The Dawkins Delusion

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

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

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    LMAO!

    I'll respond this one last time and tell you exact the problem I have with you. You have what I call bullshit syndrome. It's a rear disease where you keep bullshitting and bullshitting to the point of ad nauseum arguement and then keep bullshitting some more. You're not making sense or points ever. You're just being a lacklastering popinjay. I have never encounter someone who can speaks so much about nothing.

    You're arguing creationism. Your pulling bullshit off creationism websites.
    If you don't believe in creationism if you don't believe in god why argue
    any of it? If you did not do this I would not be in this thread deducting those lame arguments. If you don't agree with science and your not into God then you are just arguing to argue. And you argue just to argue all the time people are sick of it because they know your 100% bullshit. After this reply I doubt I'll ever say another word to you, Because you are that rediculous to me now. It is funny to me your against something you don't even understand.



    You believe in your own personal made up spritual force. I know azues. You've made that clear a million times. I just know it's delusional behavior. And has
    nothing to do with how we got here whatsoever. It's your life crutch.

    None of it is significant. It's all bullshit. You can get the same teachings out of
    nonreligious scripture. And you wonder why I attack you, DON'T ARGUE FROM SCRIPTURE WITH ME EVER!

    I don't care what you reject your opinion means nothing, it's called your personal opinion there is nothing scientific about it nor could you ever fucking prove it scientifically, it holds no weight it's a personal opinion which goes nowhere. And Correct, We are indeed more than a mind, We are also a nervous system. The brain is run by our nervous system, The brain wants to to know more. That has science to back it up. I'm not never going to accept your the personal opinion, ever. You trying to say other speices don't have souls only humans evolved into having souls, That puts a hole through your bullshit, That's personal opinion not a theory, A theory is back by scientific testing and evidence. You're arguing Nothing but a personal opinion, which means jack shit to everyone with a working brain! Now you can have this belief I really don't give a shit, But if you think you're going to teach this nonsense I will not stand for it. I will tear it apart everytime you try. So keep that shit to yourself and we won't have a problem, ever!
    test
  2. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    There you go again with the ID argument. It's still an ID Argument. You're just replacing the word God with Tao. That opinion is unscientific, you can never ever prove that scientifically, ever. It is a belief you've conjured up from reading Scripture. That again is nothing more than your personal opinion which holds no weight whatsoever Not one science-journal would print ID of any kind, It's unscientific. Also I don't care if you worship or meditate, you're still arguing ID as the creation of all things. Enjoy your delusion, just don't push it me or others. And Stop arguing scripture, scripture is Dogmatic bullshit.

    Ok so you admit you have no proof. Well then you can stop arguing for it at anytime now.


    Motherfucker, I know how science works, I'm the one who has been trying to
    point this out to you. And That is 50/50 agnosticism which is what you are then. There are many scientist who do consider it Fact in theory. which makes it a Fact. Just not a conclusive one yet.. Yes, evolution is a fact in Theory, for now. However, unlike the God blind faith or Belief that people just blantly state " Oh God exists because I believe or scripture says so." is not theory at all. Oh To the contrary Natural selection is backed by Evidence...whales with protruding Leg bones, Tons of fossil records, and so on and so forth. Moreover, "As science advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, to support, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined." So as you can see evolution is a theory back by science, where a God, Gods, Toa, can never have a scientific explanation therefore is nothing but defualt logic. However, evolution one day will be accept and nolonger fact in theory but as conclusive fact, it's just a matter of Science advancing. These advances are going on as we speak.



    Yes, I deny Tao, Won, and chi. However, I do not deny electrical energy current which science explains. You always make the mistake of correlating your religious scripture dogmatic thinking of anything Energy with the likes of Tao, Won, Chi. That is not scientific, that is Dogmatic indocturnation.

