Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL lying, you do so much remind me of Auto.

Do you like think you are some kind of psychic? Do you think you know my mind better than I do? That is a very arrogant position.

No, but I can read. And you were being dishonest and intentionally missing the obvious.

Not that I have to prove that to you or anyone else. It's up there for everyone to see for themselves.

In all rationale and logic,

I wish you'd start starting sentences with this phrase. You obviously do not have a sufficient grasp of either.

is the discussion pertaining to Dawkins and not Darwin.... By golly I believe I was right. I can fully understand why you would try and condemn a person for being right.

Was it a confused statement? By golly I believe I was right again. I should be condemned for being right, shouldn't I. LOL.

Man, you're not very good at wriggling out of things, are you?

Why not just admit that you were being dishonest and insulting and move on?

As for being an easy mistake to make, I can't see where anybody else has made the same mistake. So that analogy of yours falls flat on its face, for if it were and easy mistake to make, many people would have made the same mistake. Nobody else has.

Add "not knowing what an analogy is" to your ever-growing list of "things I don't know the first thing about yet pretend I do".

A freudian slip, quite possibly. This just says attention wasn't on the topic at hand, or relating Dawkins works to Darwins as they do go hand in hand. The topic at hand though isn't evolution, it is Dawkins dividing the world.

And yet you intentionally misread someone's post to make that Freudian slip up to be more then a Freudian slip.

Again, I don't have to prove it to you. It's right there for everyone to see.

Just admit that you were dishonest and we can all get on with our lives.

LOL, I already know how intelligent I am, your little semantics will have no bearing on this.

It is in the same context as The Da Vinci Code. Part scientific evidence down specific lines of science but neglecting to give credit to other parts of science, intermixed with Dawkins own personal religious beliefs. It was and is a novel.

You should underline "don't know what a novel is" on the previous list, since novels are supposed to have narratives. Look it up.

Also, you continue to make claims about Dawkins' book without providing any evidence at all that you have read or been able to sufficiently counter any of it's claims.

I'm still waiting.

Many people in the world conclude other religious texts novels, the Bible, the Veda's, the Dharma's, the Quran et al. I hold this view in my knowledge as well as the other views. The same as I do pertaining to Dawkins religious texts.

I'm getting bored of your digressions now. Are you going to support your view or just continue to make groundless assertions?

Like I have already said once, if you want specific quotes from the God Delusion, you will have to go to the thread which relates to that topic. I don't need to quote specifics of the novel, the God Delusion novel alone was enough to prove the point.

I already explicitly stated that I didn't require specific quotes, just a basic outline of a particular view Dawkins holds and your refutation.

Add "reading comprehension" to the list.

Which by the way has been conclusively proven by the division it has caused in this thread. Dawkins divides the world.

Congratulations, you just topped the charts of "dumbest things I ever heard".

"A bunch of people online disagree about someone's point of view - therefore he is dividing the world!"

Add "general world perspective" to the list.

I have already done so, and in doing so, proved the point of the thread.

Yawn.

LOL is that what I was doing, you little psychic you. Here I was thinking, I was saying to you, take your issues to the other thread.

Are you going to respond or not?

Again, still assuming you haven't read it.

Ah, human intelligence is such a wonderful and fascinating thing. Dumb and stupid sometimes, but fascinating never the less.

Still waiting.

LOL everybody who has read Dawkins works, spent time in his evangelistic crusades or listened to him debate, knows exactly what his views are. He is very outspoken and very opinionated.

And those views, in your view, are...?

Coming from you, I will consider that a compliment.

There is obviously a huge language barrier between us.

 

[Sunstone]

You are terrific Sunstone, you keep proving my point very nicely. Thank you.

Please don't tell me you're serious. It's one thing for you to playfully tease us with that ridiculous position of yours, but it would be inexcusibly boring for you to actually be asserting such a ridiculous position.

 

[footprints]

Please don't tell me you're serious. It's one thing for you to playfully tease us with that ridiculous position of yours, but it would be inexcusibly boring for you to actually be asserting such a ridiculous position.

LOL I have heard religious people use that same justification too.

 

[footprints]

No, but I can read. And you were being dishonest and intentionally missing the obvious.

LOL that is the trouble I get for being right. I have to put up with the rediculous which follows as people try and justify their own position.

Not that I have to prove that to you or anyone else. It's up there for everyone to see for themselves.

Just like you, people will read and understand from their own perception. Then try to project their perception onto everybody else.

Sorry I do not buy what your mind tells you.

I wish you'd start starting sentences with this phrase. You obvious do not have a sufficient grasp of either.

Is it too complicated for you? or is it the price I have to pay for being correct in this matter?

Man, you're not very good at wriggling out of things, are you?

LOL do you call truth, wriggling out of things. You do have a very funny association pattern.

