bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 4, 2020 18:52:03 GMT
Admin, can you move this thread to
the newly created Religion forum?
EDIT: Thanks, Admin.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 4, 2020 19:09:27 GMT
Admin, can you move this thread to the newly created Religion forum?
I second that request.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2020 16:55:35 GMT
Ashamed to be an atheist? That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying I am ashamed that I can read... BTW, I've never read any books by Dawkins.. I don't need to. Take it up with Michael Ruse. He's a pretty intelligent fellow. Yeah, you call him intelligent now. Let's see you do that when he says something against you...And no, you don't need to read any books by Dawkins, although he's a pretty intelligent fellow when he sticks with his specialties. And I suppose it's up to you to decide when he's intelligent and when he's not. Someone has a pretty high opinion of themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 0:23:40 GMT
Take it up with Michael Ruse. He's a pretty intelligent fellow. Yeah, you call him intelligent now. Let's see you do that when he says something against you...And no, you don't need to read any books by Dawkins, although he's a pretty intelligent fellow when he sticks with his specialties. And I suppose it's up to you to decide when he's intelligent and when he's not. Someone has a pretty high opinion of themselves. If Ruse says something "against me" (whatever that means), if I was in the mood, I would deal with it on a point-by-point basis. As to Dawkins, you haven't even read the book. Why do you care? Would you like to deal his arguments one at a time? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 5:27:19 GMT
If Ruse says something "against me" (whatever that means), if I was in the mood, I would deal with it on a point-by-point basis. As to Dawkins, you haven't even read the book. Why do you care? Would you like to deal his arguments one at a time? I just notice that your estimate of someone's intelligence is mainly based on whether you approve of what they are saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 15:20:05 GMT
I just notice that your estimate of someone's intelligence is mainly based on whether you approve of what they are saying. Question your presumption. I didn't say that and it isn't true. And why do you care? You haven't even read Dawkins's book. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 7, 2020 5:19:44 GMT
If Ruse says something "against me" (whatever that means), if I was in the mood, I would deal with it on a point-by-point basis. As to Dawkins, you haven't even read the book. Why do you care? Would you like to deal his arguments one at a time? I just notice that your estimate of someone's intelligence is mainly based on whether you approve of what they are that person is saying. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 13:28:16 GMT
I just notice that your estimate of someone's intelligence is mainly based on whether you approve of what they are that person is saying. You obnoxious twit, you don't even have the saving grace of being right. My formulation is perfectly legitimate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 13:31:34 GMT
I just notice that your estimate of someone's intelligence is mainly based on whether you approve of what they are saying. Question your presumption. I didn't say that and it isn't true. And why do you care? You haven't even read Dawkins's book. That's heavily implied. You didn't say that Dawkins was wrong, you said that he wasn't intelligent. You want to talk about presumption? How about you clean up your own backyard first? You said and I paraphrase: Dawkins is intelligent but only when he does certain things, that means that when he does other things, he's not. Don't deny it. That is what you said. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 14:34:53 GMT
That's heavily implied. You didn't say that Dawkins was wrong, you said that he wasn't intelligent. You want to talk about presumption? How about you clean up your own backyard first? You said and I paraphrase: Dawkins is intelligent but only when he does certain things, that means that when he does other things, he's not. Don't deny it. That is what you said. Dawkins clearly demonstrates his lack of intelligence in certain areas as is demonstrated in the book he wrote. Again, why do you care? |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 7, 2020 15:10:31 GMT
That's heavily implied. You didn't say that Dawkins was wrong, you said that he wasn't intelligent. You want to talk about presumption? How about you clean up your own backyard first? You said and I paraphrase: Dawkins is intelligent but only when he does certain things, that means that when he does other things, he's not. Don't deny it. That is what you said. Dawkins clearly demonstrates his lack of intelligence in certain areas as is demonstrated in the book he wrote. Again, why do you care? Maybe he enjoyed Dawkins' grammar. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 15:58:52 GMT
