The Dawkins Delusion

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Yahunyahti, Apr 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    1. I find it humorous that now suddenly you're using BNW terms (and you clearly have no grasp on the characters or what you're saying). The irony is that you're telling me that the "Warden" (Mond) is a fool and that I am like him, when I am John (The Savage) and you are playing the role of the God denying "warden" and failing miserably at it. :thumb: By the way, Lenina never said people shouldn't be allowed to speak (you clearly haven't read the book) and a Gamma? What do I have in common with a Gamma, Menaz? What is the Gamma in BNW like? You've never even read the book . . . [funny]. Probably read a summary on Wiki. haha
    And Laugh Out Loud, Rolling Over, Holding My Side @ Huxley making it up as he goes. Dude Huxley was fuckin brilliant. Your Agnosticism was founded by his grandfather and he was far superior in Intelligence than Darwin's "Bulldog." In fact, Huxley wrote an essay which disproved Darwin. You shouldn't speak on subjects that you clearly know absolutely nothing about. LOL @ You trying to insult Huxley and then taking up the religion his Grandfather invented, which he himself rejected. Huxley was Dawkins to the 10th power. Dawkins . . . haha Don't make me laugh. Dawkins would have sat silent if he ever met Huxley. Why don't you write your idol a letter and ask him what he thinks of Aldous Huxley. Dawkins sucks Darwin's dick. Who do you suppose was best friends with Darwin? Huxley's grandfather. You're a simple simple mind. I pity you. I do. Poor shaitan.

    2. That example I provided, wasn't provided to prove God. It was provided to prove that your argument against God is flawed. If you're going to disprove God then you're going to have to do better than attacking with a logical fallacy. Just because a man states that God told him to kill, that does not mean God actually told him to kill. You cannot say that God is a killer, just because a man said God told him to kill. And just because a book claims to be "The Word of God" that does not make it so. God doesn't write books. Men use God and write books to carry out their wishes. Also, you cannot disprove God by saying to me, "You cannot prove God!" I cannot prove God to you. No. I also cannot prove the Sea Turtle to the Amish. You know why? Cause there's no Ocean in the middle of the country and they don't travel that far from home. You are the Amo and you're asking me to prove a sea turtle to you . . . but you won't visit the ocean. I already told you why I cannot prove God to you. I'm sorry that you don't understand. I wish you were more intelligent. I'll tell you what though, I'll pray for you. If you are incapable of experiencing God, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Accept the Holy Spirit Menaz. You have to be open to experience in order to experience. Accept Yeshua in your life, Menaz. Accept that you are a child of God and that it was God who gave you life. If you reject this, then you cannot feel God's presence because you are rejecting God, not the other way around. You cannot close yourself off to experience and then say, "Make me experience!" It doesn't work like that. God doesn't need you. You need God. God has nothing to prove to you. If you close your eyes and say to me, "Prove that there is a moon." How would I do that? You won't open your eyes and you want me to prove it? How? You have to experience "seeing" the moon yourself. In the same way you would have to experience God yourself. And yes, ALL experience is internal. Can you experience something "outside" of yourself? Does the object you're experiencing not become part of you (psychologically) the moment you experience it? Poor lost soul. Dawkins has polluted your mind.

    3. Insulting God because of man's actions is a bit foolish, isn't it? If God created human beings and gave them freewill . . . then mankind is responsible for mankind's plight. Isn't that a bit cheap, blaming God? Humans want freewill and want the right to choose their path, but then when somebody else chooses to infringe on others, you blame God. So you don't want God to intervene unless somebody is making the wrong decision? Then you want God to intervene with everyone, at all times, before they make mistakes? Where would the freewill be? Your mind is a clusterfuck, kiddo. If God makes you do right, did you do right or did God do right through you? God doesn't make you do evil or anybody else. Shaitan (the divided mind) does. God didn't create your allegorical Roman Coliseum. Man did and man uses God as his excuse. That isn't God's fault. That's man's fault. I pity you. You are so lost. Poor Poor Shaitan.

    4.Four times you mentioned me emulating Huxley in some imaginary picture . . . what picture Menaz? What picture did I take, posing like Huxley?

