All his posts are one line on my screen. I can tolerate a lot of ummm ahhh geez daaa, silly inaccurate posts, but even I have some standards. And this from a sick pup that can't avoid 9/11 kook threads.
hno:
My point is, that just because you believe in something, doesnt make you the one rational person in the room. (Note i am not saying your belief is wrong) What i am telling you is that you beliefs are rooted in the fact that other people have failed to give you answers. You have rejected them and formulated your own system of belief not best in fact, the simple failure of others to prove their opposing beliefs.
Let me put it this way to you. You said people failed to prove to you the existence of god. For us to accept your beliefs as rational, it would only be fair of us to ask you to use the same standards you used to reject god, to prove that he doesnt exist.
Point being, that just because people cant prove, god, aliens or whatever else, doesnt automatically mean that all these beings other people believe in dont exist. You invesely cant prove anything about your beliefs. You simply rely on failure of others to justify theirs to you.
Thus your beliefs are not rooted in science, fact or anything more tangible than the guy who believes in Buddha or Scientology.
Regarding responsibility and lack of a higher meaning in life. I am arguing that you cant argue that man is simply a sum of molecules and proteins but at the same time responsible for his actions.
You cant argue that man has no higher purpose but to procreate. (same as an ape, snake or virus..or any living creature for that matter.) a virus can kill indiscriminately all kinds of life forms just to sustain itself. No one calls it evil or malicious because it has no higher purpose in life. It doesnt seek enlightenment, love, god or anything else humans do. A virus exists to procreate and nothing more. This is what you attempt to reduce a human being to when you say we have no high purpose.
And unknown to you, this is exactly what dawkins who you were quoting meant. He is more or less telling you that your actions, your emotions, your whole existence is nothing more than a careful rearrangment of molecules and proteins.
There fore if you should kill 5 babies and eat them for dinner tonight, you are not responsible for that. You are doing what you are naturally supposed to do as per your molecule composition. Same has hitler or any other mass murderer out there.
Its written right in the quote you said you believe in. There is no good or evil. Hence actions of people like hitler are neither good no evil. They are simply doing what their dna tells them to do. They arent responsible for it.
That is the whole point about dawkins whom you quoted and responsibility.
You cant argue his point and then turn around and say people are responsible for their actions!
All his posts are one line on my screen. I can tolerate a lot of ummm ahhh geez daaa, silly inaccurate posts, but even I have some standards. And this from a sick pup that can't avoid 9/11 kook threads.
Somehow I didn't get to read much from Piccolo yet, and if what he writes in this thread is representative then I guess it will be even less in the future.
All his posts are one line on my screen. I can tolerate a lot of ummm ahhh geez daaa, silly inaccurate posts, but even I have some standards. And this from a sick pup that can't avoid 9/11 kook threads.
GEEEZ!!! boy.. that beatdown i laid on your arse is still stinging? This is what you have been reduced to you little wanker!
Why the hell are you hounding my posts if you are so not interested in them.
Pathetic little weasels like you make me laugh. You pretend that you are ignoring some one yet you cant help but respond every time i type something.
Ever notice that i dont follow you around parroting like a dumb bird in your threads? Could it be because i am content in my life and seek to do other things rather than waste my time chasing some one around on an internet forum. Some one i apparently think is beneath my IQ level?
BTW..I have never ever posted anything in a single 9/11 thread. But this little c0cksucker willie thrives on making up shit like those bogus facts he pollutes this forum with. This is kinda like a guy saying "i see that guy every time i go to the gay bar"
Easy question here is what the hell are you doing in the gay bar...or reading 9/11 kook threads..You had to click on them to get in right?
Why is it then you constantly keep responding?
Oops! i forgot. You probably cant read this can you.. You little drama queen ass! now go back to sucking your own wanker stick!:drink:
Nonsense. If all scientific knowledge speaks against something and nothing except some fairy tales speaks for it then you cannot say that just because the non-existence is not entirely proven (when can a non-existence ever be entirely proven?) the thing is as likely to exist as it is not.
BZZZZZ, wrong. Read my posts, I do not argue that man is just the sum of molecules and proteins, and a quick google search reveals that neither does Dawkins.
And again you show that you just don't understand. This is not about a single man finding a purpose in his life (of course this can be done). It is about Life in general which has no higher meaning, no purpose, and therefore no good or evil. This misunderstanding of yours wrecks your whole argumentation.
Sorry, but I see no reason to 'argue' with you any further. Discussions are no fun when the othe rside fails to even realise what the topic of the discussion is.
Again you are making up stuff and posting it as fact! All scientific knowledge dose not speak against the existence of a creator, god, alien or whatever else any one may choose.
That is a patent falsehood!
Secondly you fail to understand a very simple concept! For example i cant prove the presence of Buddha. You also cant prove that he doesnt exist.
This is a very simple concept. Both of us dont have a single fact to prove our positions. You dont have any moral, scientific, mathematical or even practical argument to make that its my belief that is fantastic and not your disbelief.
