Logicboy03:


^^^
and yet, Logicboy is abusive and arrogant



lol....the hypocrisy of theists

I have never accused you of being arrogant. It is not possible for one to be arrogant when there is nothing within one's faculties which may invoke the pride that leads to arrogance. As such you cannot be arrogant.

Abusive, neither, I don't care. I have accused you of neither. What I have rather laid upon your very deserving head is the very appropriate crown of idiocy, a crown which I hope you will not pass on to your descendants.

Now you are gravely to be pitied. For who, I might ask, is capable of opening such an intensely and desperately foolish thread as this one?

Deep Sight:

As it happens, kind sir, I am not here marketing anything, as you will do very well to note. The OP rather is very clearly marketing something, but it is not something that should be to the taste of any persons residing outside the walls of an asylum.

One does not have to be an expert on intelligence to read just a few words of Mr. Dawkins and that should be sufficient to observe the catastrophic, and as I said, possibly congenital retardation of his mental faculties.

A happy new year to you too.

Thanks!

I never said you were marketing $hit now, did I? I asked if you still market (or sell) $hit. Like for instance how you'd ask a friend if he still works in a bank, etc.

Anyways, interesting. You also think anyone who thinks him intelligent has " catastrophic, and as I said, possibly congenital retardation of his mental faculties. "?

wiegraf:

Anyways, interesting. You also think anyone who thinks him intelligent has " catastrophic, and as I said, possibly congenital retardation of his mental faculties. "?

Yes, in addition to being a red eyed rabbit, dwindling away in a corner on account of the very appropriate burden of congenital foolishness.

Deep Sight:

I have never accused you of being arrogant. It is not possible for one to be arrogant when there is nothing within one's faculties which may invoke the pride that leads to arrogance. As such you cannot be arrogant.

Abusive, neither, I don't care. I have accused you of neither. What I have rather laid upon your very deserving head is the very appropriate crown of idiocy, a crown which I hope you will not pass on to your descendants.

Now you are gravely to be pitied. For who, I might ask, is capable of opening such an intensely and desperately foolish thread as this one?

Did I ever do something that butthurted you in the past?

Even Anony/Frosbel dont have this hatred for me.

Deep Sight:

Yes, in addition to being a red eyed rabbit, dwindling away in a corner on account of the very appropriate burden of congenital foolishness.

Ok

Logicboy03:

Did I ever do something that butthurted you in the past?

Even Anony/Frosbel dont have this hatred for me.

Lol.........

Logicboy03:

Did I ever do something that butthurted you in the past?

Even Anony/Frosbel dont have this hatred for me.

Ol boy i dont hate you at all, in fact you are a pleasantly comic distraction. I only point out to you the veritable idiocy of threads such as this - a thread that could only be made by a red eyed rabbit quivering in the shadow of weighty and unremovable stu.pidity.

Deep Sight:

Ol boy i dont hate you at all, in fact you are a pleasantly comic distraction. I only point out to you the veritable idiocy of threads such as this - a thread that could only be made by a red eyed rabbit quivering in the shadow of weighty and unremovable stu.pidity.

This fellow has nothing else to say except spew insults. I suggest he be ignored

turnstoner:

This fellow has nothing else to say except spew insults. I suggest he be ignored

If he should be ignored for spewing absolute facts about how st.ewpid this thread is then you need help...ode!

e.dynasty:


If he should be ignored for spewing absolute facts about how st.ewpid this thread is then you need help...ode!

Mr. Insults,your man has not told us why poster is st.ewpid! He's only been shouting himself hoax : st.ewpid, st.ewpid ....

turnstoner:

Mr. Insults,your man has not told us why poster is st.ewpid! He's only been shouting himself hoax : st.ewpid, st.ewpid ....

He did tell, sort of, but his reasons are quite foo.lish

Cyrex, ring that bell please?

wiegraf:

He did tell, sort of, but his reasons are quite foo.lish

Does he have a superior understanding of the why, the whence ... etc?

wiegraf:

He did tell, sort of, but his reasons are quite foo.lish

I have not mentioned any reasons whatsoever: and I may choose not to. I am too old to spend my time spoon-feeding red eyed rabbits on things that are lamentably obvious.