Why not just admit that you were being dishonest and insulting and move on?

LOL I am having too much fun with your delusion.

Add "not knowing what an analogy is" to your ever-growing list of "things I don't know the first thing about yet pretend I do".

LOL one of us doesn't.

And yet you intentionally misread someone's post to make that Freudian slip up to be more then a Freudian slip.

I didn't misread anything, it there in plain view for all to see.

Again, I don't have to prove it to you. It's right there for everyone to see.

It is isn't it. Some people will see reality. Some will only see what their perception allows them to see. You see your own perception and try to make it reality.

Just admit that you were dishonest and we can all get on with our lives.

LOL I am getting on with my life. I am not letting your ranting and raving, your justifications and delusions interfere with my life. In fact I find it quite amusing and entertaining, the lengths you are going to, to try and prove your wrong, right.

You should underline "don't know what a novel is" on the previous list, since novels are supposed to have narratives. Look it up.

Yeah Dawkins tells a mean story, doesn't he. All pertaining to Dawkins own delusion.

Also, you continue to make claims about Dawkins' book without providing any evidence at all that you have read or been able to sufficiently counter any of it's claims.

LOL.

I'm still waiting.

LOL.

I'm getting bored of your digressions now. Are you going to support your view or just continue to make groundless assertions?

I have already supported my view, and proven the point of the debate.

I already explicitly stated that I didn't require specific quotes, just a basic outline of a particular view Dawkins holds and your refutation.

LOL, that would take a specific quote.

Add "reading comprehension" to the list.

LOL.

Congratulations, you just topped the charts of "dumbest things I ever heard".

LOL.

"A bunch of people online disagree about someone's point of view - therefore he is dividing the world!"

LOL. That is what division is. I just love human intelligence, it is so inane some times I crack up laughing.

Add "general world perspective" to the list.

LOL.

Yawn.

:slap:, wake up. LOL there is perspective for you. What does it mean?

Are you going to respond or not?

LOL, I did, your intelligence must have missed it.

Again, still assuming you haven't read it.

I am not responsible for your intelligence.

Still waiting.

Patient, aren't you? LOL.

And those views, in your view, are...?

I would rather stick to Dawkins views. He knows more about his views than I do. To get Dawkins views, read his books.

There is obviously a huge language barrier between us.

LOL. No there isn't, there is only perspective. This is another illogical conclusion you have jumped to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL that is the trouble I get for being right. I have to put up with the rediculous which follows as people try and justify their own position.

Actually, you're the one trying to justify yours right now. All I did was point out your own ignorance/dishonesty.

But, hey, why make a point when you can just claim you were right all along?

Just like you, people will read and understand from their own perception. Then try to project their perception onto everybody else.

Sorry I do not buy what your mind tells you.

Like I said, you don't have to "buy" it. It's up there for everyone to see: You got confused and looked stupid.

Is it too complicated for you? or is it the price I have to pay for being correct in this matter?

For the record: repeatedly telling yourself that your right is a sign of severe paranoid delusions.

LOL do you call truth, wriggling out of things. You do have a very funny association pattern.

Yawn.

LOL I am having too much fun with your delusion.

Projection.

LOL one of us doesn't.

Er, yes... You.

Again, it's up there for everyone to see.

I didn't misread anything, it there in plain view for all to see.

Yes it is. And it's plain that you misread.

Christ, the lengths some people go to just to avoid admitting they made a mistake.

It is isn't it. Some people will see reality. Some will only see what their perception allows them to see. You see your own perception and try to make it reality.

Projection.

LOL

Stop starting sentences with "LOL". It makes you come across like a blithering idiot.

I am getting on with my life. I am not letting your ranting and raving, your justifications and delusions interfere with my life. In fact I find it quite amusing and entertaining, the lengths you are going to, to try and prove your wrong, right.

Right now you're projecting in HD, with surround sound.

Yeah Dawkins tells a mean story, doesn't he. All pertaining to Dawkins own delusion.

Which you can't actually mention any part of, because you've never read any Dawkins.

Prove me wrong.

I have already supported my view, and proven the point of the debate.

Yes, sure you have. No run along and go tell your mummy. I'm sure she'd be very proud of you.

LOL, that would take a specific quote.

No it wouldn't, and I've already stated it wouldn't and that I don't require it.

Just admit that you haven't read Dawkins already.

LOL. That is what division is. I just love human intelligence, it is so inane some times I crack up laughing.

You're not very bright, are you?

I'm just going to sum up the rest of your arguments:

"LOL IM RIGHT LOL UR DUMB LOL IV RED DAWKINS COZ I SAY I HAVE LOL"

You're really not worth my time and effort. Go and clean yourself up and head off to the showers. Call me when you want to have an intelligent discussion rather than flinging crap like a psychotic chimpanzee yelling at it's own reflection. Seriously, grow the hell up.

