Atheism is a false philosophy held by the most arrogant

[paximperium]

Logical Fallacies 101:
Can anyone spot more?

Wolfgirl, I am simply arguing the teleological argument, the supposition that there is PURPOSE or DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE in the works and processes of NATURE.

Wolfgirl, I am saying that the universe, nature, evolution, natural selection, etc. are FAR too complex and orderly to have occurred randomly or accidentally, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

No, you are not arguing, you making a statement without any justification or evidence to support this claim.

EVERYONE is still waiting for you to support this claim.

Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, Voltaire, Emerson, Thoreau, and many others made the teleological argument to establish the existence of an intelligent designer of it all. I have simply been trying to get ANY of you to tell me WHY you believe incredibly complex systems did not require any form of intelligent design.

Argument from Authority.

This idea that you all seem to be spell-bound by, that there is no intelligent design to the universe is perhaps the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Why? Because it is simply impossible.

Argument from Incredulity

Even Charles Darwin didn't really believe that natural selection was the product of non-intelligence.

Blatant lie.

Neither does Richard Dawkins. They simply reject the Zeus, Thor, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus-like characters being some type of supernatural, magical, God-like being characters.

Moving the goalpost

Plus, they HATE organized religion. This is Dawkins' true agenda.

Ad hominem

Because he is such a big brain, backed by the Rothschild controlled Fabian Society which controls OXFORD, and he has been given the assignment to promote the Hell out of Atheism, that's what he is doing.


He's doing it because he is making millions by getting sheeple like the majority of atheists on this forum to buy his book and parrot his teachings.

Unfounded statement. Likely pure Ad Hominem.

Dawkins even admitted to to being convinced of the existence of God by the teleological argument but felt the customs of the Church of England were so absurd, he became an atheist out of protest.

Another blatant lie. Produce some evidence to support this statement.

In addition, Dawkins is proving his meme theory, his ability to convert sheeple into atheists too. He's very very intelligent.

Evidence of ignorance about Memetics. Another Ad Hominem and lie.

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to a part of organized religion. I don't blame anyone for not believing that a man walked on water, parted the Red Sea, talked to a burning bush, or other such myths.

An Appeal to Moderation

However, to believe that a bunch of rocks and gases, exploded from the big bang, simply bumped into one another billions of times over billions of years and just happened to produce the complex universe we know today, ALL WITHOUT any intelligent direction. PLEASE!!!!!! Just how can anyone be so gullible?

A Strawman, Argument from Incredulity and Ad Hominem.

It's goes back to the "watch" reassembling itself, without any intelligent assistance. It simply CAN NOT HAPPEN. Yet, because DAWKINS tells you differently, you believe him. Wow!!!

A continued and dishonest statement that has been demolished multiple times in multiple posts in this thread which bwin has continued to ignore.

 

[slingblade]

Yet, because DAWKINS tells you differently, you believe him. Wow!!!

I've never read Dawkins. Not once.


Still an atheist.

 

[schlitt]

Egg, Just as the title of my thread indicates, most atheists are almost insufferably arrogant. They have bought into the likes of Richard Dawkins who erroneously assumes natural selection is enough to explain the complexities of biological systems, and that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Amazingly enough, so many folks participating in this forum want to be part of the Dawkins crowd so badly they are willing to swallow his garbage.

No arrogance in the above statement.

Most of you don't know that Dawkins is simply working you. He doesn't really buy all the crap he's peddling.

No arrogant presumptions in the above.

He is simply using most of you as his guinea pigs, more like lab rats, to prove the theory of memplexes. You guys are all blind little sheep, mindlessly falling into lockstep behind this Lied Piper.

100% arrogance free, and overflowing with verifiable evidence.

He's the point man for the Fabian Society, the folks who own and control Oxford University. As most of you probably do not know, The Fabian Society is a socialistic/communistic organization that wants to systematically eliminate organized religion, while promoting atheism.

Lucky for us you are here to enlighten us.

Dawkins is far too intelligent to actually believe that complex systems simply develop over billions of years WITHOUT any intelligent direction.