    I'm just gonna go ahead and quote you cause I know how you like to duck responses that you can't respond to and stretch out long-winded replies in hopes of overwhelming the other person with your rhetoric. Here goes:

    I've read his book, Menaz. I know that you haven't read his book(s). You're full of shit and I'm calling you on it. You've watched his youtube videos. You're a pitiful little angry guy. I can just imagine you over there punching out your replies with little beads of sweat (like an oil lamp) running down your pitiful face. I bet you wear glasses, don't you? Do they get steamed up when you read my replies? [funny]

    What probability did Dawkins offer to the world to disprove God's existence, Menaz? Go to your Barnes & Noble and skim through it. You won't find it online. Maybe you can find it in one of Dawkin's book(s) and you can let me know what page it is on and what book it is. Dawkins never provided a probability, Menaz. If he did it would ruin his career. He would be laughed out of the scientific field.


    So you wrote three replies in a row . . . because you're not interested in the discussion? Riiiight

    Stay on subject. Stop straying off course with emotional replies, Menaz.

    Let's count up your personal attacks, shall we? Yes, we shall. This is a sign of defeat. Look at all the fury in these replies. Look at all the aggression and anger.
    You remind me of that Asian kid who shot up VA Tech.


    I'm not quite sure what this next one means . . . but evidently it was the "stupidity shit I've ever said". . .





    I gotta admit, I love your little emotional outbursts. They're adorable.
    test
  2. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Typical subject changer, look at your own emotional outbrusts! I'm letting you know I know eactly where your thinking is coming from. You talk endlessly about nothing like the Warden. That was the comparsion. Not his stances. You fool! Infact If anyone wants to know where your thinking comes from all they have to do is read BRAVE NEW WORLD! You're living your life through that book!



    I am reading the book right now actually, i'm on chapter 15.
    Not completely done with it, but once I am, i'll let you know!
    But you should reread it, She clearly critized bernard for speaking unsual and then suggested he take soma.

    Speaking of Bernard, You remind me of him, you always want to be like Helmholtz Watson.

    You wear a T? After all the T is really just the cross with upper part cut off.


    Gamma's are stupid! You are stupid!

    You're not John, However, you do have traits of a epsilon/gamma.


    No I am in the middle of reading it. I want to understand this fictional madness.
    That is why I am reading it! I play chess not checkers. I don't read wiki. I'm never on that site, but clearly you are. Which explains why your info is wrong alot.

    Not really, His book is a bit of a bore feast so far. You're living your life through his books! LOL!


    No he wasn't far superior! There are different forms of Agnosticism. I explained this but the thread got deleted.


    eassy verses darwin factual evidence. Huxley loses. Anyone can have an opinion.
    But Darwin's factual evidence of natural selection has never been out done.

    But I do know! And I am reading Huxely to understand the fictional madness!
    It's one of the wrost written books I've ever read by the way! He pays too much attention to the discription rather than to the story it's self. Though I'm impressed by his vocabulary!


    And? Our agnosticism is not the same.

    He thought of it as 50/50. I don't!

    LMAO! You wish!

    huxely is a jive artist.

    Are you butt hurt?

    Aldous huxley is put to sham in Dawkins books!


    The problem?

    I'm simple minded? Yet You relie on fictional works of Huxley and defualt logic.


    it's not flawed. Your nonsense is flawed.


    I have! Where is your evidence? LMAO!


    Why not? isn't God internal? If so, then that Guy Knows God told him.

    Exactly, Then you have no reason to believe in God in the first place.


    Correct he doesn't, Because God doesn't exist.

    I refer you to the Christopher robbins analogy!
    Again, You prove there is no god.


    I have disproven God as not being 50/50 split. But rather that Split leading toward disporving God. you must prove God, Or else you have no leg to stand on here. In Otherwords, I say ,whatever, to you from now on!
    test
  3. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Yes you can, show them Pictures, take'em to the zoo.
    Hell, new age Amish, even use comptures now.
    They have books. I've actually use to buy food from the amish on my way up to Iowa. They make great bread. They are freeky don't get me wrong, but that is their culture.

    Moronic!


    I know the sea trutle exist. Shut up!


    Don't have to, I vist the zoo!
    Don't have to, Seen them at florida.

    Yes you have, Because you're full of shit!

    I understand what your trying to say. I just know your full of shit!

    No need to wish, I'll always be more intelligent than you.
    I blame your religiosity conditioning.

    LMAO! praying? I refer you to the polygamy thread, where I broke
    down what a bunch of bullshit praying is.

