"At the moment "angry atheism" sells though! I could rationally take him to the cleaners and someone in the comment thread of the debate will write: "I loved it when you shouted at him and called him a f***ing idiot! Ur the best Dusty!!""
Yesterday I have a little debate with dusty in it's "fuck chuck norris video".
When I asked him if smart people need to be rash, need to insult, and need to got a very angry attitude to explain it's points he remains on silence and never answered me.
If this angry ignorant is pretending to debate with CartesianTheist, it wil be a 2 minutes edbate, Dusty it's clearly very incapable of making a proper debate.
Well don't tell him but I've done my homework and caught him saying all kinds of contradictory things. So his version of 'logic' must ignore the law of noncontradiction that's for sure! This is not likely to make him a happy bunny.
That's a shame. I thought all the swearing would just be bluster for his video ratings. I didn't think he'd keep the persona going in debates. That's only going to make him look even worse. Shame.
Absolutely, I was waiting a nice debate since it's first answer, but when he rampages and fill the posts with insults, contradictory arguments about moral and incoherent sentences about the classic "no proof" argument, I was like "wow, and people like this guy?". It's a shame, indeed but someone have to put Dusty on it's place.
At the moment "angry atheism" sells though! I could rationally take him to the cleaners and someone in the comment thread of the debate will write: "I loved it when you shouted at him and called him a f***ing idiot! Ur the best Dusty!!"
I know, when I debated with him people write that, and I laugh a lot, there are loss people that hide into their imaginary world of their supposed "logic", so, it's just... normal.
"Do you know what evidence means? Making an absurd claim is far from evidence. Look up the word evidence and try again."
I know precisely what evidence is, and its epistemological foundations. You've not managed to provide a definition of logic, so I'm willing to bet that you can't define what evidence actually is, and what foundational ideas it regresses to. :)
Oh the irony. This clown is using the same logical fallacy he's saying Dusty is using. And he continues down a path based on that fallacy. What a moron. Obviously he is butt hurt because Dusty is right.
@ForceOfLight He is right when he says the religious are the butt of jokes all over pop culture. Look around. You can find dozens of clips making fun of religion on shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, SNL etc.. If you don't see that then you aren't paying attention. Actually he's right about most of what he says. It'd be easier to point out where he's wrong. Give it a try. Show me the evidence. Good luck.
Eh, no, it's that, just because the ignorance of the masses watch this retarded of Dusty means that Dusty is right?, come on, how old are you to get that retarded idea, 14?.
@ForceOfLight It's funny you still don't get it. If you knew how to spell you'd understand the humor. But this is a joke you'll never get because you don't have the education to grasp it.
Humor on a debate?, what- .... Oh, yeah! you are one of those dumb fans of Dusty... I should knew that debating with someone like you was goin to be a waste of time.
Education?, who in this world try to be humoristic on a debate?, only a fan of Retarded Dusty.
Get out of here son, your stupidity it's not something that we need.
@ForceOfLight Sorry if fans of Dusty have a sense of humor. It's even funnier that you don't understand that you, and your ilk, are the butt of our jokes. We make fun of you because there's no point in debating a robot. A robot is programmed. The forceoflight robot is programmed to avoid evidence, facts, logic and reason. The forceoflight robot is programmed not to hear dissent. So we make fun of you. You are the joke. So just keep on ranting. It's entertainment.
It's more funnier that idiots like you think that just because Dusty says "motherfucker" he's right, honestly, it's nothing more stupid than that. A robot?, come on, your stupidity is even highter than before, avoid evidence?, facts?, what evidence?, what facts? I ask you for the evidence of the first cell and you remain on silence, so, it seems that the robor that elude evidence, is YOU, hipocrit.
Yeah,it's more funnier read stupid atheist write shit like this. You're buut-hurted aren't you?, u can't even answer a question that i made to you, and u presume of logic, then, you came with your natural atheist stupidity and write shit like this.
You don't answer anything, you make a stupid Copy-paste from wikipedia of any cell in this case a vegetable cell, and don't response anything, just left you as a a retarded.
Arqueological evidence, Noah's ark, rest of Sodoma and Gomorra, and the Holy Mant.
You don't answer anything, you make a stupid Copy-paste from wikipedia of any cell in this case a vegetable cell, and don't response anything, just left you as a a retarded.
Arqueological evidence, Noah's ark, rest of Sodoma and Gomorra, and the Holy Mant.
@ForceOfLight " I ask you for the evidence of the first cell "
First of all atheism doesn't address that so it's moot. Duh. But regardless - H2O, CH4, NH3 and H2 are perfect building blocks for the first cell and that was the atmosphere of early earth. It kept circulating because it was boiling and cooling. Amino acids and organic molecules formed small molecules containing acids used in protein synthesis, purines and pyrimidines needed for nucleic acid synthesis.