Please go and have a look at the OP again and tell me if there is any sense whatsoever contained in it. Tell me if it even remotely addresses itself to what in fact a soul is conceived as, and then tell me if the analogy made therein is not fit only for a classroom of dim-witted bovine recidivists, whose brains have been shriveled by centuries of hunger and congenital idiocy.

Deep Sight:

I have not mentioned any reasons whatsoever: and I may choose not to. I am too old to spend my time spoon-feeding red eyed rabbits on things that are lamentably obvious.

Please go and have a look at the OP again and tell me if there is any sense whatsoever contained in it. Tell me if it even remotely addresses itself to what in fact a soul is conceived as, and then tell me if the analogy made therein is not fit only for classroom of dim-witted bovine recidivists, whose brains have been shriveled by centuries of hunger and congenital idiocy.

This guy get wahala

Deep Sight:

I have not mentioned any reasons whatsoever: and I may choose not to. I am too old to spend my time spoon-feeding red eyed rabbits on things that are lamentably obvious.

Please go and have a look at the OP again and tell me if there is any sense whatsoever contained in it. Tell me if it even remotely addresses itself to what in fact a soul is conceived as, and then tell me if the analogy made therein is not fit only for a classroom of dim-witted bovine recidivists, whose brains have been shriveled by centuries of hunger and congenital idiocy.

I have looked at the op again and i can't understand which of these really got you going:

1. Lack of a brain or inability to be conscious = lack of soul
2. baby's placenta is a genetic twin of the baby

The two statements are consistent with the current state of science.

turnstoner:

Does he have a superior understanding of the why, the whence ... etc?

You said

turnstoner:

Mr. Insults,your man has not told us why poster is st.ewpid! He's only been shouting himself hoax : st.ewpid, st.ewpid ....

He earlier said

deep sight:
He is not just da.ft but outrightly re.tarded, even congenitally so. And so is anybody who regards him as intelligent.

And of course kindly confirmed it by adding

deep sight:
Yes, in addition to being a red eyed rabbit, dwindling away in a corner on account of the very appropriate burden of congenital foolishness.

Now, our hero might not have told us exactly why he thinks Dawkins is *insert insult here, bold and colored for extra effects*, though that as well is disputable as he's given plenty hints at just how mor.onic his thinking is, but he's more or else told us why he thinks op is stoopid; because he thinks anyone who thinks Dawkins intelligent is *insert insult here, bold and colored for extra effects*, at least in the context of this discussion. I'm sure he has other reasons though.

turnstoner:

I have looked at the op again and i can't understand which of these really got you going:

1. Lack of a brain or inability to be concious = lack of soul
2. baby's placenta is a genetic twin of the baby

The two statements are consistent with the current state of science.

Let us start here:

1. What is a soul conceived as?

2. What is human placenta, and what is its function.

3. Is Consciousness equivalent to that which the soul is conceived as?

4. What is the exact relevance of a genetic imprint or DNA code to the constitution of a physical being

5. How do the foregoing questions support the notion advanced in the OP.

Let me have your answers to these, and then we can discuss further if still necessary. In truth, your answers to 1 and 2 alone should show you my issue with this thread.

Many thanks.

Deep Sight:

I have not mentioned any reasons whatsoever: and I may choose not to. I am too old to spend my time spoon-feeding red eyed rabbits on things that are lamentably obvious.

Clap for yourself

Deep Sight:
Please go and have a look at the OP again and tell me if there is any sense whatsoever contained in it. Tell me if it even remotely addresses itself to what in fact a soul is conceived as, and then tell me if the analogy made therein is not fit only for a classroom of dim-witted bovine recidivists, whose brains have been shriveled by centuries of hunger and congenital idiocy.

What's a "bovine recidivists", and no one lives for centuries, that's just silly. Oh you mean his ancestors?
That asides, I read the op, thank you. So dawkins was literal, or materialistic, or whatever armchair philosophers call it. That now translates to not intelligent, hmm?

turnstoner:

I have looked at the op again and i can't understand which of these really got you going:

1. Lack of a brain or inability to be conscious = lack of soul
2. baby's placenta is a genetic twin of the baby

The two statements are consistent with the current state of science.

No, no, no. A scientist shouldn't think like a scientist

/sarcasm, as some people can't seem to tell

Deep Sight:

Let us start here:

1. What is a soul conceived as?

2. What is human placenta, and what is its function.

3. Is Consciousness equivalent to that which the soul is conceived as?

4. What is the exact relevance of a genetic imprint or DNA code to the constitution of a physical being

5. How do the foregoing questions support the notion advanced in the OP.

Let me have your answers to these, and then we can discuss further if still necessary. In truth, your answers to 1 and 2 alone should show you my issue with this thread.