This is a very simple concept even the most ardent of evolutionist or atheist comprehend on a certain level.
After all, i did ask you to present us with some facts that prove your beliefs you have woefully failed to do so.
Let us agree for the sake of sanity to scratch this point. You hopelessly dont even understand the words of the man you quote!
This is pretty much the very same idea that he advances in his arguments but you just dont get it. I was under the wrong assumption that you understood this when you said you believe as he does. But it turns out you dont understand or even know him. This is why this argument is going right over your head.
Please focus on the facts or lack thereof in the defense on the bogus notion that your beliefs are not some kind of delusion, devoid of facts, and actively ignoring or totally discarding the same science/math you claim when it contradicts your beliefs or presents you with issues that you have no answers for.
I will ask you again. Please provide us with facts that make you belief a rational one different from "fairy tales" others believe in. (not disproving that aliens didnt create man doesnt inversely prove you right. I hope you can grasp that simple example!)
That failing please dont post that you are any more rational than the scientist who believes in intelligent design or the muslim who believes in Allah, because ultimately, you all have the same problem. A sheer lack of facts to prove yourselves right!
What you dont even know is that you do sound as dumb as those pre renaissance fools! who when told, there exists small living organisms that cause disease, laughed and rejected the idea simply because they couldnt see the germs.
No one could prove to them they existed and thus the wrongly assumed that they were the rational thinkers.
Reduced to explaining the world with the meagre senses the human body is endowed with.
You fall in the same category of the naive. Those who think that every thing in the world or that exists can only be explained as understood by their five senses!
Failure to do so automatically proves that something doesnt exist!
(Part of a bigger argument by a philosopher i will find and quote)
Ps..A very good guy who has demolished Dawkins nonsense!
No one could prove to them they existed and thus the wrongly assumed that they were the rational thinkers.
Reduced to explaining the world with the meagre senses the human body is endowed with.
You fall in the same category of the naive. Those who think that every thing in the world or that exists can only be explained as understood by their five senses!
Failure to do so automatically proves that something doesnt exist!
(Part of a bigger argument by a philosopher i will find and quote)
Ps..A very good guy who has demolished Dawkins nonsense!
Dinesh D'Souza
I found him...here is a fella that will show you why you sound incredibly naive and ignorant with poorly thought out pro atheist arguments you dont even full grasp!
I will find the relevant paper on this bogus notion that your beliefs are automatically validated simply because others have failed to validate their beliefs and apparently you think you are under no obligation to validate them.
:nohead:
I found him...here is a fella that will show you why you sound incredibly naive and ignorant with poorly thought out pro atheist arguments you dont even full grasp!
I will find the relevant paper on this bogus notion that your beliefs are automatically validated simply because others have failed to validate their beliefs and apparently you think you are under no obligation to validate them.
:nohead:
This shit is too funny. Of all he has said, what has this ghost really said?
NOTHING
:lolBIG: :missingte
I think ill have to go with my man Barman on this one and ill finally put my first poser on ignore. Ignore is dumb, because it doesnt allow you to hear ideas from people you dont agree with, but this is a new level. This guy just doesnt not only make sense, but he does it almost every thread.
You mean you havent done it yet? I am anxious for you to put me on ignore. Because your pathetic obsession is really becoming a concern for me. It is really terrifying when a forum poster cant live his life and spends all his days waiting and looking for my posts!
Quickly put me on ignore, go out, get a life, take off those smelly draws caked in sperm that are glued to your thighs! take a shower take off those smelle adult diaper too while you are at it..
good luck!
I'm skeptical that Barman doesn't read my posts, if it indeed is true,
it's because he knows I expose him to be a poser.
he learns this stuff at his kooky cult meetings. "There is no such thing
as evil, sickness and death, just stick your head in the sand in believe,
and *poof* it all goes away!"
I hope you grabbed a hot cup of joe!!!
this fella here has made a living making a fool out richard dawkins and exposing his nonsense so much so that dawkins wont even appear for a live debate against him despite several challenges. Matter of fact the one time they should have met, Dawkins called the tv stations and refused to appear at the same time with Dinesh..:nohead:
What Science Cannot Tell Us
Posted Jun 8th 2008 2:10PM by Dinesh D'SouzaFiled under: Science, Christianity, Atheism
Science is wonderful at doing certain things, like popping warm toast out of my toaster and making heavy objects float and fly. Without science we wouldn't be able to do those things. No wonder that science enjoys a position of high prestige in our society.
But the achievements of science blind many people to the fact that science is a limited tool for understanding ourselves and the world. In some areas science has showed astounding progress, but in other areas science has taught us no more than we knew since the time of the Babylonians.
Consider some of the most important questions facing us as human beings: Why are we here? Where ultimately did we come from? Where are we going? Science can provide us with very limited answers. As the philosopher Wittgenstein once put it, one has the feeling that even if all possible scientific knowledge could been obtained, the biggest questions of life would remain largely untouched and unanswered.
