Debunking Dawkins (page 3)

Shining One

Hey Chuckles,
Why didn't you whine about Nate Merit's post of the Mark Smith book?
Wow, no one complained about the 'cut and paste' nor the disuse of a link here. And no one even noted this shameless advertisement of a book from the fringe of scholarship. I guess when the message leads to the bashing and blaspheming of Holy Scripture then those rules do not apply.
Rex

peacefulpete

Nothing is more futile that trying to refute someone's belief in an answered prayer. Muslims had prayers answered when the Christians were slaughtered. Jews had prayers answered when they stole Palestine from the Palestinians. Christians had their prayers answered when atom bombs ended WW2. JWs had prayers answered when they won court cases that permitted them to continue to spead their religion. Just try to convince any of these folks that their prayers had nothing to do with the outcome. A waste of time.

Shining One

You are right about that of course, Pete. Prayers being asnwered is highly subjective. If God is in control of all (by commision and omission) then perhaps prayer is answered for many different types of people as He directs them to fulfil His purposes. What each of us need to look for is consistent communication with God. If we establish that we are communicating with God by the anwered prayer that is our own experience. BTW, suppose a Muslim prays for some bad things to happen to Christians or Jews (or vice versa) and this prayer is audible. Might the Evil One or one of his minions see it answered to keep that one blinded? The concept is that Satan is not able to read our thoughts and also that prayer that is scriptural (in the will of God) makes him flee.
Rex

Abaddon

Ennui

Instead of viewing faith as belief that is not based upon evidence, we view faith as that which is a pre-condition for gaining any other knowledge; faith itself is not irrational or unscientific, but that which must be in order to gain other knowledge through science and logic.

That one made my fingers flex over my keyboard, but I couldn't do better than satanus, that was classy.

I suppose the fact old Shiny doesn't see what my cat just pointed out whilst reading over my shoulder is a clear indication (as if we need one) we have no more chance of even leading Rex to water than of my cat teaching a mouse Greek. But that doesn't stop my cat having fun playing with the mouse.

Of course, Rex's... errr... argument?... is "if you do not have faith you won't interpret the facts the right way, you do not agree with me because your interpretation of the facts is flawed as you have no faith."

Or, "I know I am right so whatever the facts are I am right."

I'm saying "Because you can't see you are simply deifying your own opinion, you will never see reason as you lack it".

But I know who I think is right...

You post links to information and that is fine,

Which shows you talk rot, but which you do not respond to.

yet, when you don't like the message from soneone else

Who has been established by their own actions to talk rot, and not even try to defend their rot if they can't Google a jaded and miserable attempt at a rebuttal.

you whine and cry.

That you talk rot. Quand erat demonstradum. I suppose we should just be quiet when you spray you nonsense about? This is a place for people recovering from being in a cult - people with their defenses down who could fall for your erroneous twaddle. They might need a little time to see the awful gaps in your little world and how full of cultic, toxic thinking it is. To not point out you're talking nonsense again would be putting them at risk - besides, it can be fun.

You are being duped by the elitist snobs of the intellectual world.

You don't have a chip on your shoulder - you have a sack of spuds. You can't even bother to respond to a scientific argument against some claim of yours yet you sneer. Why so resentful?

They are only in power for now, for this 'time and season' but their power is passing away. Many people have intelligent questions for the theories that we have been taught as 'science'

And when we answer them, you ignore the fact the question has been satisfactorily answered or stop responding. We are not stupid Rex. Argument gets too difficult to Google, bye-bye Rex. It's a pattern. Is that meant to be Christlike or something? Failing to respond to weakness or error in your argument?

Shining One

I redirect you back to the article, Abaddon. I don't respond to your 'merry go round' antics: Its a waste of time.
Rex

DanTheMan

I redirect you back to the article, Abaddon. I don't respond to your 'merry go round' antics: Its a waste of time.

Another brilliant example of the classic fundy tactic of getting the last word in even if it means saying absolutely nothing, except of course you managed to get a sneer in with your use of the word "antics"

Abaddon

Dan

Spot on; it really makes you wonder;

Does he think people fall for his evasion and deceptive tactics? He must have a very low opinion of other people to think they don't notice how he runs when he can't deal with a thread anymore - even ones he starts!
Is he so removed from reason he can't see it and genuinely believes he is right?
Is he so desperately insecure and doubtful (he'd deny this of course, but that cognitive dissonance for you) that he'll clutch at any article that contains comforting platitudes even if they use reasoning a grade-school student could point to the flaws in?

I'm just glad that there are enough people here who will point out his foolishness and deny him what he so obviously seeks; credulous victims who will fall for the rubbish he spouts.

And of course, the 'rubbish' isn't god. There are plenty of sensible ways of believing in god that don't require one to swallow absurdities, but Rex would seek to make HIS way the only way on HIS SAY SO. What an empty vessel... still, his sheer ineptitude and arrogance are wonderful tools to illustrate the emptiness of his philosophy.

The Chuckler

I redirect you back to the article, Abaddon.

Nope, nothing original there.

The Chuckler

I redirect you back to the article, Abaddon.

Nope, nothing original there.

funkyderek

The original speech Dawkins gave can be found here: http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

It's informing, witty and thought-provoking as you would expect from Dawkins, a far better read than Barlow's weak and empty response.

Debunking Dawkins

Share this