This is a challenge to Deepsight, Anony and Enigma to shame the devil and back up their statements. I am an athiest and I know (not believe) Dawkins not to be so. Not only has he made very clear arguments about God and religion but his arguments are sound.

It is of the highest arrogance of theists like these people to claim that Dawkins is a dunce. You might disagree with him but to call a man who has proven himself with his degrees and formal arguments a philosphical dunce is really immoral.

Arguments on Dawkins side
-Every sicentific research paper or thesis begins with philosophy- a hypothesis and then, the evidence supporting or rebutting the hypothesis
-Every scientific research paper or thesis engages in some form of philosophical approach; positivism or empiricism etc
-Dawkins has engaged in formal debates unlike Deepsight, Anony and Enigma
-Dawkins basic arguments have yet to be shown to be dunce-like by Anony, Deepsight and Enigma.



[size=14pt]So, in your own words, please back up your statements that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce[/size]

Enigma:
As I said before Dawkins' are the same juvenile nonsense and idiotic rants that the dunce's lapdogs repeat here ad nauseam. Who's going to waste his time with that.

Dawkins is a theological and philosophical dunce. End of.

https://www.nairaland.com/1192447/religion-no-place-21st-century/1#14295802

Deep Sight:

As to Logicboy, I hope, from everything in this thread, you can now see why I describe Dawkins (and everyone else who regards him as intelligent) to be a dunce. It is normal that dunces should follow dunces. Birds of a feather flock together. That is why Pentecostal dunces also follow Pastor Dunces. It is the very same thing.

https://www.nairaland.com/1182831/interview-richard-dawkins-ben-stein/5#14141046

Mr_Anony:
Also, Enigma is justified in calling Dawkins a dunce as far as theology and philosophy are concerned. You didn't dispute that. All you did was pander to his biology credentials - which by the way we all applaud - but that as fantastic as it may be does nothing to change the fact that Dawkins is a dunce in respect to philosophy and theology.

https://www.nairaland.com/1192447/religion-no-place-21st-century#14292503

lb, as I once told you, dawkins is more of a scientist. Don't fall my hand here again. Please. Aside¤but how can anyone fail to recognise dawkins is a philosophical midget¤

Reyginus: lb, as I once told you, dawkins is more of a scientist. Don't fall my hand here again. Please. Aside¤but how can anyone fail to recognise dawkins is a philosophical midget¤

Why are you doing this? Why not present his poor philosophy? Back up your claims please

MacDaddy01:


Why are you doing this? Why not present his poor philosophy? Back up your claims please

Stop standing by this man for your own good.
For example, lb, dawkins granted an interview to al jazeera about 2 months ago on science and religion. In the interview, he made two comments which any rational mind can easily decipher to be irrational. The first. Dawkins mentioned as one of the reasons for his unbelief in God, the absence of proof. Then, it was time for the question segment. An audience, a muslim precisely, asked if he (dawkins) will believe God exist if He appeared as a proof to him. The dumb guy went this way:' that will depend on the realness(not this word exactly) of the proof'. And I ask, can something be considered a proof, and still beg for clarification?

Reyginus: Stop standing by this man for your own good.
For example, lb, dawkins granted an interview to al jazeera about 2 months ago on science and religion. In the interview, he made two comments which any rational mind can easily decipher to be irrational. The first. Dawkins mentioned as one of the reasons for his unbelief in God, the absence of proof. Then, it was time for the question segment. An audience, a muslim precisely, asked if he (dawkins) will believe God exist if He appeared as a proof to him. The dumb guy went this way:' that will depend on the truthfulness(not this word exactly) of the proof'. And I ask, can something be considered a proof, and still beg for clarification?

Well, his first comment is very logical. There is no proof or evidence for God.

Dawkins is also right to question the truthfullness of the proof (if that is what he said because you christians can lie about Dawkins). An example would be a hallucination- some people believe things that are hallucination- people claim to have seen Jesus wearing white robes.
That question is also flawed. Which God will appear? The audience member would have had to define his god first (maybe this was what dawkins was trying to get at)





So, try again. You fail to prove that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce

MacDaddy01:


Well, his first comment is very logical. There is no proof or evidence for God.

