Atheism is a false philosophy held by the most arrogant

[bwinwright]

Yes I am. Was that suppose to be an insult? Was that suppose to make you automatically right?


Yes I do. I also have a great career. Were you trying to make me cry or something? Thanks for your "love". We can see what your "love" means.


Hey, you got something right.


EVERYONE is still eagerly waiting for your wonderful explanation and evidence of this flaw.


Yes. You may want to take a basic college class in physics which explains this easily. Your ignorance and stupidity on the issue does not make you right. It just makes you look stupid and ignorant and you lack even basic imagination.


It's called physics. It's called biology. It's called ENERGY(W)=FD

It's understood. Would you care to tell us all how order needs intelligence? Everyone has asked you multiple times and you have been unable or unwilling to answer this simple question which is telling.

Paxim, I was just looking up the word DELUSIONAL, which means you are irrational due to your belief in a false idea, which in this case is your belief that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Paxim, you say, "It's called Physics. It's called biology. It's called Energy." You say these things as if they actually address the issue. Of course you're delusional and incapable of thinking critically. Therefore, all I want you to do is give me ONE example of orderliness the at did not require intelligent direction.

You can not possibly be serious in believing that all the complexities and laws of physics, biology, and energy simply occurred as the result of non-intelligent rocks and gases banging into one another billions of times over billions of years? PLEASE!!!!!!

That's just as absurd as the Rolex watch reassembling itself without any intelligent direction. Wow! I believe you may want to call the shrink and get some heavy medication so you can simply stay at home on the couch. Otherwise, I fear for you safety, your ability to know when to cross the street, whether to eat what FIDO left on the lawn, etc. Wow!

 

[Pardalis]

Genes.

 

[rocketdodger]

Therefore, all I want you to do is give me ONE example of orderliness the at did not require intelligent direction.

Sand dunes?

River pebbles?

Hurricanes?

Snowflakes?

Stars?

Of course you are going to say "but god created those as well, so they require intelligent direction."

 

[Nogbad]

Sand dunes?

River pebbles?

Hurricanes?

Snowflakes?

Stars?

Of course you are going to say "but god created those as well, so they require intelligent direction."

Opening day at Macy's sales....

no wait....

 

[paximperium]

Paxim, I was just looking up the word DELUSIONAL, which means you are irrational due to your belief in a false idea, which in this case is your belief that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

You can't even get a bloody psychiatric definition correct:

Delusions
Delusions are false beliefs that are deeply entrenched and clearly not based in reality and are not consistent with cultural believes or the persons' level of intelligence and life experiences. Persons cling to these believes even after the believes are shown to be false.
http://psyweb.com/Glossary/delusion.jsp

My position is called Philosophical Naturalism. It is firmly entrenched in reality and is purely based within the observed world. I believe the Natural World exist. That is the only position I take. I don't tag on anything else to it. My mind is easily changed with evidence.

Your position involves lying and making statements without evidence while ignoring all the multiple posts and evidence that has been presented to show how inane your posts are.

We'll let others decide who is the deluded one.

Paxim, you say, "It's called Physics. It's called biology. It's called Energy." You say these things as if they actually address the issue.

Actually it does very well.

Of course you're delusional and incapable of thinking critically. Therefore, all I want you to do is give me ONE example of orderliness the at did not require intelligent direction.

Is "Delusion" your word of the day?

An example? The fusion reaction of sun, the strata of Earth due to gravitational collapse, sedimentation, crystals, branching of tree branches, mitosis, meiosis, DNA replication, neuronal and axonal formation, I could go on but you'll just ignore it.

You can not possibly be serious in believing that all the complexities and laws of physics, biology, and energy simply occurred as the result of non-intelligent rocks and gases banging into one another billions of times over billions of years? PLEASE!!!!!!

Since that is not what I believe, you're strawmans are becoming tedious.

That's just as absurd as the Rolex watch reassembling itself without any intelligent direction.

And how does a Rolex even relate or offer an analogy to anything in nature? Try harder.