    No I accept the nervous system. There is no such thing as a Spirit as you've clearly pointed out. Basically what you are saying is I don't have a spirit until
    I accept one. LMAO! you can keep your delusion.

    Like I said, All you need to do is believe and you can fly.
    Jump off the grand cayon, Enjoy!

    I can't accept a fictional charactor into my life. Sorry, I won't live a lie.
    I don't need a crutch!

    no that is creationism, Since, you are talking about creationism, Prove the creationism. Then prove God, after that prove the creator of God.


    No I reject it because it is Defualt logic. based on No proof. and following blindly.
    I will not live a lie just to feel the effects of soma. LOL!


    I have not close myself off to anything, you have. I can fly azues, no really it's true. I can because I believe so!


    it has to work ,Azues way, or no way? LOL!


    Maybe God needs Soma! LOL!


    No the world needs reality without the God delusion.

    Wrong, God must prove Exitence!

    You would imagine a moon, Because you've been conditioned to know what the moon looks like. Enjoy your insanity!


    the moon is tangible not Intangible. So yes I can observe the moon
    and then imagine it. LOL!

    Stop, it's not even the same.


    Or perhaps, external & mind. not internal Spirit.

    Yes!

    My mind thinks on everything I observe, However that has nothing
    to do with a soul.

    No the religious scriptures, A barve new world, has polluted your mind.
    Keep Polluting your mind with fiction. I like the state you put yourself in.

    Not when almost every atrocity is done for God!


    Your god is responsible...lol
    test
  4. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    no! Your God deserves it!

    Your logic is God's will mapped everything out. The paths are really just God's paths if we Consider your fictional god of the internal spirit. LOL!

    According to you God is already intervening making Murderous decisions.


    Accorrding to you It's god's free will.

    .

    emotional appeal. Because you think you've made a point.
    You feel bold. LOL! Stop it! You're embarrassing yourself
    with these diatribes of nonsense.

    According to you, God makes you do everything internally. You just don't want to give any bad credit to God.

    According to you internal god does. There goes yet another one of your pointless arguments.


    Yeah, Satan, Something else you can't prove. However, Muslims do it for Allah, Not Satan. Christians do it for God & Jesus, Not satan. And on and on...etc... LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! I'm dying of laughter!


    Actually according to you, The internal God gives men the excuse for utilizing God.
    LOL!


    Of course it is.

    LOL@ calling me satan, You religiosity-scripture-thumper.

    Do not act like you don't try to pose like Huxely on the back of the book cover from a brave new world. Don't even! LOL!

    No that is your tactic. I never duck a thing! You do!
    Which means I don't have to answer anything you say!
    fallacy of integration!

    Read which book? Actually I've read two of his books.
    Unweaving the rainbow and God delusion.

    Where is your Probability for God? Internal soul? LOL!
    Just believe, Peter pan!

    Where is your God even? I told everyone read a Dawkins book.
    I don't care if you believe me or not. However, I would like to see you
    prove this God, You keep illogical going on about!




    Any time you enter a thread it's not about discussion. You name call, Post long-winded boring replies of nonsense and Arrogants that nobody cares about. Notice you've lost all creditability on this site? That's because you make a fool of yourself in every debate.


    LMAO! You make the emotional replies buddy. I just give it right back.
    I do not fear you. I do not respect you. Nothing about you matters to
    me. You are a clown, and must be treated as such!


    You started the personal attacks. Anyone can flip through the thread and read your constant personal attacks throughout your weak arguments. If you don't want to be personally attacked, You shouldn't personally attack! it's that simple to a normal mind. Yes, azue, I will attack you personally, if you do it to me first. Not always, But I will let you have it, from time to time. I'm not against attacking you or anyone who gets out of line with me. The reality is, You're full of shit.



    You need the last word, Honey?
    I'm just proven that you do!
    test
  5. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny]

    Another three replies to my one.
    Every single time. You don't seek answers.
    You just want to win arguments and you'll keep going and going and going and going around in circles. You don't read what is said (if you do, you don't comprehend what you read) and you reply in a manner that doesn't even fit what is being said.

    I'm tired of playing your stupid game.
    You win, your long drawn out replies bore me and I'm not doing it anymore.
    The man who has to type out three replies to every one is clearly trying to win by mass instead of meaning and I don't have time for your bullshit. Waste somebody else's time.