Dawkins is also right to question the truthfullness of the proof (if that is what he said because you christians can lie about Dawkins). An example would be a hallucination- some people believe things that are hallucination- people claim to have seen Jesus wearing white robes.
That question is also flawed. Which God will appear? The audience member would have had to define his god first (maybe this was what dawkins was trying to get at)





So, try again. You fail to prove that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce

The reason these people will never take you serious. You don't know that the moment you agree to a 'proof' of a particular thing, asking for its clarification is an illogical question. Because, before you agree it's a proof, it must be clarified. So, you're indirectly saying, 'this clarified statement of proof must be clarified before I accept'. Dumb if you ask me.

Reyginus: The reason these people will never take you serious. You don't know that the moment you agree to a 'proof' of a particular thing, asking for the its clarification is an illogical question. Because, before you agree it's a proof, it must be clarified. So, you're indirectly saying, 'this clarified statent of proof must be clarified before I accept'. Dumb if you ask me.

What proof did Dawkins accept?

MacDaddy01:

What proof did Dawkins accept?

Are you sure you've been following this thread? Read post 3 again.

Reyginus: Are you sure you've been following this thread? Read post 3 again.

bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRd-jlV82BI

ah! Advise# You need to watch it before making any comment. To save yourself. I know what you can do.

Reyginus: ah! Advise# You need to watch it before making any comment. To save yourself. I know what you can do.

Mtchew....I watched the video months ago. Yu were talking nonsense


Next!

MacDaddy01:


Mtchew....I watched the video months ago. Yu were talking nonsense


Next!

Lol. Sir, you're missing something. +chanting+ debunked, debunked, debunked...

Reyginus: Lol. Sir, you're missing something. +chanting+ debunked, debunked, debunked...

Let me wait for the bigger fish. You have nothing

I think I too have said somewhere...

Dawkins attempting to present himself as an authority on religion or philosophy...is about on par as Mama Sunday attempting to present herself as an expert on Biophysics. Only fellow evangelical pop-atheists take him seriously when he goes on his anti-religious spiels that are all hot-air and no substance - M.O.? throw around enough 'big' words mixed with deliberately misapplied concepts with the aim to obfuscate the matter, all presented with an arrogant confidence to BS the audience into actually believing he knows what the hell it is he's talking about. All he's doing is giving an opinion - an opinion no more weighty than that of Pastor Ade of Ojuelegba foursquare gospel church.

What is my proof? none necessary. The very ludicrous & disingenuous idea of attempting to apply science to non-scientific matters is all the proof one needs. The two are separate disciplines and attempts to present them as contradictory, conflicting parts is straight up intellectual dishonesty. He should simply stick to Biology, his discipline of expertise.

Cheerios.

JeSoul: I think I too have said somewhere...

[size=15pt]Dawkins attempting to present himself as an authority on religion or philosophy[/size]...is about on par as Mama Sunday attempting to present herself as an expert on Biophysics. Only fellow evangelical pop-atheists take him seriously when he goes on his anti-religious spiels that are all hot-air and no substance - M.O.? throw around enough 'big' words mixed with deliberately misapplied concepts with the aim to obfuscate the matter, all presented with an arrogant confidence to BS the audience into actually believing he knows what the hell it is he's talking about. All he's doing is giving an opinion - an opinion no more weighty than that of Pastor Ade of Ojuelegba foursquare gospel church.

What is my proof? none necessary. The very ludicrous & disingenuous idea of attempting to apply science to non-scientific matters is all the proof one needs. The two are separate disciplines and attempts to present them as contradictory, conflicting parts is straight up intellectual dishonesty. He should simply stick to Biology, his discipline of expertise.

Cheerios.

Even you Jesoul? You were smart to avoid this issue before, why fall my hand?


1) First of all, Dawkins where did you get the idea that Dawkins is attemption to put himself as an authority on philosophy? Does talking about morality/religion equate to that? You just made a bold lie.

2)I want to know what wrong arguments Dawkins made on religion. You people have been making claims here and there but have failed to present one argument that is dunce-like from Dawkins. Anyone can make valid comments on religion whether supporting or criticising it. I dont know what the hell you people are talking about when you say that Dawkins doesnt know hwat he is saying.


3) You are free to name and quote his empty rhetoric of no substance that you so claim that he spouts.