Wow! I believe you may want to call the shrink and get some heavy medication so you can simply stay at home on the couch. Otherwise, I fear for you safety, your ability to know when to cross the street, whether to eat what FIDO left on the lawn, etc. Wow!

Is that all you have left? Slurs, insults, slanders and words of the day?

Under what DSM-IVR definition do I fit under any of the psychiatric axises for psychiatric diagnosis? Be very specific about the diagnosis and the underlying criteria being used.

Everyone is still waiting for you to explain how Order requires intelligent. If you provide a mathematical proof, it would be better, otherwise a basic philosophical and logical explanation will suffice.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I don't get it. It appears that KISS means "Keep it stupid, Simple" in this context. Rediculous.

 

[Pardalis]

Bwinwright, did god intend to make chimps and humans so similar, down to our DNA?

 

[six7s]

Paxim, you fit the label perfectly, don't you? Arrogant, condescending, so far superior to others. Wow! I'm sure you have a lot of close friends.

I'm sure s/he does, too... humility and intelligence make a winning combination

You should try it

However, it all gets back to definitions and calling yourself an atheist is admitting that ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

No... being an atheist is simply living a life without theism... nothing more, nothing less. Haven't you done any research into your pet hate?

That's the entire point of this exercise. That's THE flaw, the error you keep making.

So... your tirade is pointless

You arrogant atheists keep referring to billions of complex interactions over billions of years which MUST produce the orderliness we now see.

No. Not must. Does. Note the subtle yet significant difference

ETA:
Note: this is neither a defining nor an exclusive attribute of atheism... there is overlap with, for example, many non-IDiotic theists

Yet, you claim all of this happens without any intelligence? PLEASE!!!!!

No... Observations (gazillions of 'em) show no evidence of intelligence being involved... so alternate hypotheses were formulated and, waddaya know, some of 'em lead to consistent, repeatable results, which prompted yet more thinking and hypothesising and testing and so it will continue... that's how science works

If that's not what you believe then explain how all this can happen without a directing form of intelligence. YOU CAN'T, can you?

See above and then do some research. The results ain't hiding and I'm sure that, if you ask politely and sincerely, many people on this forum will be only too happy to give you links to clear, concise, coherent literature Perhaps that trait is the scientific communities equivalent to 'sharing the love'

CurtC, you say the acorn is not an example of intelligent design but just an example of what biological evolution does naturally. Wow! How brilliant is that?

Very

Of course you aren't addressing the original point, are you?

You mean there was one (at least one that hasn't been thoroughly debunked already)?

The point is that ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION

Get real. You can type that a gazillion times on a gazillion forums but, until you furnish at least ONE piece of evidence that supports your claim, I ain't even window shopping, let alone buying

and you act as if biological evolution just happens by luck, by some form of random accident, as if some form of NON-INTELLIGENCE could possibly be responsible for such incredible behavior.

Yes... well, close enough

Why don't you?

Nobody in this forum has made a decent sales pitch on behalf of atheism.

Please illustrate how by describing how you would put together a sales pitch for aUnicornism or aLeprechaunism or aStampCollectingism

You can not possibly be serious in believing that all the complexities and laws of physics, biology, and energy simply occurred as the result of non-intelligent rocks and gases banging into one another billions of times over billions of years? PLEASE!!!!!!

Wrong. It ain't a belief. Its a thought, supported by all of the evidence to date. If/when 'better' evidence arises, the thought will be modified accordingly

Wow!

Woo!

 

[rocketdodger]

Bwinwright, did god intend to make chimps and humans so similar, down to our DNA?

Bwinwright is similar to us?

 

[NavyPack]

Momentarily de-lurking;

Perhaps this discussion would be enhanced by the author of the OP offering a operational definition of Intelligence. I believe this would lessen the chasm of communication.

 

[six7s]

Last edited by NavyPack; Today at 11:50 AM. Reason: I'm drunk.

