Dawkins vs. O'Reilly, Analyzed Response 001

Dawkins vs. O'Reilly, Analyzed Response 001

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Dawkins
• vs.
• O'Reilly

[MrThunderbeast]

Game, set, match shadowninja. Poor mister soundendurance :( Your like/dislike ratio is a testament to your stupidity.

[soundendurance]

@MrThunderbeast well now, if you judge ones testimony based upon the approval of others one must conclude you supported Adolf Hitler's rise to power?

[MrThunderbeast]

@soundendurance If you knew anything at all about world history, you would know that Hitler was very unpopular among the German population after he came to power. In fact, he had to surround himself with an army of bodygaurds and keep his distance from crowds at any public gathering. Very different from the news reels prior to 1939 where he is seen mingling with the people, shaking hands and smiling in every shot. Slam dunk, moron. Good luck with your next futile attempt at a diatribe.

[soundendurance]

@MrThunderbeast if you would read "rise to power" you would notice I said his rise to power. How foolish, for you have the word of God but do not read nor seek to understand else you would be saved from the judgment to come.

[MrThunderbeast]

@soundendurance Being that you are probably the only one who can "endure" the "sound" of your own simple-minded rhetoric, I bid you adieu. :)

[MrThunderbeast]

@soundendurance And if you knew anything about his "rise to power", you would know that it was probably the most effective political campaign ever and had nothing to do with what he did once the "power" was his. So, whether or not I "support" it, the fact is that it was brilliant. However, realizing that you once again made yourself look a fool, you retreated from your platform suggesting that his campaign was in some way connected to the nazi regime which he later formed.

[Shadowninja1010]

@soundendurance You also say that you are not talking about religion, which is false. This in itself shows your lack of understanding. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, religion is "Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power" You are obviously indicating a belief and reverence for a god, so in fact you are talking about religion.

[Shadowninja1010]

@soundendurance does cause *science can't explain it, doesn't mean that it provides any concrete evidence of a creator. And the idea of infinite complexity of the creator as I have already mentioned several times proves assumption that there is a small probability that there is a creator.

[Shadowninja1010]

@soundendurance The difference between the sun and a "creator" is that we have a pretty good amount of evidence that the sun exists, as you point out. With a creator, I am looking for any evidence that clearly proves that a creator does exist. The bible sure isn't proof, since it has major flaws like creation of the earth, and about the possibilities, eternal universe, or eternal creator, doesn't make sense first off, but couldn't there be other options, just cause since can't explain it doesn't

[soundendurance]

@Shadowninja1010 You are talking about religion, I am not. We are talking about the Creator giving man free-will, the ability to choose. You can deny there is a Creator just as I may deny the existence of the sun, both beliefs have no effect on reality. But if my denial of the sun prohibits me from putting sunscreen on myself and those entrusted to my care, and we are burned severely, who acted unjustly? The sun itself gave us visible and invisible evidence of it's existence, light and warmth.