4) Religion claiming that God created the universe or big bang is a scientific claim. Religion claiming that God created man from dust is a scientific claim. Your logic is upside down because it is religion that is encroaching on science. Dawkins is addressing these issues and showing that religion should not be taught in science class. Even Dawkins said that he doesnt care what people believe as long as they dont interfere with the teaching of science or others public life


5) If you watch the video, Dawkins said that he is an educator and he is concerned with teaching facts. He promotes the teaching of evolution in schools. He also says that he is concerned with what is true.

By the way, Jesoul, do you believe that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce even if you dont agree with him?

MacDaddy01:
Even you Jesoul? You were smart to avoid this issue before, why fall my hand?


1) First of all, Dawkins where did you get the idea that Dawkins is attemption to put himself as an authority on philosophy? Does talking about morality/religion equate to that? You just made a bold lie.

2)I want to know what wrong arguments Dawkins made on religion. You people have been making claims here and there but have failed to present one argument that is dunce-like from Dawkins. Anyone can make valid comments on religion whether supporting or criticising it. I dont know what the hell you people are talking about when you say that Dawkins doesnt know hwat he is saying.


3) You are free to name and quote his empty rhetoric of no substance that you so claim that he spouts.


4) Religion claiming that God created the universe or big bang is a scientific claim. Religion claiming that God created man from dust is a scientific claim. Your logic is upside down because it is religion that is encroaching on science. Dawkins is addressing these issues and showing that religion should not be taught in science class. Even Dawkins said that he doesnt care what people believe as long as they dont interfere with the teaching of science or others public life


5) If you watch the video, Dawkins said that he is an educator and he is concerned with teaching facts. He promotes the teaching of evolution in schools. He also says that he is concerned with what is true.

Really dude? do you think most people here are 'afraid' of atheists and their 'questions'? Don't mistake lack of participation or engagement as 'fear' - rather the plain truth - we're simply tired of the same arguements & don't have the time but will oblige every now and then so ya'll don't feel like no one can answer.

Now to your post...

Not much to reply/add really. I stand by my first post. Dawkins (say whatever he will "I'm an educator" "I advocate free-thinking" "bla bla bla" ) by way of his fanatical anti-religion evangelicism is trying to pass of himself as an expert on matters he has no business in. Furthermore, I reiterate science & religion are two separate disciplines - and any deists or atheists who attempt to draw imaginary correlations are the true "dunces".

Cheerios.

JeSoul: Really dude? do you think most people here are 'afraid' of atheists and their 'questions'? Don't mistake lack of participation or engagement as 'fear' - rather the plain truth - we're simply tired of the same arguements & don't have the time but will oblige every now and then so ya'll don't feel like no one can answer.

Now to your post...

Not much to reply/add really. I stand by my first post. Dawkins (say whatever he will "I'm an educator" "I advocate free-thinking" "bla bla bla" ) by way of his fanatical anti-religion evangelicism is trying to pass of himself as an expert on matters he has no business in. Furthermore, I reiterate science & religion are two separate disciplines - and any deists or atheists who attempt to draw imaginary correlations are the true "dunces".

Cheerios.

No evidence, just empty rhetoric, Jesoul.



As for the bold;

MacDaddy01:
4) Religion claiming that God created the universe or big bang is a scientific claim. Religion claiming that God created man from dust is a scientific claim. Your logic is upside down because it is religion that is encroaching on science. Dawkins is addressing these issues and showing that religion should not be taught in science class. Even Dawkins said that he doesnt care what people believe as long as they dont interfere with the teaching of science or others public life

MacDaddy01: 4) Religion claiming that God created the universe or big slam is a scientific claim. [size=14pt]Religion claiming that God created man from dust is a scientific claim. [/size] Your logic is upside down because it is religion that is encroaching on science. Dawkins is addressing these issues and showing that religion should not be taught in science class. Even Dawkins said that he doesnt care what people believe as long as they dont interfere with the teaching of science or others public life

Oh dear.

See people? this is what I am talking about. Logicboy believes the bible makes "scientific claims", of any kind. Dude, the bible makes religious/spiritual claims and nothing more. The sooner you realize religion IS not science the sooner you and Dawkins can untie the twists in your undies .

JeSoul:
Oh dear.