That would be why he has a book titled:
"The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design"

His real agenda is to trash organized religion and make millions selling books to his atheistic clones, thereby helping to prove his memetics theory is true.

Not only are you a beacon of humility, you can also read minds. Impressive.

I have been accused of being far too Forest Gump-like to understand just why atheists are so intelligent for believing that natural selection and the complexities of evolution never required any form of intelligence. Why? Because it just happens NATURALLY? Sure. Dawkins is laughing at you atheists.

You incessantly present straw man arguments that do not reflect reality. This indicates you are either ignorant of the real theories, or as you put it; too "Forest Gump like", to understand them.

Yes, he let's people announce him as the world's most famous atheist because he is making MILLIONS. Plus, no telling what else he's getting from the ruling elite at The Fabian Society for getting so many sheep to blindly follow his every command.

He probably gets to share a bed with Satan. All us evil Atheists are so jealous!

 

[godless dave]

I've never read Dawkins. Not once.


Still an atheist.

I was an atheist many years before I'd ever heard of Richard Dawkins.

 

[Tubbythin]

Wolfgirl, I am simply arguing the teleological argument, the supposition that there is PURPOSE or DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE in the works and processes of NATURE.

You're not really arguing anything. You're just asserting.

Wolfgirl, I am saying that the universe, nature, evolution, natural selection, etc. are FAR too complex and orderly to have occurred randomly or accidentally, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

So back it up with evidence.

Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, Voltaire, Emerson, Thoreau, and many others made the teleological argument to establish the existence of an intelligent designer of it all. I have simply been trying to get ANY of you to tell me WHY you believe incredibly complex systems did not require any form of intelligent design.

And we're telling you to tell us why it requires an intelligent design.

This idea that you all seem to be spell-bound by, that there is no intelligent design to the universe is perhaps the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Why? Because it is simply impossible.

Why is it "simply impossible"? (Am I allowed to tell someone to "Put up or shut up"?)

Even Charles Darwin didn't really believe that natural selection was the product of non-intelligence. Neither does Richard Dawkins. They simply reject the Zeus, Thor, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus-like characters being some type of supernatural, magical, God-like being characters. Plus, they HATE organized religion. This is Dawkins' true agenda.

Rubbish. Darwin delayed his Origin of Species because he didn't want to offend his religious family and friends. Why would he do that if he hated organized religion so much?

Because he is such a big brain, backed by the Rothschild controlled Fabian Society which controls OXFORD, and he has been given the assignment to promote the Hell out of Atheism, that's what he is doing.

He's doing it because he is making millions by getting sheeple like the majority of atheists on this forum to buy his book and parrot his teachings. Dawkins even admitted to to being convinced of the existence of God by the teleological argument but felt the customs of the Church of England were so absurd, he became an atheist out of protest.

Reference?

In addition, Dawkins is proving his meme theory, his ability to convert sheeple into atheists too. He's very very intelligent.

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to a part of organized religion. I don't blame anyone for not believing that a man walked on water, parted the Red Sea, talked to a burning bush, or other such myths.

However, to believe that a bunch of rocks and gases, exploded from the big bang, simply bumped into one another billions of times over billions of years and just happened to produce the complex universe we know today, ALL WITHOUT any intelligent direction. PLEASE!!!!!! Just how can anyone be so gullible?

I'm a physicist. I 'believe' what science tells me. It certainly doesnt tell me rocks and gases exploded from the big bang. Next strawman?

It's goes back to the "watch" reassembling itself, without any intelligent assistance. It simply CAN NOT HAPPEN. Yet, because DAWKINS tells you differently, you believe him. Wow!!!

So much bluster, so many posts, not one shred of evidence.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, Voltaire, Emerson, Thoreau, and many others made the teleological argument to establish the existence of an intelligent designer of it all. I have simply been trying to get ANY of you to tell me WHY you believe incredibly complex systems did not require any form of intelligent design.

Your examples are irrelevant. For starters, Voltaire was a deist who actually devoted his efforts to debunking teleological arguments for God. Others like Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes, never went so far as to conflate their prime mover with an object of worship. It's worth noting that Pascal actually accused Descartes of being insincere in his faith, in that he was just using "God" to cheat his way out of his logical dilemma.