    1. You should never assume that your enemy (me in this case) has only studied one book, just because he refers to it often. I refer to many many books constantly. You don't catch those because I don't give you the titles or the authors names when I do refer to them. I've been up all night reading. That's what I do. I read, I write, I read, I write, I read, I write and I memorize everything I read.

    2. You're not insulting me, you're insulting the delusional god in your head which you equate with the God I speak of. You can't comprehend the God I speak of. If you did, you would realize that it is true and not false. You stay forever looking but never seeing, ever listening yet you never hear. It matters not one bit whether I speak to you about this or do not speak to you about this. Your heart is closed. You will not believe in this life. I only debate it with you to show you that you are wrong. But you can't seem to register what is being said to you. That's alright. I'm a fool for trying to show the sunset to a blind man. You'll never see. At least not in this life.

    I noticed also that you avoid to answer the Holy Spirit question. You know that to blaspheme to Holy Spirit is unforgivable. You know this. Deep down inside, you know it. If you truly believed what you claim you believe then you would not intentionally delete and avoid the Holy Spirit questions. I see you, Menaz. You're just angry and confused. One day you will see that everything I have said to you on here, regarding this subject, is true. I promise you that one day you will see it. Odds are that you will not even realize that I said it first. You'll think that you are the first to have ever discovered it. That's your personality and that is fine. I won't be on here by then . . . it will take you several more years to find the truth. You're a slow learner. That's alright. One can't force a tree to grow beyond it's time.

    3. I don't know what BNW picture you're talking about. The version I read didn't have pictures included. Are you sure you're reading the right book?

    4. If you want to read real works by him, check out his collected Essays. They come in a 7 Volume set. If you want to try to catch up with me (for whatever reason) then read the following authors (this will be my last response to you, that's my word). I've had enough and that's it. I can't waste any more time on you. Next month I start working toward the goal and I don't want to spend the rest of my time on RM going back and forth with you over nothing. Here's the list:

    Daniel C. Dennett
    Paul Davies
    Jacques Monod
    Steven Rose
    J. Marshall Unger
    Amartya Sen
    Larry May
    Ruth Levitas
    Norman P. Barry
    Plato (The Republic)
    Immanuel Kant
    David Hume
    Rene Descartes
    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    I doubt you'll read those, so I'll stop the list there.

    Good luck to you.
    I'm bowing out.

    A wise man knows when to say "enough."
    I'll point you toward the path but if you don't wanna walk it, that's your deal. Do what you will.
    test
  6. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I read everything that is said. Stop lying. I comprehend just fine, Stop the emotional appeal. I'm clearly doing it? NO! you write too much about nothing! Make a point, Don't blabber on and on! And the conversation won't be so long. You only have yourself to blame.

    I'm not playing games with you. I was not trying to win. I'm very worried about you and your fanticism. I think you really are sick. I had to be thorough because you lump alot a horseshit random thoughts together, I just thought I'd answer specificly. My meaning is in the mass. But my meaning is only in the mass because you type bloviating nonsensical messages... I quote and reply to, inorder to give the best analyzed answers. Everyone, Can see it, but you.

    That is the book which shaped your conditioning.
    I never misjudge any of my Opponents!
    However, I respect nothing you say!



    No I am speaking of your God. See, I don't believe in the Probabilty of a God. I'm just using your thoughts against you. Are you speaking about your God? Then how can I not Comprehend. I would say I'm a better listener than you! I'm not wrong. Noone thinks I'm wrong, but you! Because the people are not a blind Obedient sheep as you think they are. Your bullshit might work on the unintelligent people, But I'm letting you know, not here!

    No I didn't! You're telling someone who thinks the idea of any form of God is a Joke, And you have the stupidty to tell me it's blashemous and Unforgivable to reject a false concept such as the Holy spirit! LOL! There is nothing to see, you've created a delusion for yourself. I'm answering every question. Yet you never do! You play electric slide.


    The pages don't have pictures. The back of the book has one picture of Huxley. Are you sure you've read this book not just excerpts?

    it's not about playing catch up... It's about understanding sick man who doesn't want to be understood.

    read B.F skinner.
    read some J. B. Bury
    read some Herodotus
    read some western philosophy
    read some Cicero
    read some William of Ockham.
    Read some kant.
    Read some hume.
    Read some plato, The republic.
    I actually have The Dialoguous of plato.
    Reading aristotle off and on now.