Many thanks.

Let's start with 1. and I assure you that this alone can take all day.

I wonder what your take on this is: that a scientist's definition of the soul is not quite the same as the average man-of-faith's. Dawkins probably does not believe in the existence of the soul!

One shouldnt waste time arguing about the soul with theists or religious people.


The theists have never;

a) Provided a bodily function for the soul

b) Shown that consciousness exists outside the brain.



Soul preachers are the same as flat earthers, they are a waste of time. These are people who have no evidence but base their claims on faith and superstitions.

wiegraf:

Clap for yourself



What's a "bovine recidivists", and no one lives for centuries, that's just silly. Oh you mean his ancestors?
That asides, I read the op, thank you. So dawkins was literal, or materialistic, or whatever armchair philosophers call it. That now translates to not intelligent, hmm?

wiegraf:

No, no, no. A scientist shouldn't think like a scientist

/sarcasm, as some people can't seem to tell

Look, I do not even know if and where Dawkins made such a statement or if this was a mere joke. I take the statement up simply on logicboy's advancement of it as some sort of refutation (even if comic or sarcastic) of the existence of the soul.

I have no idea if it is a joke, as you will see I mentioned that it must be, in one of my first posts on this thread.

But logicboy is clueless enough to imagine that which is contained in his OP to be a worthy argument against the existence of a soul.

At all events, I have previously expressed some of my trouble with Dawkin's reasoning in other respects cardinally on some of his arguments on the existence of God. I cannot begin to elucidate everything all over. Here -

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9184534

turnstoner:

Let's start with 1. and I assure you that this alone can take all day.

I wonder what your take on this is: that a scientist's definition of the soul is not quite the same as the average man-of-faith's. Dawkins probably does not believe in the existence of the soul!

That is very well noted and easily understood. However it would be contradictory in terms of this discussion: because what is being discussed is the idea of a soul as conceived by men of faith as you quite rightly pointed out. If the concept of "soul" being discussed was that conceived by scientists, there would be no discussion ab initio since as you noted, the scientist in the first place does not believe in any soul.

As such, it is obvious that the discussion is about "soul" as conceived by men of faith.

Now you answer my questions and we will proceed, if still necessary at that point.

Deep Sight:



Look, I do not even know if and where Dawkins made such a statement or if this was a mere joke. I take the statement up simply on logicboy's advancement of it as some sort of refutation (even if comic or sarcastic) of the existence of the soul.

I have no idea if it is a joke, as you will see I mentioned that it must be, in one of my first posts on this thread.

But logicboy is clueless enough to imagine that which is contained in his OP to be a worthy argument against the existence of a soul.

At all events, I have previously expressed some of my trouble with Dawkin's reasoning in other respects cardinally on some of his arguments on the existence of God. I cannot begin to elucidate everything all over. Here -

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9184534

First off, that was a real interview between Dawkins and a creationist.

Secondly, Dawkins made a simple and valid point that there is a brain rather than a soul. We say something that is unconscious doesnt have a soul but then consciousness is a product of the brain and not a soul.


Simple logic escapes people like you. Have you any evidence for a soul? What is the function of a soul?





Lastly, you were refuted by the next comment on your link

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9186583

Logicboy03:



First off, that was a real interview between Dawkins and a creationist.

Secondly, Dawkins made a simple and valid point that there is a brain rather than a soul. We say something that is unconscious doesnt have a soul but then consciousness is a product of the brain and not a soul.

I am surprised, or I should not be - that desperate red eyed cultists have failed - even after the few questions I put up there, to see how lamentably ridiculous the point in the OP is. No point at all, as conventional with persons who have made a habit of rejecting any iota of commonsense as a lifetime career.

Simple logic escapes people like you. Have you any evidence for a soul? What is the function of a soul?

I have no inclination to engage in such a discussion with a chair. The point you should focus on is the point made in the OP. Study it over-night, and eat some kolanuts as you do so. It might just dawn on you by dawn, what exactly you have done.