    LMAO!
    Now the conversation turns into European hate agenda, which doesn't do anything but go off topic and make this a wind-bag conversation. Understand, Those people didn't know much like we do today about Existence or the Unverse. I explained that in my christopher robins analogy how they drew their conclusions, Mentally is not the same as pyschially. Now, The Acient people knew nothing of other planets, galaxies, red drawfs, comets, asteroids in our solar system. They didn't know what elements made up the salor system either. They just Knew it was the heavens above and constellations to follow. Egytians used the constellations as Mathematical Guide or navagation tools. They didn't even attempt to scientifically explain how the Universe or earth or bacteria came to be, Instead they slapped a creationist God stick on which explained nothing. And they also couldn't explain jack about Humane existence other than to say Pharaoh is a Demigod, and Gods exist, Why? because they lacked the Scientific Advancements that later came into existence to make those Scientifical enlightenments. Lets not for get, the Oral tradition that indoctrinated those ancient people to fear the God/Gods and to accept whatever they were told about the heavens above without question.


    you don't even know he existed. Lao tzu is nothing more than a pudopigraphical. This is my problem with you, You do believe in scripture, which has nothing scientific to it at all. It's defeatist thinking, Defualt logic. creationism. You are advocating creationism, Without calling it creationism. You're a manipulator, I know this about you, but I will never fall for it. So Save your bullshit.
    test
  3. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    You are trying to argue scripture. I'm about science. Don't be a bafoon. Honestly, I Don't give a fuck about a scripture verse scripture arguments it's all bullshit to me that never goes anywhere but into different belief. This is why people don't like talking to you and instead insult you. Because you don't stick to the subject. It's long winded nonsense noone gives two shits about.

    You could sit behind your compture all day long and write out long winded pointless nonsense about how the long fight between left hand and right hand between wet and dry; Of Awonawilona, who made a great fog by thinking in the night, and then made whole world out of the fog; of earth mother and sky father; of Ahaiyuta & marsailema, the twins of war & chance; of jesus and pookang; of mary & etsanatkhi, the women who makes herself young again; of the black stone at laguna and the great eagle and lady of Acoma... and I still wouldn't A.) give a shit. or B.) accept such unscientific creationist default logic.



    You're rambling. They didn't discover shit were discussing, they figured out how to use the constellations as mathmatical guides, calanders, and for keeping time. they didn't discover the Origin of life nor did they figure out the periodic elements of the Universe. They relied on defualt logic creationism when it came to that, nothing scienctifical like we have today to really explain it... Natural Selection, Bacteria, inflation, Big bang, so on and so forth.

    No they didn't. They allowed themselves to be dogmatic thinkers which actually hindered their science abailities. If you are going to say God exists, or a spirit exist, You're going to have to test it scientifically, sorry, You can't just give your opinion based on Old Scripture, oral tradition, and espect that to be accepted. You for Get Science in already starting to explain the Metaphysical world... science can explain everything far better than a theologian ever could conjure up We've already had this conversation once... Why do you keep repeating yourself did you forget? or are you just mentally retarded?

    I completely renounce the hackneyedness of the nonoverlapping magisteria conception, I loath Theologians thinking they can explain things Science yet can't but soon will. Theology isn't even a teaching tool, it's an outlandish make it up as you go along absurdity. Moreover, Once you think about what breathes life into the equations, and actualized them in a real cosmos, it becomes hilarious! because if indeed they lie beyond science, they most cenrtainly lie beyond the province of theologians as well. Even the Warden from Oxford said: "I have grave doubts as to whether theology is a subject at all." After all, What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot? NONE! Once we move outside the realm of science, They recommand chaplins? Why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the Chef? Exactly, Why are Astronomers so cravenly respectful towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than Scientist/Astronomers themselves? it is a tedious cliche, And a fallacious one at that. Then the religiosity brings up... But Science deals with HOW questions, but only theology is equipped to answer WHY questions. And What in the fuck is a WHY question? Not every english sentence beginning with the word WHY is a legitimate question. Why are unicorns hollow? What is the smell of hope? Some questions just simplely don't deserve to be answered. No matter if the question is phrased in a grammatically correct English sentence that doesn't make it meaningful, or entitle it to our serious attention. Nor, even if the question is a real one, does the fact that science cannot answer it imply that religion can? NO IT DOESN'T!


