comment on The Missionary Position, God Is Not Great or The God Delusion if you have not read them. I have never read Left Behind, and won't comment on what I'm sure is a literally masterpiece of the same quality of the mid-range of harlequin romance novels.
If you are a non-reader to go along with being a non-thinker, then fine. But do not pretend that throwing a few lines of ad homonyms somehow protects your space-god from criticism.
And yes. Dawkins dismisses the "paranormal". This is not a bad thing. Come back down to earth dude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Actually most atheists read a lot from the other side. I don't know many Christians that read Dawkins. |
I'll bet you don't know many Christians period.
Last edited by flakfizer on Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Billy Pilgrim wrote: |
Is God trying to tell us intelligence is a sin?
|
This is a question with which you need not concern yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: Mother Teresa |
|
|
| Pointing out that both Hitchens & Dawkins have not provided empirical evidence, to back up their claims, is NOT an ad hominen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
J2. Do not comment on books you have not read. You come across as an idiot when you do this.
Hitchen's book GING looks at religious texts and applies elementary morality to them. GING is using religious texts to damn religion. For this, one does not require a particle accelerator. Read. The. Book. Or, STFU.
Dawkins has 2 PhD's. His book TGD have 40 pages of citations in the back. Do not comment on books (and people) you know NOTHING about.
Right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Also, about The Missionary Position. Have you read it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Billy Pilgrim wrote: |
Is God trying to tell us intelligence is a sin?
|
This is a question with which you need not concern yourself. |
A cheap shot eh? Super-duper.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: MT |
|
|
| Whether I've read their books or not is irrelevant, & doesn't change the fact that neither Hitchens or Dawkins, have provided solid, empirical evidence, or watertight referencing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: MT |
|
|
| chris_J2 wrote: |
| Whether I've read their books or not is irrelevant, & doesn't change the fact that neither Hitchens or Dawkins, have provided solid, empirical evidence, or watertight referencing. |
How the hell would your uninformed and willfully ignorant arse know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hypocrite! And after all those lectures on the evils of ad hominens, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is all about the person with you, eh?
The reason for that, that you only attack people and not ideas, is that you are ignorant of the subject matter at hand. You choose to be so. You are trying to discuss people, ideas and books that you don't know anything about. All you have is shooting the messenger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Here's a good critique of Dawkins by a lawyer:
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins.html
[color=darkblue]WHO IS PROFESSOR RICHARD DAWKINS?
... He is a self-confessed materialist. He says in his own words �paranormal is bunk� i.e. it does not exist. He publicly stated that he does not believe in the afterlife. |
'Materialist' simply means the belief that all phenomena is ultimately reducible to matter. Abstract and other conscious phenomena are biochemical, for example. 'Spirit' and Hegelian 'gheist' fare no better.
| Quote: |
| Now this R. Dawkins (hereinafter Dawkins or RD) is expressing a personal view, not a scientific view, because he can never use science to show that the paranormal and the afterlife do not exist. |
If Dawkins told you the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, would you believe him just because you can't prove it doesn't? Your lawyer buddy should stick to ripping people off. 
| Quote: |
| He is into conjecture |
What kind of moron accuses others of conjecture but doesn't themself provide evidence/proof for the claim, the definition of conjecture?
the contemplation or consideration of some subject? You've really got Dawkins on the ropes with that one.
| Quote: |
| He�s into subjectivity. |
What do you mean he's into subjectivity? I wouldn't want this guy representing me.
"Your Honor, the defendant is not into murder!"
| Quote: |
| He�s into debunking. |
Yes
| Quote: |
| He�s into demeaning, denigrating and sarcasm. |
Yes
| Quote: |
| He�s into personal beliefs in his argument because he never comes to empirically based conclusions. |
That's simply untrue
| Quote: |
| Further, because he is a self confessed materialist and has been actively anti-paranormal, he does not and cannot perceive empirical evidence for the paranormal with empirical equanimity. |
There is no empirical evidence of the paranormal by definition and in any case since Dawkins is not a proponent of the paranormal, he is not obliged to provide evidence for it.
| Quote: |
| He�s deeply negatively prejudiced. His objectivity is negatively encumbered. And that is a huge problem for someone who keeps on saying he is a scientist. |
He's a critic of religion and also a scientist. Deal with it.
| Quote: |
| In fact this Dawkins believes the paranormal and the afterlife do not exist. |
With good reason
| Quote: |
| Technically, that makes him a �believer.� |
Clever trick of language. This is the worst line in the whole lot because it's deliberatly manipulative. Atheism is the absence of a belief. To assert that Dawkins is a "believer" because he doesn't believe is absolute baloney.
| Quote: |
| That makes his argument subjective- and anything subjective is itself subject to fundamental error and to complete invalidation... |
Publish a book yourself then. Then again, maybe stick to what you know best - drinking the blood of your 2000 year old skygod on Sundays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, Justin. Man. You took one of Rteachers posts head-on. Nobody has done that in years.
R has a stamina for bizarre debate that even thinking about exhausts me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