Lastly, you were refuted by the next comment on your link

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9186583

No I was not. Anybody can read the entire thread. I know of course that you are far to lazy, to go through the arguments made in all posts in the thread. You will doubtless prefer a day dream about the next ice cream or chocolate shop that you doubtless must be eager to visit in the morning.

Deep Sight:

I am surprised, or I should not be - that desperate red eyed cultists have failed - even after the few questions I put up there, to see how lamentably ridiculous the point in the OP is. No point at all, as conventional with persons who have made a habit of rejecting any iota of commonsense as a lifetime career.



I have no inclination to engage such a discussion with a chair. The point you should focus on is the point made in the OP. Study it over-night, and eat some kolanuts as you do so. It might just dawn on you by dawn, what exactly you have done.



No I was not. Anybody can read the entire thread. I know of course that you are far to lazy, to go through the arguments made in all posts in the thread. You will doubtless prefer a day dream about the next ice cream or chocolate shop that you doubtless must be eager visiting in the morning.

There you have it! All insults and no substance.

Be gone, troll!

Logicboy03:




There you have it! All insults and no substance.

Be gone, troll!

Maybe you missed it. As expected.

Please go and read the questions I gave the other poster. Period.

If after reading and answering those questions, you still don't get it, I promise, I'll break it down for you.

Deep Sight:



Look, I do not even know if and where Dawkins made such a statement or if this was a mere joke. I take the statement up simply on logicboy's advancement of it as some sort of refutation (even if comic or sarcastic) of the existence of the soul.

I have no idea if it is a joke, as you will see I mentioned that it must be, in one of my first posts on this thread.

But logicboy is clueless enough to imagine that which is contained in his OP to be a worthy argument against the existence of a soul.

At all events, I have previously expressed some of my trouble with Dawkin's reasoning in other respects cardinally on some of his arguments on the existence of God. I cannot begin to elucidate everything all over. Here -

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9184534

I'm not concerned with most of this, I'm addressing your assertions about intelligence which are frankly, silly. My concentration atm is spread thin, but the reply to your post has this:

kag:
Don't be so arrogant as to presume you know anything about Dawkins. The problem, as I see it, is that many people on message boards are only aware of the Richard Dawkins as anti-religion wannabe "philosopher", not as the brilliant scientist he actually is. He's poor as a philosopher, but extremely erudite and insightful when it comes to biology and zoology.

Heck, even if one argued that dawkins isn't even a brilliant scientist, just ok, that won't make your comments any less asinine, yes? And I won't even call it a result of arrogance, just some sort of sheer *insert insult here, bold and colored for extra effects*.

You're welcome to your opinions though, of course

wiegraf:

You said



He earlier said


And of course kindly confirmed it by adding



Now, our hero might not have told us exactly why he thinks Dawkins is *insert insult here, bold and colored for extra effects*, though that as well is disputable as he's given plenty hints at just how mor.onic his thinking is, but he's more or else told us why he thinks op is stoopid; because he thinks anyone who thinks Dawkins intelligent is *insert insult here, bold and colored for extra effects*, at least in the context of this discussion. I'm sure he has other reasons though.

i know, yes i know,
(i really need the greatest faith that i have ever had though) i will survive naira land with my sanity.(laughing in ten languages)

i know, yes i am strong enough(lmho)

Wandering with great wanderment!

wiegraf:

I'm not concerned with most of this, I'm addressing your assertions about intelligence which are frankly, silly. My concentration atm is spread thin, but the reply to your post has this:



Heck, even if one argued that dawkins isn't even a brilliant scientist, just ok, that won't make your comments any less asinine, yes? And I won't even call it a result of arrogance, just some sort of sheer *insert insult here, bold and colored for extra effects*.

You're welcome to your opinions though, of course

Lol. As regards my *insert terrible insults here* you are taking me far too seriously. I am having a laugh myself at some of the *insert terrible insults here* I am heaping on logicboy.

But this, o disciple, thou must take away from here: Richard Dawkins is a certified re.tard: this is a sacred truth which cannot be negotiated. Nor can it be avoided by all the laurels of all the universities in all the cities of the universe.

He has written some of the greatest gibberish to be written in the last two thousand years of human history, and is only celebrated by clots.

Now come and draw thee near: are you also telling me that you glean a sensible point in the OP?

Speak straight.

For I have prepared and lengthened mine whip unto thee, as hot coals on the backs of slaves shall it proceed and make thy back its dwelling place.

Now stand up and speak.