Skepticism is of course a central tool of science, but many skeptics make the mistake of failing to apply skepticism to science itself. They are skeptical within science but they are not skeptical about science. They naively believe that science can answer all the questions that require answers. Thus they demand of science what science has never provided and is not likely to provide in the future.
I call this the "atheism of the gaps." The basic idea is that if science hasn't figured something out, just wait a few years, because the brilliant scientists are working on it. Have faith that they will come up with good answers in the future, just as they have in the past. In other words, we should assume that people who are smart enough to make toasters are also smart enough to figure out whether there is life after death.
Yes, it's laughable, and that's why I'm sorry to see smart fellows like my friend Michael Shermer succumbing to this science-worship. Shermer is the editor of Skeptic magazine and author of some fine books including most recently The Mind of the Market. We've done several God v. atheism debates, the most recent one before 2,500 people at Fresno State University. It was one of our liveliest, and you can watch that debate here.
Shermer used to be a Christian fundamentalist. He always gets off a funny line about how he used to go door to door handing out literature, and now as an atheist he wants to go back to those people and take back the stuff he gave them. In a way, though, Shermer remains a believer. He still places his faith in men in white robes. Only these men happen to work not in pulpits but in laboratories. Science is now Shermer's religion.
In a couple of my debates, I asked Shermer what kind of scientific evidence he would require to be convinced that God exists. I asked him, "What if we discovered a new planet tomorrow and emblazed on it were the words: YAHWEH MADE THIS. Would you then believe that there is a God?" Shermer said no. He would automatically conclude that some chance combination of chemicals must have generated those words. In short, he is closed to supernatural explanations, no matter what the data, and is only open to natural explanations.
This I consider a selective sort of skepticism that is actually a lamentable sort of dogmatism. I see it also in Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. In a way they are much narrower than religious believers. That's because the religious believer admits both natural and supernatural explanations. By contrast, these unbelievers have closed themselves off to all possibilities that don't fit their naturalistic outlook. One may say that science has blinded them to the things that science cannot possibly tell them.
there is more from Dinesh..(actually his website has way too much stuff that i am having a problem pickinga and choosing what essays to post and what not to post.)
Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins
Posted Apr 18th 2008 12:33PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Controversy, Atheism
In Ben Stein's new film "Expelled," there is a great scene where Richard Dawkins is going on about how evolution explains everything. This is part of Dawkins' grand claim, which echoes through several of his books, that evolution by itself has refuted the argument from design. The argument from design hold that the design of the universe and of life are most likely the product of an intelligent designer. Dawkins thinks that Darwin has disproven this argument.
So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, "How did life begin?" One would think that this is a question that could be easily answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.
In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labrynthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions: the factory system or the computer. Moreover, Harold writes that the various components of the cell do not function like random widgets; rather, they work purposefully together, as if cooperating in a planned organized venture. Dawkins himself has described the cell as the kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles the software code.
Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? The probabilities here are so infinitesimal that they approach zero. Moreover, the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years and the first traces of life have already been found at some 3.5 billion years ago. This is just what we have discovered: it's quite possible that life existed on earth even earlier. What this means is that, within the scope of evolutionary time, life appeared on earth very quickly after the earth itself was formed. Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?
It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.
Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins belives in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?
Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins
Posted Apr 18th 2008 12:33PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Controversy, Atheism
In Ben Stein's new film "Expelled," there is a great scene where Richard Dawkins is going on about how evolution explains everything. This is part of Dawkins' grand claim, which echoes through several of his books, that evolution by itself has refuted the argument from design. The argument from design hold that the design of the universe and of life are most likely the product of an intelligent designer. Dawkins thinks that Darwin has disproven this argument.
So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, "How did life begin?" One would think that this is a question that could be easily answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.
In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labrynthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions: the factory system or the computer. Moreover, Harold writes that the various components of the cell do not function like random widgets; rather, they work purposefully together, as if cooperating in a planned organized venture. Dawkins himself has described the cell as the kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles the software code.
Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? The probabilities here are so infinitesimal that they approach zero. Moreover, the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years and the first traces of life have already been found at some 3.5 billion years ago. This is just what we have discovered: it's quite possible that life existed on earth even earlier. What this means is that, within the scope of evolutionary time, life appeared on earth very quickly after the earth itself was formed. Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?
It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.
Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins belives in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?
Piccolo is a strange alias.
It seems to suggest, on a Freudian level, that you wish to be a little girl that plays the skin flute.
Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins belives in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?"
Exactly what I've been saying for months on here. The followers of the
religion of Darwin have no friggen idea how life got here, and they
for sure can't acknowledge God, or intelligent design - so they have to
make up some totally asinine story that an alien evolved on another
planet, and came here and blew his load, and that's how we got here.
That's the type of shit these idiots like Richard Dawkins espouse.
Exactly what I've been saying for months on here. The followers of the
religion of Darwin have no friggen idea how life got here, and they
for sure can't acknowledge God, or intelligent design - so they have to
make up some totally asinine story that an alien evolved on another
planet, and came here and blew his load, and that's how we got here.
That's the type of shit these idiots like Richard Dawkins espouse.