That's heavily implied. You didn't say that Dawkins was wrong, you said that he wasn't intelligent. You want to talk about presumption? How about you clean up your own backyard first? You said and I paraphrase: Dawkins is intelligent but only when he does certain things, that means that when he does other things, he's not. Don't deny it. That is what you said. Dawkins clearly demonstrates his lack of intelligence in certain areas as is demonstrated in the book he wrote. Again, why do you care? That's not possible. Intelligence is a universal thing. His "lack of intelligence" is either a figure of speech or a lie. So, which is it? Intelligent people are intelligent all the time, they may have blind spots, be ignorant of certain things, or even make mistakes because of fatigue, depression or drunkenness or just play stupid (but why would he play stupid in his book?). But it's really hard to believe that in a book, Dawkins must have reread it plenty of times before he sent it to the editor, he would have let something so clear-cuttly unintelligent. So, lack of intelligence? I don't think so. You may want to rephrase that, if you wish to be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 16:42:13 GMT
That's not possible. Intelligence is a universal thing. His "lack of intelligence" is either a figure of speech or a lie. So, which is it? Intelligent people are intelligent all the time, they may have blind spots, be ignorant of certain things, or even make mistakes because of fatigue, depression or drunkenness or just play stupid (but why would he play stupid in his book?). But it's really hard to believe that in a book, Dawkins must have reread it plenty of times before he sent it to the editor, he would have let something so clear-cuttly unintelligent. So, lack of intelligence? I don't think so. You may want to rephrase that, if you wish to be taken seriously. I like your name, davejavu. You might want to change it to "Mr. Semantics." Intelligence is universal thing. Sure. But everybody is ignorant. What is unfortunate for Mr. Dawkins and his fans is that he wrote a book in a domain in which he is largely ignorant. Would you say that is an "intelligent move"? Do disagree? If so, read the book and we can discuss it. Until then, you are arguing (for whatever bizarre reason, I have no idea) from a position of ignorance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 17:20:30 GMT
That's not possible. Intelligence is a universal thing. His "lack of intelligence" is either a figure of speech or a lie. So, which is it? Intelligent people are intelligent all the time, they may have blind spots, be ignorant of certain things, or even make mistakes because of fatigue, depression or drunkenness or just play stupid (but why would he play stupid in his book?). But it's really hard to believe that in a book, Dawkins must have reread it plenty of times before he sent it to the editor, he would have let something so clear-cuttly unintelligent. So, lack of intelligence? I don't think so. You may want to rephrase that, if you wish to be taken seriously. I like your name, davejavu. You might want to change it to "Mr. Semantics." Intelligence is universal thing. Sure. But everybody is ignorant. What is unfortunate for Mr. Dawkins and his fans is that he wrote a book in a domain in which he is largely ignorant. Would you say that is an "intelligent move"? Do disagree? If so, read the book and we can discuss it. Until then, you are arguing (for whatever bizarre reason, I have no idea) from a position of ignorance. What's the title? I may read it just for the sake of this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 17:23:13 GMT
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 7, 2020 17:42:31 GMT
He knew that. That's probably the book he never heard of about which he is most expert. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 19:55:05 GMT
Ok, so what are the "unintelligent things" I should watch out for? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 19:56:27 GMT
He knew that. That's probably the book he never heard of about which he is most expert. Can't you be the barnicle of someone's else's boat for a change? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 20:17:17 GMT
Ok, so what are the "unintelligent things" I should watch out for? I'm not going to bias you. Give it a read and see what you come up with. I had a whole page of notes, but I discarded it a long time ago. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 20:28:37 GMT
Ok, so what are the "unintelligent things" I should watch out for? I'm not going to bias you. Give it a read and see what you come up with. I had a whole page of notes, but I discarded it a long time ago. You know being an atheist, it's more likely that I'll find the "weak" arguments of an atheist more convincing than the "strong" ones of a religious guy which means that I may not come up with anything that meets your approval, just a guess. Before I read this book, I need to know that it will serve a purpose of some kind. So again, can you at least give me say three things that you found outrageously unintelligent in that book? Maybe I already agree with them, in which case reading the book would just be a waste of time. |
|