Yeah... but you'll be sober at least a few hours after your bottle is empty...

bwinwright, on the other hand, is hell bent on swallowing the contents of The Eternal Fountain of Woo at The Last Supper Bar & Grill

 

[Polgara]

Momentarily de-lurking;

Perhaps this discussion would be enhanced by the author of the OP offering a operational definition of Intelligence. I believe this would lessen the chasm of communication.

That would be a whole new thread. However, I would love to hear the OP's version.

 

[six7s]

Bwinwright is similar to us?

Indistinguishable from any of us

Apart from the blinkers

And the intelligence behind them

 

[Robin]

Why don't you explain why ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. I've simply never heard a reasonable explanation in more than 30 years of asking for one.

Well why didn't you respond to mine and tell me what is wrong with it? Here is is again:

Either there is a God or there is not.

If there is not then order does not require intelligent direction.

If there is, then God is an example of order that does not require intelligent direction. Nobody created God and he did not create himself.

Therefore the one thing that we can be most sure about is that order does not require intelligent direction.

Perhaps you can finally explain why it is that you think intelligence could possibly exist without order!

 

[Robin]

Momentarily de-lurking;

Perhaps this discussion would be enhanced by the author of the OP offering a operational definition of Intelligence. I believe this would lessen the chasm of communication.

Actually it is not that important. We refer to the process that led to the emergence of the first Rolex as intelligence. I am perfectly happy if someone wants to refer to the process that led to emergence of the first acorn as intelligence, as long as we understand that in the first case there was an intention to produce a Rolex (or something like it), in the second there was no intention to produce an acorn.

That is why I said in my first response that a minimum definition of God must include purposeful intelligence.

 

[arthwollipot]

Why don't you explain why ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. I've simply never heard a reasonable explanation in more than 30 years of asking for one.

Here you go:

The Tesselated Pavement (My own photos of the one in Tasmania [URL="http://www.arthwollipot.com/photography/portfolio/tasmania/tess[/URL]here[/url].)

Geometric lines formed purely by natural forces. No intelligence required. No-one picking up rocks, putting them into graduated cylinders, just the action of water, salt, and stone.

 

[CapelDodger]

Momentarily de-lurking;

A well-chosen strategy (indicative of intelligence).

Perhaps this discussion would be enhanced by the author of the OP offering a operational definition of Intelligence. I believe this would lessen the chasm of communication.

At the cost of opening up new ones, while still leaving the old chasm unbridgeable. Bwinright appeals to common-sense - not intelligence - to explain why something as wonderful as him could have come into existence without the intercession of something intelligent.

That said, I'm with Polgara : bwinright's conception of intelligence (from an outsider's point of view) would be of some passing amusement.

 

[Robin]

A well-chosen strategy (indicative of intelligence).



At the cost of opening up new ones, while still leaving the old chasm unbridgeable. Bwinright appeals to common-sense - not intelligence - to explain why something as wonderful as him could have come into existence without the intercession of something intelligent.

That said, I'm with Polgara : bwinright's conception of intelligence (from an outsider's point of view) would be of some passing amusement.

Of greater amusement would be his reason as to why intelligence does not require order.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Anyway, I just want you to think about that little ACORN. Just imagine, one tiny little acorn already knows what that big oak tree inside looks like..AND.. that single little acorn also knows it can be all that's necessary to produce a THOUSAND forests of mighty OAKS. Isn't that an example of some pretty extraordinary intelligent design? Or , would you just attribute this to random, blind luck?

A squirrel eats your acorn before it can do any of that.

What are you gonna do now, huh?

 

[schlitt]

The problem with the majority of theists I have come across is the lack of ability to grasp complex concepts, which are fundamental to a thinking Atheist’s lack of belief.

If you are unable to grasp a concept, you are not only unable to grasp it, but often you are unable to grasp that you cannot grasp it.

So the theists think they understand yet disagree with the Atheists, when in reality the version they “understand" and disagree with is just a straw man.

Often they make the mistake of thinking top down. Douglas Adams’s sentient puddle analogy is a great example of this, but unless you already understand the point that analogy is making, the true meaning will be lost.