    I would never lie and say I've read through all of it though.
    It comes in volumes.

    I doubt you read any of those books, Just copied and pasted names.
    perhaps just wikipedia them. lol!



    I don't want your path. I don't study islam because I want that path!
    I like to know everything about everyone.
    test
  7. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Menaz - I thought you would enjoy this . . . Your man gets stumped and asks for them to stop recording and then rattles of some lame ass response:
    [youtube]zaKryi3605g[/youtube]


    He should have just said, "No, there is no evidence for it. It is a theory."
    That would at least show an ounce of integrity.
    test
  8. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Here is a video that you can check out when you have an extra hour:

    [youtube]H5sfHz3xyNc[/youtube]


    Now, I'm not saying that I agree with the people who made this video. Usually when there are two groups opposing one another, in hopes of gaining power over the minds of people, neither side is telling the truth or even remotely honest.

    Fact: Theism & Atheism BOTH are Theories (Nothing more, Nothing less). Neither side has proof and they both need to exhibit a little honesty and admit that. Religions also should not be tax exempt. The world has more than enough religions and religions have more than enough churches. It's time to stop building elaborate temples and start taking care of the people. Scientists should focus on science. When a scientist steers away from science completely and goes on attack mode against religion, he discredits himself and is an embarrassment to the field of Science entirely. What Richard Dawkins is doing is setting Science backward, not forward.

    Until Scientists can show "ANY" form of life coming into existence by itself, without a cause . . . Atheists don't have a case. Until Atheists can prove that ANYTHING can come into existence of itself without a cause, Atheists have no case.

    The two groups may as well combine their bullshit and conjure up some new delusion for human beings to accept.
    [youtube]OcEzHBmgd2Q[/youtube]
    test
  9. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    ^ your words, Obviously your not so wise.

    The fact of creation... LMAO! What part of your misleading and wrong don't you understand? You're simplely wrong, Yet You keep on bullshitting. You've been discredited time and time again. I don't give a fuck about that supressive video, I already saw it. I've read dawkins books I don't need someone elses version of what they think of dawkins because they have a religious bias and no understanding of natural selection. You need that, Not me, you. The theory of evolution is hard fact, it is fully backed up by massive amounts of fossil records and current observations of living organisms. In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties facts together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined. Now when I speak of the probability of there being no God you'll get my meaning. What backs up creationism? blind faith and the scriptures. Yeah the scriptures which states the earth is only thousands of years old, yet Dinosaurs are millions of years old... PLEASE!


    Yes you do agree other wise you wouldn't have posted it. Dawkins is honest. You are a 50/50 agnostic. The fact, you even try to comment on this is hilariously hypocritical. It's obvious you have no say in this conversation. defualt logic is your placebo.



    Theism is bullshit. Atheism is blind faith. Dawkins is not a blind atheist or theist. And You don't give a shit about people, your disconcern for the tech-U students established that. speaking out against religion is not straying away from science. it is simplely warning people of the oppressive religioisty which fills heads like yours with dogma, before they even have a chance to decide for themselves. What dawkins is doing will catapult science into giving the real explations which is not your defualt logic.




    Agnostic/weak athesist have scientific probabilty, You have no probability of any kind to go on. I think you and the religiosity are the only people on this site who don't get it. Science is very close to explaining the truth. The religiosity however have no explaintions for anything, they want to suppress the proof, and oppress the minds, To keep the wheels turning. Look at your doltish mindset, You're posting Family Guy!



    You're the only one conjuring up delusions. I've asked you 100 times now to prove God, You've failed everytime. You're arguments are either faltout dumb, illogical, have no evidence, Ad hominem fallacies, or reling on default logic. You're the obsessed one. lol
    test
  10. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807

    He is correct. You don't understand the intermates extinction.
    You don't understand this, because you've never read his books.
    you agree with family guy or youtube creationist. So Silly! How can you say your not a creationist, when your videos come from creationist websites? Funny! Science explains. Not theist, Not Theologians, not creationism, but science. To test your theory, We'd have to conduct a test on dirt or clay to see if it is where humans were created from. How asinine. It's also funny that men and women have the same amount of ribs. creationist are so placebo accepting. The world without God is not a non-emotionalistic one, for fuck sake!
    test
  11. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny] @ Your entire response


    You're mentally crippled.
    test
  12. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Is there any empirical evidence to support evolution?