See people? this is what I am talking about. Logicboy believes the bible makes "scientific claims", of any kind. Dude, the bible makes religious/spiritual claims and nothing more. The sooner you realize religion IS not science the sooner you and Dawkins can untie the twists in your undies .

Religion is not science, agreed but religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths try to overstep into science.


Wait, so the origin of man is not a scientific area? Hmm? When the bible claims that mn was created from dust by God is it not encroaching on the origin of man, a scientific area of study?



I give up.

MacDaddy01:

Religion is not science, agreed but religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths try to overstep into science.


Wait, so the origin of man is not a scientific area? Hmm? When the bible claims that mn was created from dust by God is it not encroaching on the origin of man, a scientific area of study?


I give up.

Again, no it does not. It is only in your false/flawed understanding of what the bible actually says that there is any conflict.

When it says God made man from dust what comes to your mind? A big dude sits on the ground, crosses his legs and begins molding a human shaped body from the dust?

[rhetorical questions] Do you know what an allegory is? do you understand the use of imagery in texts? the use of literal & non-literal words/terms/descriptors in language? [/rhetorical questions]

When human being die do they turn into 'dust' in the ground? what does 'dust' mean in this context? Again, there is no conflict between religion & science except that which is conjured up by evangelical practitioners of pseudo science armed with an anti-God agenda.

JeSoul: Again, no it does not. It is only in your false/flawed understanding of what the bible actually says that there is any conflict.

When it says God made man from dust what comes to your mind? A big dude sits on the ground, crosses his legs and begins molding a human shaped body from the dust?

[rhetorical questions] [/b]Do you know what an allegory is? do you understand the use of imagery in texts? the use of literal & non-literal words/terms/descriptors in language? [b] [/rhetorical questions]

When human being die do they turn into 'dust' in the ground? what does 'dust' mean in this context? Again, there is no conflict between religion & science except that which is conjured up by evangelical practitioners of pseudo science armed with an anti-God agenda.

Jesoul? What is your point? Did God create man according to the bible, yes or no?

That is a scientific claim. The moment you accept that Yahweh created man, you have made a scientific claim. You have described a physical process in the origin of man.


As for the bold
Isaiah 64:8 ►
New International Version (©1984)
Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.


Taken literally, God is the moulder of clay

He is a theological and philosophical dunce because he evangelizes on theological, philosophical and cosmological matters which none of his arguments have anything to do with.

This is the central reason.

However I have already given some of my reasons previously.

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

The man is not worth any sensible person's time.

He also makes some of the most hair-raisingly stu.pid remarks and conclusions that any academic has ever made in history. I would be safe to say that he is probably the dimmest person on the planet to be academically honoured.

MacDaddy01:



Jesoul? What is your point? Did God create man according to the bible, yes or no?

That is a scientific claim. [size=14pt] The moment you accept that Yahweh created man, you have made a scientific claim. [/size] You have described a physical process in the origin of man.


As for the bold
Isaiah 64:8 ►
New International Version (©1984)
Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.


Taken literally, God is the moulder of clay

This is quite embarrasing - especially for one who brandishes 'logic' & 'science' all over the section (in the face of real world scientists like myself - if I may quietly add). Someday (hopefully sooner than later), you'll look back and realize what a hopelessly, utterly & irredeemably farcical statement that is . I can't blame you too much sha...this is clearly a Dawkinian trait and you're merely taking after daddy G.O. Dawkins.

Cheerios, logicboy .

JeSoul: This is quite embarrasing - especially for one who brandishes 'logic' & 'science' all over the section (in the face of real world scientists like myself - if I may quietly add). Someday (hopefully sooner than later), you'll look back and realize what a hopelessly, utterly & irredeemably farcical statement that is . I can't blame you too much sha...this is clearly a Dawkinian trait and you're merely taking after daddy G.O. Dawkins.

Cheerios, logicboy .

Empty rhetoric.


NEXT!

Deep Sight:
He is a theological and philosophical dunce because he evangelizes on theological, philosophical and cosmological matters which none of his arguments have anything to do with.

This is the central reason.

However I have already given some of my reasons previously.

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

The man is not worth any sensible person's time.

He also makes some of the most hair-raisingly stu.pid remarks and conclusions that any academic has ever made in history. I would be safe to say that he is probably the dimmest person on the planet to be academically honoured.

