Richard Dawkins Finally Gets One Right! Whats Next, He Starts to Believe in God? Heaven Forbid!

[JimBowie1958]

Did I say that I did?

"That God created life I think is..."

"I think that I can prove that God created life,....."

Yeah you kinda did.

No, I kinda didn't, since the two quotes you gave WERE AFTER my question, doofus.

Now at least I know what kind of lying bastard I am dealing with.

Might as well say life was created by some kind of magic that we don't understand yet and may never will.

'Magic' is 'hocus pocus', the art of pretending something was done by fantastical means when we all know that that is not what actually happened. When we know that, for example the universe sprang from the Cosmic Egg, we don't know how it happened, but we know that it wasn't 'magic' since there is no deception or art involved in it.

You seem to have a problem separating fact and reality from your mental fantasies and pretenses.

And yes I was right, your response to my time consuming effort was just more of your bullshit blown out of your ass.

Thank you for not disappointing me, jerk off.

So you still have no proof and like a typical creationist just want to be an asshole about it, all because you believe in superstitious mumbo jumbo magic stuff.

I gave some proof, but you are apparently too retarded to understand it, not my problem.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Understood. It's not magic because you say your special magic isn't really magic.

You construct a tautology and don't even realize it. You have to be one of the most God-damned stupid people here. I doubt even CumCatcher is that stupid.

So, besides the endless special pleading fallacies, you got anything?

You have failed to point out the fallacy. I spoke of SCIENCE, the BIG BANG theory, idiot. And just because we don't know what came before the Big Bang it doesn't make it 'magic', retard.

Here's a disproof of God, in solid A -> B means !B -> !A logic.

If God existed, his followers would, as a whole, behave better than non-believers. (A -> B)

That doesn't happen, hence there's no God. (!B -> !A)

You have failed to establish that God's followers would behave better than normal and you failed to prove that they don't.

Again, all you have proven is what a moron you are.

Jim, thanks for being such a fine data point to help disprove God.

Which you failed to do, with or without my 'help', roflmao.

Oh, Dawkins is kind of an ass, but that's because of his attitudes towards women, and not because of his attitude towards Muslims or Christians.

I really couldn't care less why you think Dawkins is an ass. He is a stellar genius compared to you, you stupid twit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I am pleased you've understood the fallacy of your position. I am sorry it had to cut so deeply.

Who the hell are you talking to, your sock puppet again?

 

[JimBowie1958]

cnm, atheists today are unable to understand God or really even honestly attempt to grasp the essential characteristics of God because of their fear. This fear is similar to the fear you can see in Zombie movies and TV shows, it is hilarious in a way. On Walking Dead last night, some townsmen who were so confident in challenging what they thought they understood, fellow human beings like Rick, that they had no respect for Rick and his crew, even though Rick was more dangerous to them than any zombies ever would be.

For gods' sakes.

Zombies.

It was an analogy, poor dear. Deal with it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Some things are only believable if one is willing to allow for such a belief.

Ah. That would be belief without evidence. Faith. Batshit craziness.

Lol, batshit craziness? Are you a fucking retard or what? It is a commonly known problem with complex arguments from the paradoxical to the more complex theories like Evolution; if a person is not willing to seriously consider the idea, nothing you can tell them will convince them to open their minds.

Kind of like your inability to stop shaking at the knees and pissing your pants and seriously consider the very rational belief in God that the ancient Greek philosophers developed purely based on Reason.

Evolution is one such case. I believe in Evolution and a good number of my theistic friends believe it is erroneous in various ways.

No, hopefully that is belief in enough evidence to have engendered a scientific consensus. What data do your friends produce to back up their claims?

Science does not work on the basis of consensus ass hole, or else the Earth would still be the center of the Universe.

Good grief, how can you be so stupid and still be able to log into the internet? Your mommy does that for you or what?

I can prove the existence of an Eternal Being is what I said, and that is all I am saying, and I am not saying that I am willing to do that here, but only that I can.

Talk is cheap. Evidence is rare.