Besides, it's possible for philosophers to be wrong, or for their ideas to be questioned and challenged as time goes by. Do you think Plato's "Republic" is a good model for society to follow? Do you agree with what Aquinas said about how it was imperative for the Church to torture heretics?

I hope you realize that design is actually an evolutionary process. It uses existing materials or builds off of existing designs, involves a lot of trial and error, and inevitably results in a lot of failed prototypes until we find something that works. That sounds a lot like evolution to me. Additionally, designing and using tools is an evolved behavior; an adaptation that gave human ancestors a survival advantage.

Intelligent design is like Lamarckian evolution in that the only way it makes sense is if it piggybacks on the concepts of Darwinian evolution.

You are forgetting one other use for these threads.
I tend to use these boards for:
1)Friendly banter
2)Discussion: An exchange of ideas and to learn new things
3)Debate: Where I try to change to mind of the other debater and the lurkers in the crowd
4)Cathartic smackdown ie. trolling: I do this as a stress reliever. I do this to people like bwinwright, EJ Armstrong and DOC once I realize that they are completely and utterly unable to hold an honest conversation. It amuses me. It's a great stress reliever. I don't do this in a more neutral forum because even if the posters are complete loons, I am still attempting to convince the crowd to my side...try discussion of vaccines in health food forums...it is an interesting tip toe exercise.

I find these fellas great training wheels for more amateurish online debaters to practice on. For a beginner atheist, bwin's arguments are extremely easy to dismantle and I do recommend that they try their hand at it.

Then where were you when this guy showed up?

 

[wolfgirl]

Wolfgirl, I am saying that the universe, nature, evolution, natural selection, etc. are FAR too complex and orderly to have occurred randomly or accidentally, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Okay. So if there is an intelligence that's capable of directing all of this, must it not be extremely complex and orderly? So where did it come from? Did it just occur randomly? Or was it designed?

There are only two options:

If you say it was designed, then what designed it?

If you say it wasn't designed, then you are admitting that it is possible for something extremely complex and orderly to come about without an intelligence directing it.

Do you see where this is going...?

It's goes back to the "watch" reassembling itself, without any intelligent assistance. It simply CAN NOT HAPPEN.

You're right, it can't. Because it's not capable of reproduction.

Evolution requires reproduction to take place. You keep throwing around the words "random" and "accident," obviously not understanding the process of natural selection at all. The initial mutation may indeed be an accident, but then whether that mutation is passed on or not is far from random. If the mutation is beneficial, it has a high chance of being passed on. If it's not, it's much less likely to be passed on. Through this process, over many generations, change occurs. And over many millions or billions of generations, great changes can occur. It's those billions of years that I think most people have a hard time grasping.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...I agree to an extent. Logic is mostly objective, pointing out this flaws tend to be evidence. Among the delusional, they do not realize those flaws and among the dishonest, they dismiss those flaws.


Unfortunately, this is the case. The multiple cases of those with specific fanciful and extreme pathologic personality disorders such as Schizoid or Schizotypal personality disorders are examples. I believe that a lesser form of these disorders exist among the vast population.

And then there is this.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

 

[six7s]

Wolfgirl, I am simply arguing the teleological argument,

bwinwright, it seems that you really are delusional and, before you post a knee-jerk denial or simply ignore this post, please consider getting an opinion from a qualified professional counselor or analyst

Tell them how you know you're right and that many, many others are wrong

Tell them that Richard Dawkins is a fraud, intent only in furthering his own sinful agenda; to convert sheeple into atheists

 

[jenski]

Wolfgirl, I am simply arguing the teleological argument, the supposition that there is PURPOSE or DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE in the works and processes of NATURE.

Wolfgirl, I am saying that the universe, nature, evolution, natural selection, etc. are FAR too complex and orderly to have occurred randomly or accidentally, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, Voltaire, Emerson, Thoreau, and many others made the teleological argument to establish the existence of an intelligent designer of it all. I have simply been trying to get ANY of you to tell me WHY you believe incredibly complex systems did not require any form of intelligent design.

This idea that you all seem to be spell-bound by, that there is no intelligent design to the universe is perhaps the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Why? Because it is simply impossible.