    In the history of ideas, there are examples of questions being answered
    that had earlier been judged forever out of science's reach. For example:
    In 1835, The french philosopher Auguste Comte wrote of the Stars: "We shall never be able to study, by any method, their chemical composition or their mineralogical structure." Yet before comte's inked words from his pen could dry, Fraunhofer had begun using his spectroscopy to analyse the chemical composition of the Sun. Now spectroscopist daily confound "comte's ignorance" with their long-distance analyse of the precise chemical composition of even the most distant stars.
    test
  4. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    The creationism of God is created unscientifically and then goes through a trickle down effect throughtout history.

    http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

    Dawkins is very specific, You just haven't read his Books. He doesn't have a problem with Buddahism or hindu as Moralist guides. He considers that part of it peaceful... However, he does not accept the Tao, won, chi, transferences for God nor any of the Bullshit mythology that has to come along with the righteous morals. He can attack their God all Day long, because it isn't scientific, it creationism reling on default logic. You're religiously bias, that's your problem. You need to Leave that religioisty thought and you'll be fine.

    He isn't a hack scentist. You're the hack and bullshitter here.
    you haven't read shit of dawkins. I can tell.

    Ad homine fallacies! Yet more repeating from you. You're brain must be stuck. You mean like how you repeat the words of other people? No! He is a actually a bioscientist/zoologist who's business is to scientifically advance Evolution. He is very much involved in the process. And To the contrary, He mentions Organisms and Bacteria in his newest Book. sorry, Unlike scientists with the religiosity Templton foundation he is not that shallow. Cashing in on religion? not even willing to hear the argument. You're already close minded... Hey didn't you try to cash in on the religioisty? Pissed because you failed and dawkins book is a best seller.

    Yes you can. Where did the empire of rome go again? LOL! You're pretty much sitting alone on this subject anyways azues. Unless you count the uselessness of Ill rich! I will stand with dawkins. There are more people than you think who will stand with dawkins as well. All Religioisty creates mental disease and like all religioisty mental diseases it needs dawkins diagnosis first and then a complete removal next.

    LMAO@ this ID thinking based on your retarded personal opinion.The religion didn't evolve it simplely took on another cultures perspective. And Actually their Gods deevolved... Hence monotheism. One God less and you have no God at all. lol A Man did create the Tao and Won, You're thinking like a stupid muslim now. No that is not evolution, that is piss poor unscientific nothingness of pure grade A creational/ID bullshit.
    even According to your own logic, Atheism would be the next step.



    Yes it can. Infact it's just a logical argument I tore the shit out of with the vigor of a lion. LOL@ do not question the words of religiosity scripture. Let me see here, Scientists verse bullshitting Theologians. Considering the fact you'll never see your stupidity in a live science journal, and also weighing in on the reality that science can explain anything a theologian can plus more. I'm going with dawkins. See: thrid reply to recap.

    You didn't look in the link I posted did you. You don't understand shit about evolution that much is clear to me now. They matched up the fossils of the distent to human bones you fucking rereretard. You also don't take into consideration vestigial manifestation, regulatory genes, or polydactyly. How many dinosaurs were on this planet? Millions? billions?... Scientist still haven't recovered all of them yet. However the fossil evidence has been discoverd. Infact, they're still making new dinosaur discovers to this day, which help natural selection out. Scientist have plenty of Fossil remains they already are researching on at the momment for natural selection progress. Infact for example, Not only does this evidence exist, but the pterodactyl fossils when compared to modern day brids shows natural selection. Not God, not Spirit, but science providing the proof.

    http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html
    http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/top10_missinglinks.html

    Now you may fuck off you annoying bullshitter!
    test
  5. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    You are a pitiful human being.
    [​IMG]


    First you was latched onto Harris' cock, now it's Dawkins.
    At least Harris admitted that Mysticism is Science.
    Dawkins is just an all around dipshit who makes up theories off of other theories and pawns them off as fact. Good luck in your venture downhill toward animalism.
    Richard Dawkins dipshit ass argument is built off his own definition of God and Religion, not the true definition. It's a fuckin STRAWMAN FALLACY you idiot fuck. He created a false definition of God and Religion and then destroyed it. Any five year old can do that. You do it all the time and actually think you've accomplished something.


