Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

[Smoke]

Your brain your imagination. Justify your original arrogance and ignorance any way you want to.

I will discuss anything with anybody who wants to be logical, rational and reasonable. Arrogance and ignorance I am really not into, so I treat them as they treat others. Like I said, if it were arrogance and ignorance I was looking for I would be at Dawkins forum. They make posters like you look like angels.

Oh, I see. You don't want to discuss Dawkins with me, but you do want to discuss me. I can't blame you for that; it's a fascinating subject. But it's off-topic here, so maybe you should start a separate thread.

 

[footprints]

Oh, I see. You don't want to discuss Dawkins with me, but you do want to discuss me. I can't blame you for that; it's a fascinating subject. But it's off-topic here, so maybe you should start a separate thread.

Don't be a hypocrite smoke. You didn't mind discussing me in your arrogance and ignorance when you kept implying I hadn't read anything of Dawkins. Then put up your rediculous and stupid questions. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and your arrogance and ignorance has been shown up. Accept it as an adult and move on. Hopefully learn a lesson from it.

 

[Smoke]

Don't be a hypocrite smoke. You didn't mind discussing me in your arrogance and ignorance when you kept implying I hadn't read anything of Dawkins.

Yes, I am arrogant towards the arrogant, and I was ignorant of whether you had read Dawkins. As a matter of fact I am still ignorant of whether you've read Dawkins, because I certainly can't rely on you to give an honest answer.

Then put up your rediculous and stupid questions.

I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say, other than to see how many times I can poke you and get a response.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and your arrogance and ignorance has been shown up.

You assumed my arrogance from the start, and I've never denied it. For the record, I'm also ignorant of a great many things.

Accept it as an adult and move on. Hopefully learn a lesson from it.

Oh, I have, I have. I'm chastened and humbled by the magnificence of your retort.

 

[Willamena]

See? Dawkins divides.

 

[Copernicus]

See? Dawkins divides.

Yes. Just like the shape of eggs divided Lilliputians in Gulliver's Travels. Any subject that causes disagreement divides people.

 

[Copernicus]

Don't be a hypocrite smoke. You didn't mind discussing me in your arrogance and ignorance when you kept implying I hadn't read anything of Dawkins. Then put up your rediculous and stupid questions. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and your arrogance and ignorance has been shown up. Accept it as an adult and move on. Hopefully learn a lesson from it.

That long exchange with Smoke reminded me of those I have had with you before. His repeated attempts to engage you in honest discussion were met with insults and attacks on his character. You temporized on the question of reading Dawkins' books, which drew him to the natural conclusion that you hadn't. After finally listing three book titles (but no discussion of their content), you called him arrogant and hypocritical for coming to a perfectly reasonable conclusion. And, after all is said and done, it still isn't clear whether you have read anything that Dawkins has written in sufficient depth to come to the nasty characterization of him that you have published here.

And your final admonishment that he hopefully "learned his lesson" is identical to the one you gave me after a similar exchange on my inference that you were a theist. In fact, your posts still make it look as if you believe in the existence of God, so I have not revised my opinion that my original inference was well-justified. In this case, we only have your word that you have read three of Dawkins' books, but I am inclined to reserve judgment on that until you actually say something that corroborates your claim.

 

[Sunstone]

Don't be a hypocrite smoke. You didn't mind discussing me in your arrogance and ignorance when you kept implying I hadn't read anything of Dawkins. Then put up your rediculous and stupid questions. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and your arrogance and ignorance has been shown up. Accept it as an adult and move on. Hopefully learn a lesson from it.

Smoke has intergrity, Footprints. Apparently, you have no respect for it.

 

[Sunstone]

I never make ignorant assumptions....

Footprints, if you're reading this, don't take it personal. I'm just quoting you so others on this board can laugh as hard as I just did.

 

[footprints]

Yes, I am arrogant towards the arrogant, and I was ignorant of whether you had read Dawkins. As a matter of fact I am still ignorant of whether you've read Dawkins, because I certainly can't rely on you to give an honest answer.

Thank you for finally admitting it. It wasn't that hard was it?

I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say, other than to see how many times I can poke you and get a response.

Your brain, your intelligence. I hope you don't mind if I opt the other way. I find your remarks to be very useful sometimes.

You assumed my arrogance from the start, and I've never denied it. For the record, I'm also ignorant of a great many things.

Then why the fuss if my assuption was correct. LOL.

Oh, I have, I have. I'm chastened and humbled by the magnificence of your retort.

Tsk, Tsk, that was exactly the lesson I expected and predicted you would learn.

 

[footprints]

See? Dawkins divides.

LOL Willamena, you pinched my conclusion from right under my nose.:bow:

 

[xkatz]

The world will be always be divided. Even if there are only religious people or only non-religious the world will still be divided.

 

[footprints]

That long exchange with Smoke reminded me of those I have had with you before. His repeated attempts to engage you in honest discussion were met with insults and attacks on his character. You temporized on the question of reading Dawkins' books, which drew him to the natural conclusion that you hadn't. After finally listing three book titles (but no discussion of their content), you called him arrogant and hypocritical for coming to a perfectly reasonable conclusion. And, after all is said and done, it still isn't clear whether you have read anything that Dawkins has written in sufficient depth to come to the nasty characterization of him that you have published here.

They should have reminded you of our earlier discussions, you couldn't be rational and reasonable then either. Even how you are looking at the exchange between smoke and I is still a little distorted. Albeit a lot better than how you would have previously looked at it.