And all you have done is talk, jack ass, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I challenge people like you to dig into the subject by reading primary sources by authors that believe in God

Ludicrous. By the same token the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - peace be upon His Noodly Appendages - has as much credibility.

You say that based on ZERO evidence. You demonstrate your complete ignorance on the topic by comparing a known fictional internet joke to the Creator for whom many people have given their lives to defend.

This is a huge reason why liberalism is dead and dying; there is no logic behind it any more, just institutional pressure, and intolerance for dissent.

In other words, if you guys cant rig a vote or hound people away, you lose over and over and over.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well Dawkins is now the Top Atheist ever since Anthony Flew decided the evidence supported a belief in God. But is Dawkins slipping when he focuses ire on a difference in Religion? Shouldn't it be that ALL religion is detestable instead of just Islam? It's funny to watch hyper-secularists wrestle with Common Sense.

'To hell with their culture' - Richard Dawkins in extraordinary blast at Muslims

(Maher): "And they (liberals) applaud that but if you say something about a woman being forced to wear a beekeeper suit in the hot sun all day…"

Dawkins then took over saying: "But that's 'their culture' and you have to accept it. It's the one exception. Liberal about everything but this one exception, 'it's their culture'.

"Well, to hell with their culture."

Dawkins went on to say Islam had a "free pass" because of the "terror of being thought racist" if the religion is criticized.

He added: "It's confused with racism. An incredible number of people think Islam is a race.

"And so they think if you criticise Islam you're being racist."

Social media erupted over the conversation, with some criticising the strong use of language against Muslims.

@MarceAriasSouto said: "This is just anti-Muslim bigotry. @billmaher was always a buffoon. Dawkins is becoming one."


*****************************

Lol, idiot libtards think almost anything is racism no matter if its a criticism of space debris.

As a liberal, and as a non-religious person, I don't like religion, however I accept that people do like religion and I allow them to get on with it as long as they don't harm other people.

What's so difficult in that concept?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I do not rely on the Hadiths to criticise Islam, because they think the Quran is the word of God. So I figure that showing it cannot be the words of any kind of God will undermine the religion. I see the eradication of Islam as the only way to get rid of extremists.

I disagree. There is a moderate element among Muslims that can be encouraged and promoted to build a bridge with the Muslim world that pacifies and marginalizes extremist jihadis.

The problem is not with Islam itself but with the Islamofascists that exploit Islam to try and build a strong nation-state. That is what most of the jihadis do and we make it easier for them with our tolerance and promotion of homosexuals and other perverts in our popular culture.

I feel the fact remains that the Quran is an evil book of lies about God. It should be exposed by scholars and proved to be a false doctrine. Islam is one religion too many and the world would have been better off without it.

Funny how people who believe one book will ridicule another book of belief. Doesn't make you think that they're doing the same thing to you? And that you're both probably right in your ridicule?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well Dawkins is now the Top Atheist ever since Anthony Flew decided the evidence supported a belief in God. But is Dawkins slipping when he focuses ire on a difference in Religion? Shouldn't it be that ALL religion is detestable instead of just Islam? It's funny to watch hyper-secularists wrestle with Common Sense.

'To hell with their culture' - Richard Dawkins in extraordinary blast at Muslims

(Maher): "And they (liberals) applaud that but if you say something about a woman being forced to wear a beekeeper suit in the hot sun all day…"

Dawkins then took over saying: "But that's 'their culture' and you have to accept it. It's the one exception. Liberal about everything but this one exception, 'it's their culture'.

"Well, to hell with their culture."

Dawkins went on to say Islam had a "free pass" because of the "terror of being thought racist" if the religion is criticized.

He added: "It's confused with racism. An incredible number of people think Islam is a race.

"And so they think if you criticise Islam you're being racist."

Social media erupted over the conversation, with some criticising the strong use of language against Muslims.

@MarceAriasSouto said: "This is just anti-Muslim bigotry. @billmaher was always a buffoon. Dawkins is becoming one."


*****************************

Lol, idiot libtards think almost anything is racism no matter if its a criticism of space debris.