Even Charles Darwin didn't really believe that natural selection was the product of non-intelligence. Neither does Richard Dawkins. They simply reject the Zeus, Thor, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus-like characters being some type of supernatural, magical, God-like being characters. Plus, they HATE organized religion. This is Dawkins' true agenda.

Because he is such a big brain, backed by the Rothschild controlled Fabian Society which controls OXFORD, and he has been given the assignment to promote the Hell out of Atheism, that's what he is doing.

He's doing it because he is making millions by getting sheeple like the majority of atheists on this forum to buy his book and parrot his teachings. Dawkins even admitted to to being convinced of the existence of God by the teleological argument but felt the customs of the Church of England were so absurd, he became an atheist out of protest.

In addition, Dawkins is proving his meme theory, his ability to convert sheeple into atheists too. He's very very intelligent.

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to a part of organized religion. I don't blame anyone for not believing that a man walked on water, parted the Red Sea, talked to a burning bush, or other such myths.

However, to believe that a bunch of rocks and gases, exploded from the big bang, simply bumped into one another billions of times over billions of years and just happened to produce the complex universe we know today, ALL WITHOUT any intelligent direction. PLEASE!!!!!! Just how can anyone be so gullible?

It's goes back to the "watch" reassembling itself, without any intelligent assistance. It simply CAN NOT HAPPEN. Yet, because DAWKINS tells you differently, you believe him. Wow!!!

Ok.


Who created this creator?

I'm personally going with Jareth the Goblin King - solely due to the fact that he looks smashing in very tight tights but you may not be so inclined that way.

If you can tell me why Jareth is not a viable option, I'll listen. Not for too long ,but I'll listen.

 

[Pardalis]

I was an atheist many years before I'd ever heard of Richard Dawkins.

I was born an atheist. Bet you can't beat that!

 

[Hokulele]

I was born an atheist. Bet you can't beat that!

Nah, you were just designed that way.

 

[Mashuna]

This is Dawkins' true agenda.

Because he is such a big brain, backed by the Rothschild controlled Fabian Society which controls OXFORD, and he has been given the assignment to promote the Hell out of Atheism, that's what he is doing.

It may be the case that Dawkins is working for OXFORD, who are controlled by the Fabian Society, who are run by the Rothschilds. But did you know that the Rothschilds were infiltrated many years ago by the Knights Templar, who report to the Vatican.

You see, atheism is all just part of a global Catholic plot. All the money from Dawkins' books goes to the roof repair fund for the local cathedral.

 

[Pardalis]

Nah, you were just designed that way.

So that's what my birthmark is, it's a seal of approval!

 

[applecorped]

So that's what my birthmark is, it's a seal of approval!

 

[Polgara]

I've never read Dawkins. Not once.


Still an atheist.

I have. You're not missing anything. I wrote one of my best papers on that topic.

Signed: An athiest.

 

[paximperium]

So that's what my birthmark is, it's a seal of approval!

I don't believe you. As a skeptic, we need evidence. A nice photo would suffice...

 

[Polgara]

And then there is this.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

*laughing* Having suffered a few years of my own delusional fancies, I'm happy to report that I did/do understand metacognitive, and that I wasn't so self inflated as to not force myself into a better sense of reality.

*still laughing*

I am not, however, laughing at the OP.

 

[Polgara]

You may differ from me here however; I suspect there is a significant portion (perhaps it is even the majority) of the human species who are physically incapable of grasping reality from the bottom up. By physically incapable I mean the system of matter which comprises their brain cannot physically be arranged in such a way as to manifest a conscious understanding of many complex, key concepts.

Disagree, except for a minority - stupidity is a choice. The minority includes truly handicapped people and brain damaged people. I don't include children in this statement. Childred actually have the capacity if taught and desirous.

I speak from whence I've traveled, and I speak upon years of experience being an avid observer and tester of people in all walks of life.

 

[MattC]

bwinwright, you reference the complexity of biological systems as strong evidence for the supposition that it was designed by an intelligent source.

To that I have only one question.

Is not complexity in design a hallmark of poor design?

~ MattC