I take it that you have no evidence for your claims? One down, two to go. You are yet to name one of his poor philosophical arguments

NEXT

Waiting for Anony and Enigma

MacDaddy01:
[size=14pt]So, in your own words, please back up your statements that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce[/size]

MacDaddy01:



I take it that you have no evidence for your claims? One down, two to go. You are yet to name one of his poor philosophical arguments

NEXT

Waiting for Anony and Enigma

You sir, are a veritable clown. It is obvious that you do not read. I gave you a link, and I so knew you would be too lazy to go there and read all the arguments both ways. If you are too lazy to read, why should I do the hardwork and bother to write?

Deep Sight:

You sir, are a veritable clown. It is obvious that you do not read. I gave you a link, and I so knew you would be too lazy to go there and read all the arguments both ways. If you are too lazy to read, why should I do the hardwork and bother to write?

Commot for road.

Let others who have evidence and proper logical arguments come and state why they believe that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce

MacDaddy01:


Commot for road.

Let others who have evidence and proper logical arguments come and state why they believe that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce

Well since you did not bother to read or respond to that which was provided to you (I gave the link; you did not respond to a single word written there); then how do you expect either Anony or Enigma to be encouraged to bother themselves writing what will not be read?

You see, it is very easy, but very unschorlarly, vacuouss, vacant and bereft of intellect, to give the same standard response to everything that you ask for: namely you just perfectly ignore what has been written and state: "You have no evidence. End of Response."

Who do you expect to ever take you seriously with such vacant responses. It is indeed you who should "commot for road" if you are not prepared to read and respond to that which is given in response to your own queries. Why should anybody write anything if you will not read it and respond directly to it?

Look at the bold in your post above. Now I wrote a lot in the link I gave you. What is the point writing more when you have not addressed yourself to that? Do you expect me to just start dancing because you say so? I don't mind dancing, but the DJ should kindly play the music. You are not playing the music, son.

Deep Sight:

Well since you did not bother to read or respond to that which was provided to you (I gave the link; you did not respond to a single word written there); then how do you expect either Anony or Enigma to be encouraged to bother themselves writing what will not be read?

You see, it is very easy, but very unschorlarly, vacuouss, vacant and bereft of intellect, to give the same standard response to everything that you ask for: namely you just perfectly ignore what has been written and state: "You have no evidence. End of Response."

Who do you expect to ever take you seriously with such vacant responses. It is indeed you who should "commot for road" if you are not prepared to read and respond to that which is given in response to your own queries. Why should anybody write anything if you will not read it and respond directly to it?

Look at the bold in your post above. Now I wrote a lot in the link I gave you. What is the point writing more when you have not addressed yourself to that? Do you expect me to just start dancing because you say so? I don't mind dancing, but the DJ should kindly play the music. You are not playing the music, son.

lol......it is simple, put forward the evidence in your own words here. It costs you nothing to state the flawed arguments that Dawkins made on this thread. You people keep embarrassing yourselves. Let's see if Anony and Enigma live up to the challenge.

MacDaddy01:
[size=14pt]So, in your own words, please back up your statements that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce[/size]

MacDaddy01:



lol......it is simple, put forward the evidence in your own words here. It costs you nothing to state the flawed arguments that Dawkins made on this thread. You people keep embarrassing yourselves. Let's see if Anony and Enigma live up to the challenge.

My own words are in the link I gave you.

Ol' boy, there is no "challenge" if you refuse to read.

Do you expect me to go and copy the words there and start pasting them here? How hard really is it for you to click a link and read my own words?

Lazy or frightened, which is it? Or just not up to the discussion?

As far as I am concerned, I will only proceed further on this thread when you respond to my own words - all of them - in the link I gave you.

End of.

Deep Sight:

My own words are in the link I gave you.

Ol' boy, there is no "challenge" if you refuse to read.

Do you expect me to go and copy the words there and start pasting them here? How hard really is it for you to click a link and read my own words?

Lazy or frightened, which is it? Or just not up to the discussion?

As far as I am concerned, I will only proceed further on this thread when you respond to my own words - all of them - in the link I gave you.

End of.

Yawn....commot for road. Let's leave it to those who have evidence.