 

[Sunstone]

Some people will see reality. Some will only see what their perception allows them to see.

You're slipping. Now you no longer even sound like you know what you're talking about.

 

[footprints]

You're slipping. Now you no longer even sound like you know what you're talking about.

LOL, I will give you one thing Sunstone, you are a trier.

 

[Willamena]

LOL, I will give you one thing Sunstone, you are a trier.

Do people who perceive reality see reality?

 

[Sunstone]

LOL, I will give you one thing Sunstone, you are a trier.

You don't sound like you've spent much time investigating this whole business of human perception -- unless your once having read something about it on the back of a matchbook counts as something. On the other hand, you also don't sound like you've spent much time investigating this whole business of Dawkins, either. Is there a pattern there?

 

[challupa]

You don't sound like you've spent much time investigating this whole business of human perception -- unless your once having read something about it on the back of a matchbook counts as something. On the other hand, you also don't sound like you've spent much time investigating this whole business of Dawkins, either. Is there a pattern there?

There's always a pattern with Footprints. Kinda reminds me of Fatihah in some ways.
Response: Likewise.

 

[Skeptisch]

There's always a pattern with Footprints. Kinda reminds me of Fatihah in some ways.

His footprints describe circles and often end up in his own mouth. :dan::foot:

 

[footprints]

His footprints describe circles and often end up in his own mouth. :dan::foot:

LOL only where people of impaired learning and social skills are concerned, I have had many psychopaths and criminals, say those exact words. Rational and logical people see a lot of reason.:angel2:

 

[footprints]

Do people who perceive reality see reality?

LOL, some reality is reality which everybody sees as reality. A tree is a tree. Other parts of reality is perception based, based on ones own life experience. In the latter, everything is true whilst being equally false at the same time.

I really do love the human mind.

 

[footprints]

There's always a pattern with Footprints. Kinda reminds me of Fatihah in some ways.
Response: Likewise.

Oh challupa, and I love you too. LOL :flirt:

 

[footprints]

Actually, you're the one trying to justify yours right now. All I did was point out your own ignorance/dishonesty.

But, hey, why make a point when you can just claim you were right all along?


Like I said, you don't have to "buy" it. It's up there for everyone to see: You got confused and looked stupid.


For the record: repeatedly telling yourself that your right is a sign of severe paranoid delusions.


Yawn.



Projection.



Er, yes... You.

Again, it's up there for everyone to see.


Yes it is. And it's plain that you misread.

Christ, the lengths some people go to just to avoid admitting they made a mistake.


Projection.



Stop starting sentences with "LOL". It makes you come across like a blithering idiot.


Right now you're projecting in HD, with surround sound.


Which you can't actually mention any part of, because you've never read any Dawkins.

Prove me wrong.


Yes, sure you have. No run along and go tell your mummy. I'm sure she'd be very proud of you.


No it wouldn't, and I've already stated it wouldn't and that I don't require it.

Just admit that you haven't read Dawkins already.


You're not very bright, are you?

I'm just going to sum up the rest of your arguments:

"LOL IM RIGHT LOL UR DUMB LOL IV RED DAWKINS COZ I SAY I HAVE LOL"

You're really not worth my time and effort. Go and clean yourself up and head off to the showers. Call me when you want to have an intelligent discussion rather than flinging crap like a psychotic chimpanzee yelling at it's own reflection. Seriously, grow the hell up.

Your justifications continue to amaze me. Albeit, I have had patients who have justified better.

Get over it.

 

[challupa]

Oh challupa, and I love you too. LOL :flirt:

LOL :flower2:

 

[Atheist74]

Richard Dawkins is the truth teller. How can you all be so blind to believe in religion? If you were born in India you wold be Hindu, if you were born 3 thousand years ago you would believe in Apollo or Zeus. Religion has halted human progress for too long. If religion never existed, especially the oppressive Catholic Church of the dark ages we would be more evolved at this time. If the church ruled the world we would still believe the earth is flat and the Earth is the center of the universe. Unbelievable.

 

[Valjean]

Seems to me the world was much more homogenous fifty or sixty years ago, when pretty much every educated person accepted evolution and respected science. It's only been recently that demagogues and corporate interests have created a class of high profile religious fundamentalists.
Dawkins reflects the dichotomy. He didn't create it.

 

[Skeptisch]

'Why would
anyone push for
ignorance? An
active dislike of
knowledge is a
very weird thing.`

http://c0524352.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/100301RD2.pdf

 

[Skeptisch]

Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq

Doctors in Iraq’s war-ravaged enclave of Fallujah are dealing with up to 15 times as many chronic deformities in infants and a spike in early life cancers that may be linked to toxic materials left over from the fighting.

Is the World a Better Place with Hussein Gone?
Huge rise in birth defects in Falluja « NWO Observer

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)