As a liberal, and as a non-religious person, I don't like religion, however I accept that people do like religion and I allow them to get on with it as long as they don't harm other people.

What's so difficult in that concept?

Some atheists are afraid that they may be wrong about the whole God thingy and so they have to drive any mention of God far away so they can relax and forget its even a question. and the rest just do it because they are ass holes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I do not rely on the Hadiths to criticise Islam, because they think the Quran is the word of God. So I figure that showing it cannot be the words of any kind of God will undermine the religion. I see the eradication of Islam as the only way to get rid of extremists.

I disagree. There is a moderate element among Muslims that can be encouraged and promoted to build a bridge with the Muslim world that pacifies and marginalizes extremist jihadis.

The problem is not with Islam itself but with the Islamofascists that exploit Islam to try and build a strong nation-state. That is what most of the jihadis do and we make it easier for them with our tolerance and promotion of homosexuals and other perverts in our popular culture.

I feel the fact remains that the Quran is an evil book of lies about God. It should be exposed by scholars and proved to be a false doctrine. Islam is one religion too many and the world would have been better off without it.

Funny how people who believe one book will ridicule another book of belief. Doesn't make you think that they're doing the same thing to you? And that you're both probably right in your ridicule?

They are not both right, they are both being wrongheaded.

 

[cnm]

I gave some proof, but you are apparently too retarded to understand it, not my problem.

No, you made some assertions. Data and evidence was conspicuously absent.

 

[cnm]

Science does not work on the basis of consensus ass hole, or else the Earth would still be the center of the Universe.

Science does indeed work on the basis of consensus. That you are ignorant of that is of a piece with your idea that assertions are evidence.

And all you have done is talk, jack ass, lol.

Yet I am not the one claiming to be able to evidence the existence of a creator.

 

[cnm]

You have failed to point out the fallacy. I spoke of SCIENCE, the BIG BANG theory, idiot. And just because we don't know what came before the Big Bang it doesn't make it 'magic', retard.

No, true, it's inventing a creator that becomes magic making.

 

[cnm]

Kind of like your inability to stop shaking at the knees and pissing your pants and seriously consider the very rational belief in God that the ancient Greek philosophers developed purely based on Reason.

Reason!

For gods' sakes, assumptions.

Unless you can produce the data on which they based their 'reasoning'.

 

[cnm]

You say that based on ZERO evidence. You demonstrate your complete ignorance on the topic by comparing a known fictional internet joke to the Creator for whom many people have given their lives to defend.

A guy told me he existed. You insist Greek philosophers say the guy is right.

People have given their lives in the name of Buddha. Buddhism must be the one true philosophy.

 

[cnm]

As a liberal, and as a non-religious person, I don't like religion, however I accept that people do like religion and I allow them to get on with it as long as they don't harm other people.

What's so difficult in that concept?

The definition of 'harm'?

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, you made some assertions. Data and evidence was conspicuously absent.

I gave you a mathematical argument based on the infinite regression fallacy, but you are too stupid to understand it.

That you are too stupid to grasp the evidence and its significance does not mean it isn't there, idiot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As a liberal, and as a non-religious person, I don't like religion, however I accept that people do like religion and I allow them to get on with it as long as they don't harm other people.

What's so difficult in that concept?

The definition of 'harm'?

Then buy a dictionary, you fucking retard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Science does indeed work on the basis of consensus. That you are ignorant of that is of a piece with your idea that assertions are evidence.

No, science does not work on consensus because consensus is reliably WRONG, idiot. There was once a consensus that the Bohr atom was the correct and best version of a model for the atom and that was false.

But you are too stupid to grasp that little truth as well, no doubt.

Yet I am not the one claiming to be able to evidence the existence of a creator.

No, you are just the one who cant understand it for being too stupid.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, true, it's inventing a creator that becomes magic making.

Prove it.

Aristotle and the founders of Greek rational thought did not think it magic or irrational at all, and frankly, you look like an idiot next to them...what am I saying? You ARE an idiot even of compared to a dozen rocks in a sack.