    Let me ask you something Menaz . . . Have you ever heard of "Dark Matter"?
    Dark Matter has been proven. Do you know how it was proven?

    The point to the Dawkins videos was to prove to you that Creationists and Atheists are the same. They are both trying to pawn off their "beliefs" as "proven facts" and their "theories" are nothing more than "theories" . . .

    I'm not a creationist. I find the creationist theories just as ridiculous as Dawkins bullshit based off of things that have been proven false.
    test
  13. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    That Dawkins video was hilarious, btw . . .

    "Can you provide any evidence?"

    "Derr, Derr, Derr . . . *Blank Stare* . . . turn it off. Give me a minute to make some shit up."

    hahaha
    test
  14. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    test
  15. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Menaz - You are completely incapable of reading in context. I actually accept evolution as a very real possibility. I also reject the religions of the world and their perception of God. But, evolution has not been proven. It is still a theory and until it is proven, any scientist who declares it a fact, is a liar. That's all there is to it. And, proving evolution still does not disprove God. It merely disproves the popular perception of God. I said it before and I'll say it again and I'll say it over and over and over until eventually it registers in your thick ass head . . . THERE IS NO PROOF FOR EVOLUTION.
    test
  16. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Even Dawkins admits that there may be other possibilities which we simply have not thought of, but of the three known possibilities . . . he finds Darwinism the most probable. Silly ass.

    You've read his books?
    No, you've read the footnotes.

    I was hoping that you would be able to pull off this whole debate, considering that you claim to be "scientific" . . . but you've failed miserably.
    To give you the opportunity to prove your point, I took the opposing view and you can't even argue it properly.

    Would you like me to take the Evolutionary point of view now and disprove Creationism? I can very easily do that. Creationism is nonsense. I told you before and I'm telling you again, you are not scientific. You are a fucking parrot. Stop regurgitating Dawkins and analyze what you read.
    test
  17. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    What you do is not even a debate. It is name calling and shifting the burden of proof, Because you knew you couldn't prove god. Now you want in on the band wagon, I welcome you aboard. But understand, I just gave you proof of evolution. along with Scientist who like me agree evolution is hard fact. Every creditable Scientist disagrees with you. Like I said, what you think does not matter to me. Yes, evolution is one theory on the Table. However, You forget what was said, "it's fully backed up by massive amounts of fossil records and current observations of living organisms. In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties facts together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined." You're God relies on defualt logic nothing else, It's like you can't read or something. THERE IS PROOF FOR EVOLUTION, WHICH IS WHY I HAVE PROBABILTY, AND YOU DON'T. evolution is pretty hard fact, but not completely conclusive. Still a theory of natural selection has the probability more so than a Belief in God or defualt logic, Because it is based on scientifical testing of evidence. Yes moron, natural does disprove God, That is the whole reason why people like you won't accept it. You can't be this ignorant!


    NO SHIT! I told you about it. You fucking parasite.
    Why the fuck are you even talking at this point.
    You are annoying as all hell. I've stated my case
    very clearly, answered every fucking question asked of me.
    You have done nothing but name call, switch the burden of proof,
    and regergate stuff I already told you as if I didn't mention it first. I allowed the switch, Because I am confident in natrual selection. Stop acting like you had any fucking knowledge of anything before I brought it up, you halfwit. Anything you say will be what I've already said or provided. Get the fuck out of my face with your lame ass diatribes as well.

    Call it a day azues, Go find someone like double to annoy who will actually care about the dumb shit coming out of your finger tips.

    Fallacy of assumption.
    No mother fucker, I read his books, I'm not you. Matter a fact, I probably will go get another one of his books and read it shortly.

    Lmao, You didn't know shit until I brought up Dawkins work. I actually read these books. Now your trying to take credit for doing nothing? LOL! I didn't fail. You failed to do anything. which is why you continue to annoy. I'm not wasting any more time on you, because It was never about you in the first place. If you want to join the evolution theory or inflation theory do it. I have no problem with ethier of those scienfitic theories. Because they actually have scientific testing and or proof to back them up, Just nothing totally conclusive, as in final yet. My side wields the power of Probability, Your side wields bullshit, I think your sort of starting to see that.