Smoke had three conclusions they could have jumped to. A) That I hadn't read Dawkins B) That I had read Dawkins and C) The most rational and reasonable of all, that they didn't have a clue if I had read Dawkins or not.

From a lack of knowledge and evidence, Smoke made up his/her mind and went with it. (No this isn't the God question we are talking about, but similar and clearly shows how the average mind operates).

And your final admonishment that he hopefully "learned his lesson" is identical to the one you gave me after a similar exchange on my inference that you were a theist. In fact, your posts still make it look as if you believe in the existence of God, so I have not revised my opinion that my original inference was well-justified. In this case, we only have your word that you have read three of Dawkins' books, but I am inclined to reserve judgment on that until you actually say something that corroborates your claim.

There is a reason and method in this madness. As there is a reason you cannot accept honesty at face value and rather keep a justification of your own minds creation, but that is blind faith for you.

 

[footprints]

The world will be always be divided. Even if there are only religious people or only non-religious the world will still be divided.

Human intelligence is the only reason the world will be divided. The same "us and them," mentality operates on many playing fields in human society. Dawins just throws his hat in the ring and divides it a little bit further.

 

[dust1n]

There, was that so hard? Since you're too good to talk to me, though, I won't bother with my follow-up questions. You may sweep yourself up in the robes of your own imagined righteousness and proceed where you will without any objection from me.

Don't they have a word for that?

 

[dust1n]

LOL Willamena, you pinched my conclusion from right under my nose.:bow:

Apparently you didn't read Copornicus's response to that conclusion.

 

[dust1n]

They should have reminded you of our earlier discussions, you couldn't be rational and reasonable then either. Even how you are looking at the exchange between smoke and I is still a little distorted. Albeit a lot better than how you would have previously looked at it.

Smoke had three conclusions they could have jumped to. A) That I hadn't read Dawkins B) That I had read Dawkins and C) The most rational and reasonable of all, that they didn't have a clue if I had read Dawkins or not.

From a lack of knowledge and evidence, Smoke made up his/her mind and went with it. (No this isn't the God question we are talking about, but similar and clearly shows how the average mind operates).



There is a reason and method in this madness. As there is a reason you cannot accept honesty at face value and rather keep a justification of your own minds creation, but that is blind faith for you.

And still after all this, you never got around to showing any passages of Darwin, and then explaining his irrationality. I ask myself again, why do I come in here, when there are a hundred other productive things I could be doing? Well I thought this conversation eventually got on topic, but alas, still all I see a thread with 100 posts of the topic "How is the other person wrong?" which might be why we use invalid arguments.

 

[Copernicus]

Smoke had three conclusions they could have jumped to. A) That I hadn't read Dawkins B) That I had read Dawkins and C) The most rational and reasonable of all, that they didn't have a clue if I had read Dawkins or not.

Not in light of the fact that you failed to answer a simple, direct question about it. In that context, it was rational and reasonable to conclude A.

There is a reason and method in this madness. As there is a reason you cannot accept honesty at face value and rather keep a justification of your own minds creation, but that is blind faith for you.

I would put it differently: there is madness in your method. Your language is clearly intended to insult and provoke. This forum works best when people refrain from attacking each other's character, although that is sometimes difficult to do. As someone who has claimed to be a trained therapist, you should be able to grasp that point.

 

[footprints]

Apparently you didn't read Copornicus's response to that conclusion.

No I read it, and just confirmed what I had read again.

Copornicus as usual gave a warped analogy to begin with, but in the end agreed with Dawkins divides and gave just reason for it.

 

[footprints]

Not in light of the fact that you failed to answer a simple, direct question about it. In that context, it was rational and reasonable to conclude A.

I wouldn't expect anything less than irrationality from you.

Smoke never issued a question initially, smoke issued a statement, the statement was, "So you haven't read him then?." A completely irrational, illogical, statement, answering the question from their own mind before the question was answered. Smoke should never trust their own mind, it deceives them.

It was anything but rational to conclude A. In fact, selecting A was very stupid. Smoke of course came from this conclusion based on smokes own intelligence.

I would put it differently: there is madness in your method. Your language is clearly intended to insult and provoke. This forum works best when people refrain from attacking each other's character, although that is sometimes difficult to do. As someone who has claimed to be a trained therapist, you should be able to grasp that point.

You and smoke should remember that. A simple rule of thumb, don't attack, and people in general, will not attack you back. Be reasonable, rational and logical, and people in general will be reasonable and logical back. That is what my training and education has taught me, getting it through to people is the difficult part. For as is seen with smoke, and now with you, people will use their own justifications to hold on to the wrongs that they do. The scientific statement to conclude all this, "A persons own intelligence will stop them from learning." You and smoke do not prove science wrong, you are actually proving it right, albeit you may not know it for it is extraneous to your expertise.

Dawkins also has this same lesson to learn, albeit he is too intelligent to learn anything he doesn't already think he knows.

 

[footprints]

And still after all this, you never got around to showing any passages of Darwin, and then explaining his irrationality. I ask myself again, why do I come in here, when there are a hundred other productive things I could be doing? Well I thought this conversation eventually got on topic, but alas, still all I see a thread with 100 posts of the topic "How is the other person wrong?" which might be why we use invalid arguments.

First let me point out in all rationale and logic, we are not discussing Darwin, we are discussing Dawkins. You do seem very confused.

I didn't give you quotations, I gave you the whole God Delusion novel. If you want to see specific quotations I would suggest you go to the thread which discusses that issue.