Mr. Dawkins is a highly intelligent, accomplished scientist. You, M.D., come across as insecure and envious. You certainly cannot insult Mr. Dawkins' intelligence and therefore resort to name-calling and posting verbal diarrhea. It certainly speaks to your character.
Oh shut up. The obvious flew right over your head. In fact, virtually all of the observations made by the atheists on this thread are exercises in futility.
Character?
Dawkins intent was to ridicule, deride, scorn; yet the underlying, implied argument of his rhetorical question is redundantly nonsensical. In fact, Dawkins has been widely criticized, by me and many others, for his part in this very exchange. It’s infamous. And Dawkins has admitted that it wasn’t one of his finer moments.
I'm insecure?
Project much?
LOL!
Dawkins is a philosophical and theological hack, utterly incompetent. He doesn’t fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect in that regard. It’s not even close. He’s been routed time and time again by guys like me with both sides of our brains tied behind our backs, and I routinely rip the idiotic chemistry and biology of atheism to shreds . . . an afterthought, as lifting a pebble off the ground.
For example:
Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism
You don't have the first clue as to who you're talking to, do you?
This is old news, an embarrassing moment for Dawkins, and yet many of you remain utterly clueless.
“[R]esort to name-calling”?! “[P]osting verbal diarrhea”?!
Your criticisms are silly, and I note that you provide no discernibly relevant refutation of my unassailable deconstruction of Dawkins’ fallacious drivel. It’s not my fault you’re too stupid to grasp or too corrupt to acknowledge the truth of that.
The concern of honest intellects is not name-calling or derision in and of themselves, but such things backed by nothing but ad hominem, unsubstantiated attacks on the man or the position he holds, which is especially bad form when the perpetrator’s implied argument is sheer stupidity.
The only braying jackasses engaging in that sort of thing in this exchange is Dawkins . . . and you.
Armature. Lightweight. Schmuck.
You are refuted.
The bottom line:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m846oKiYQCY]Frank Turek Teaches an Atheist a Lesson - YouTube[/ame]
You are refuted again.
The fact of the matter is that beyond the tripe fed to sheep in the schools of today and by popular culture, atheists, who are forever confounding the imperatives of ontology with those of epistemology, the distinction between metaphysics and science, or the distinction between agency and mechanism, are routinely routed in debate against philosophers and theologians like me, you know, the real thing, unlike the self-anointed frauds of secularism, sophomoric yahoos sitting around and congratulating themselves for what is in fact nothing more than the mental masturbation of infants, as they cannot control the flow of argument from their faulty premises to their imbecilic conclusions. Throughout history, atheists have always been the most unimaginative and unoriginal hacks of thought. All of the very greatest minds have understood at a glance that the eternally existent first cause must be sentient and immaterial.
God loves you, pacer. Stop being stupid. Dawkins is a fool. And the atheist's nonsense has never held up against the facts and the logic of existence.
Behold what happens to atheism when confronted by the might of real logic and intellectual fire power. . . .
Who created God? What an idiot Dawkins is, another embarrassingly stupid thing to say. God, by definition, is the uncreated, eternally self-subsistent origin of all other things.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Domm1mvTEh0]The God Delusion Debate: Richard Dawkins and Dr. John Lennox - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9t6Fkhu_MA]John Lennox vs Richard Dawkins debate (Full) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8MzPmkNsgU]Debate: Atheist vs Christian (Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig) - YouTube[/ame]
My work is done here.