    I gave you a link that not only gave proof of natural selection but which also disproves creationism/ID. You are stuck in a 150 yearold time warp. Hate to make the pun, but darwinism has scienfitically evolved. Moreover, I not only provided the evolutionary arguements, I even took it a step further with the Crane theory of darwinism. I'm not playing games here, I really am for my cause. If there is something you think you must say to make my cause even more stronger than it already is go right on head.

    Now I am done with this arguement, You rude little pig. don't make me fly out there and straighten your ass out. You were shut down a long time ago. At this point I'm just calling you abusive names because your being fucking retarded. And I don't want to do that. Creationism has already been disproven for me and then by me time and time again.
    test
  18. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Menaz, your problem has always been what I call the black and white disorder. You approach everything as, "It's either this or that, right or wrong." Things are not just black and white, right or wrong. You seem to have a problem comprehending that.

    I made it very clear many many threads ago that I am not a creationist. I said, flat out, "I am not a creationist." Yet, in the very next thread you responded with (and have continued to respond with) "I reject your creationist bullshit!" I told you a long time ago that I do not believe in the God or gods of organized religions. Yet, you continue to associate what I say with them. Why? Because you cannot comprehend that I do not agree entirely with them or with Dawkins. That's how you function. That is how most people function and that's alright, I guess. In the world where people want to be right, there will always be black and white.

    I will very clearly state my stance below. If you reject, it . . . fine. But I would like you to present a logical reason.


    1. I reject organized religion. Organized religion relies on group think, an individualized (often idolized) singular leader, meaningless traditions, modes of controlled worship and most of all . . . a "God or Gods." I do not accept the religious view.

    2. I do accept some of the philosophical teachings in the books that are called scriptures. The words of Buddha, Lao Tzu and Yeshua are spiritually (for lack of a better word) significant.

    3. I reject the idea that we are only the mind. We are more than a mind. There is an eternal spirit (Ka, Chi, Soul) within each and every one of us. If we were not more than mind then there would be no reason for human beings to want to progress and understand their universe. No other creature does this and that is what sets us apart from them. If we have evolve (which I do find likely) from the same organism as all other 2 eyed, 1 nose, 1 mouth creatures on this planet . . . we are still different. That is clear by what pushes us forward. There is something more to the human being than is being discussed by Dawkins. It has been proven through Meditation and Light Studies. Human beings can move things with their minds, they can travel instantly to places they've never been and describe rooms that they have never been to (scientific studies have proven this). Remote Viewing was practiced for years by the CIA to catch murderers. There are people who can do it. I am one of them and that is why I cannot reject this. I have done it.

    4. I accept the Tao, The Ultimate Divine, The Won, or what I call Yah. If I were to define it, I would say that it is "the divine totality of all things which once were formed, currently have form and will one day take form." That said, I do not worship the totality. I am not religious. Religious people worship what they call a god. I do do not worship, I do not pray. I meditate. When people pray, they are really just speaking to themselves (though they don't realize it). My stance is more along the lines of Lao Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. I also agree with the message of Buddha (without Buddhism) and Yeshua (without Christianity). The Message is the same.

    5. Neither Lao Tzu, Buddha, NOR Yeshua EVER stated that God created the world. None of them ever did and nobody can ever claim that they did. Their message was not creationism.

    6. I find it highly probable that we did evolve. I don't reject evolution as a possibility, I reject it as a fact. It is not a fact, yet. It may very well be a fact, but it is NOT proven and science cannot approach things as "this theory is correct until proven incorrect." That is not science. That is not a scientific approach. That is the religious approach. A scientific approach says, "This is the most probable possibility and until it is proven incorrect, this is the one which we will teach as likely." That is the scientific approach. Agnosticism is the scientific approach. "I do not know of a god or gods. I can neither prove nor disprove them and therefore I do not accept nor reject them. They may be, they may not be . . . but there is no reason to believe that they are unless we have some evidence." That is agnosticism.


    Do you deny the Eastern concept of the Tao or Won? Do you deny the Chi (the life energy that moves throughout the human body and the universe?

    See, what bothers me about modern scientists is that they have this goddamn European mentality of claiming to have discovered shit that people have known about for thousands of fuckin years, just because they give it a new name. Europeans claim to have discovered the Continent of America, just because they named it. Now European scientists are trying to take credit for everything, by renaming it. It's disgusting and its disgraceful. The Ancient Peoples knew the solar system and named it. They knew about it. They knew more about it than astronomers do now (ironically) and yet they are not even being acknowledged.
    Lao Tzu spoke of the Chi in the Tao Te Ching. Scientists will try to give that a new name too and lay claim to it through Physics termonology. That disturbs me. Why the fuck are they trying to take credit for things that people have known about for thousands of years and then throw out the people who first spoke of it?