    "Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is suseptable to rational discussion. The mysic has reasons for what he believes and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (mysticism)." - Sam Harris

    [​IMG]


    Read the book, retard.
    You are the most irrational zealot fuck I have ever met.
    Your views have jumped from one man to another over the years and you've gone from Christian to an Atheist who pretends he's a Scientist and lies about being Agnostic because he's a gutless fuckin turd.

    You want to be a fool.
    Be a fool.

    There is no proof for HUMAN evolution and there never will be.
    Humans did not evolve over millions of years.
    test
  6. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Where does Dawkins say this?
    Prove to me that he says this. Provide the book and the page number.

    I don't think you have even read Dawkins books.
    You read online articles about him.

    I have. They're right here in the room with me.
    Dawkins denies the concept of God.
    Dawkins does not deny the Tao or the Won.
    Even Physicists wouldn't do that.

    What he also does not deny is the concept of Extraterrestrials coming to earth. He fails to understand that changing the names of things does not change their meaning. The Ancient people who claim to have encountered the "gods" described them as being living creatures and being able to die, just like men. All Dawkins is doing is stirring shit up so he can sell books. He's an opportunist. That's all. If I was concerned with making money, all I'd have to do is put out a book titled: "God is Dead" and argue against God and every Christian in the world will read it and became angry. When they read it, Muslims will read it. Jews will read it too and then all the cult followers will read it when they see that others are reading it. The title is what sold his book, not the words in it.

    Selling books is easy.
    I'm not concerned with money. I have enough money that I never have to work another day in my life. I don't write for money. I'm not an opportunist like your idol Dawkins.
    test
  7. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Summary of Dawkin's Selfish-Gene book:

    "What drives us is a selfish gene. What makes us human and unique is our ability to ignore the very thing that helped us evolve. It helped us evolve by giving us a delusion of purpose and meaning (because genes suddenly have a will in Dawkin land)."

    So basically our memes created purpose for us so that we (as some sort of vehicle machine) will carry it on. Dawkins proposes that we turn against the very genes the he proposes helped us evolve in the first place. Why? Who the fuck knows . . .

    Dawkins is a pazzo. He's a con-artist, pseudo-scientist dickhead who makes up theories based on theories based on not a shred of empirical evidence and he uses it to argue against other theories that have no evidence. It's like two cripples in wheel chairs making fun of one another because the other can't walk.

    The Selfish-Gene. What a stupid concept.
    As if a Gene can be selfish or humble.
    What would Dawkins say as a response to that?
    "I just mean that it appears to be selfish."

    This man is full of shit.
    If you can't see it, you're a fool.
    test
  8. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Oh, and so you know . . . Dawkins was once a Christian too. The reason his aggression towards Christians exists is because he presented one of his ridiculous theories to a Christian Scientist and the Scientist shot it all to shit. Since then Dawkins has blamed religion.

    The next quote proves that not only did Dawkins believe in the validity of the scriptures at one point, it also proves that he has one HELL of an imagination:

    Climbing Mount Improbable (Page 299, Paragraph 2, Line 6)
    "Carry on through the centuries, fig on fig, frame by frame, through a fig that might have been eaten by Jesus, or plucked by a slave for Nebuchadnezzar in the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, a fig from the land of Nod, East of Eden, figs that sweetened the short, sugar starved lives of Homo erectus, Homo habilis and little Lucy of the Afar; back before the time of cultivation, back to the wild figs of the forest and beyond."


    Not to mention that he used to give lectures for the Royal Institute on BBC under the title of Growing Up In The Universe in a segment called "Christmas Lectures."

    Do your fuckin homework on your idol, idiot.
    I have. I know more about the man you idolize than you do.
    I'm so sick and tired of you spewing out your copy and paste crap and then having the audacity to call people far beyond your intellectual capabilities "idiots."
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

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