    Lao Tzu was a brilliant man and the only reason that scientists can't realize it is because they cannot understand his words. The Western Religious World is so polluted with dogmatic bullshit that when they try to view the Eastern world, they fumble it all up.
    test
  19. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    The Taoist Hsien are translated to "gods" but they are not gods in the Western sense. They are allegorical. But Westerners, with their ridiculous Western upringing interpret the Eastern world through a Western prism and are trying to toss out what is pure. The Tsalagi (Cherokee) have very similar beliefs to Lao Tzu. You won't know that though if you look them up online because these New Age losers are making up stories and pretending they are "Sacred Indian Stories" and modern Tsalagi do not practice the true religion, they have incorporated elements of Christianity (because of the Europeans forcing their children into boarding schools).

    You cannot throw out people who have already discovered that which scientists are now discovering. They MUST be acknowledged. Yes, the Western Religions are 99% dogshit. The only elements within them that are not dogshit were stolen from Ancient Egypt who stole it from the Eastern World.

    The Ancient East discovered elements and harnessed their mental abilities FAR BEYOND where scientists currently are, in the West. Does that mean the West isn't correct on many things? No, of course not. Does it mean that the West should stop pursuing Science? Fuck no! But should the Scientists be getting involved in SPIRITUAL matters? Absolutely not! The Scientist's job is to study and observe the Physical World, not the Metaphysical World. Scientists are not adequate observers of the Metaphysical. They are not aware or alert enough for it. They spend too much time dividing to see unity. Without unity there can be no connection. If one cannot see the totality then they cannot see that they are one with the totality and they cannot move beyond that.




    Dawkins needs to be more specific and say that he is attacking the Western concept of God. I have absolutely no problem with that. He can attack all day and night and for the rest of his life these worthless institutions called Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

    But if Dawkins tries to reduce reality down to what the senses can observe, he's going to get utterly dismantled and forever remembered as a hack scientist. And anybody who associates themselves with him will be left as lambs for the wolves.
    I have only read two books, so far, by Dawkins.

    Has he actually performed any form of science? What I mean is, has he discovered anything or does he just repeat the words of other people? I'm asking because personally, I see him as a failed scientist who couldn't sell books on plants and single celled organisms and so he decided to cash in on religion by becoming their opposition. Once he realized that people were reacting, he took it to another level and now he's trying to make a name for himself, form a foundation and basically gearing his whole life's work toward "fighting" organized religion. Seems a little misguided for a scientist. [Please don't present his argument to me for why he's doing it, I know what his argument is and personally I think it is an excuse]. He's cashing in on religion, nothing more.

    When a person opposes something, they never destroy it. By opposing a thing, you only bring those you oppose together through a common enemy. For example, if Dawkins becomes the "Enemy of Religion" and Christians, Muslims and all the various Cultists view him as the enemy, they will come together to combat him and He cannot stand alone against them. There are bullshit artists in those religions who will devour him. Why? They have the ultimate creativity (which according to Dawkins is what caused us to evolve).

    Now, religion is a necessity for evolution. Religion came from the creative minds of human beings. As human evolved, their religions evolved. As their religions evolved, their gods evolved. As their gods evolved, their gods became A God. Man created God and Gods. That's obvious. Man did not create the Tao. Man did not create the Won. The Tao and the Won brought man into being (not through creation but through evolution), and brought all things into being.

    This cannot be debated by scientists. If Dawkins is attacking Buddha, Yeshua and Lao Tzu's words . . . he's a fool and he will fall by his errors. Even if nobody destroys him (through debate), time will. When science advances, Dawkins is going to be viewed as Darwin's Mutt, not Darwin's Rottweiler, if he isn't careful.

    Is there skeleton remains of these millions and millions of years where human beings were evolving? If not, why? If it took millions of years, where are the skeletons for all these billions and billions of people? You cannot show me a fossil of a fish and say that is proof that human beings evolved. That's bullshit and any logical human being knows it. If it took millions of years to evolve there should be billions (if not trillions) of skeletons to be discovered. Where are they all at?
    test
  20. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Azeus, have you read "The Road Less Travelled"?
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)