WAT?!, you are too stupid to even understand chemistry and biology?!. A cell needs a living base to make it's own cell proccess, the synthesis is a quality of a vegetal Cell, destined to, yeah, only create and make grow PLANTS, how stupid are you to believe that a vegetal cell is the answer?, if you don't know, stupid, the first cell also created animals, humans, and rocks, you think that a simple vegetal cell could make that?, you are, seriously retarded.
@ForceOfLight You can't even spell and punctuate so you're in very deep water trying to explain biology. A "vegetal cell" has nothing to do with what I said. Your answer for life on earth is a magic genie blinked us into existence. I'll accept scientific evidence and biological fact over your brand of ignorance, superstition and brainwashing.
BTW - where's that evidence of your imaginary friend in the sky? Any evidence!
Dude, honestly, tell me on wich part of a animal cell exist the synthesis. You accept scientific evidence?, why?, because atheist are so stupid that they shield their retarded theories on science?, let me tell you something, science got NOTHING to do with atheism, science is the search for the confort of the human kind, not the search of a god or the search to deny god, science is apart of this, but idiots like you think that science is atheism, one of the biggest stupidities ever.
Why have sense of humor in a debate?, we are not retarded like atheist, we debate with brain, not with humor, since we are not ignorant.
Dude, honestly, joke on debates it's a sign of ignorance and inmature people, and, all atheist, are like that; the real answer is: Don't make stupid Jokes, at least, put some effort on them.
We can be wathever you want, but we prefer to be that instead of a stupid atheist likee you and Dusty.
@ForceOfLight: Sorry, did jokes about your magical sky-daddy make you cranky? :)
A sense of humor is a key indicator of intelligence; it's no surprise that you seem to have little or none of either. :)
"We can be wathever you want"
Then try being smarter. It's hard to face reality without your imaginary sky-pal, but even people like you can do it. All you have to do is stop believing in 2,000 year-old fairy tales, and join the rest of us in the current century.
What are you retarded like, then? Like a monkey with attention deficit disorder?
"joke on debates it's a sign of ignorance"
Lol, you're too funny. In a sad, childlike way, but still funny. It's hard not to laugh at people like you who can barely communicate but who still think they know all the secrets of the universe. I'm shocked you haven't been drafted into MENSA. (For you, DENSA might be more appropriate. :) lol
@mikefromwa lol. I know. And cretins like forceoflight are "more funnier" without knowing it. Sometimes I feel arrogant laughing at their ignorance but it's just too hilarious not to.
In the absence of a reply, let me spell out both to you:
"Evidence" is an aggregate of sensory experience that is construed to have epistemic truth value connotations in accordance with the precepts of empiricism. Empiricism is the belief that knowledge can be acquired via sensory experience.
Logic is an axiomatic system that provides a basic ruleset or framework for cognitive critical thinking tasks.
@monitor301 The irony is those words are correct, you are pedantic and you are backtracking. Nice try but it's not working. Now how about some actual evidence for your imaginary friend. Not semantic chicken scratching. Not philosophical blather. Not hearsay. How about some evidence instead on happy horseshit?
"Now how about some actual evidence for your imaginary friend"
So evidence from cosmology is not evidence?
This is the paper (now a consensus view among cosmologists) you need to look up and refute: A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin (2003). "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions". Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (15): 151301
@monitor301 "So evidence from cosmology is not evidence?"
Spacetime is not evidence of your imaginary friend. Not even close. You use the same blather William Lane Craig uses. Indeed it's not hard to play your game - example - this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”). In other words your pedantic, plagiarized attempts are pathetic
Note that the Hartle-Hawking model does not refute the earlier Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems. All it does is to give an alternative set of initial conditions with which to escape the theorem.
Moreover, Hawking was able to do so only by implementing numbers for the time variable that are a product of the square root of -1 ("imaginary numbers"). ie. It is dependent upon a mathematical artifice that is demonstrably of no real world validity.
When questioned about the notion of "imaginary time", Hawking refused to convert to real numbers for the Hartle-Hawking model, because doing so reestablishes the singularity. He didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that it renders the model essentially non-realistic.
In "The Nature of Space and Time" (2000), he states: "I take the positivist view point that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality."
In addition to concerns that the model is essentially a "non-realistic" exercise in mathematics, there are other problems::
"Although a uniform probability distribution in this measure would solve the flatness problem, it gives an ambiguous probability for inflation, since both the set of inflationary solutions and the set of noninflationary solutions have infinite measure."
Hawking, S. W. (1988). "How probable is inflation?". Nucl. Phys. B298 (4): 789
The only substantive objection you've raised to Borde et al.'s conjecture regarding the incompleteness of past space-time is the Hawking-Hartle model. I've raised substantive objections to the no-boundaries proposal in that it is essentially non-realistic. You need to either defend the latter or formulate new arguments against the former.
"plagiarize"
Oh have I now? Perhaps you'd like to web search the text and see what you get?
@monitor301 It looks like you need to look up the definition of irony. It's becoming obvious what's going on here. You're a troll. Sorry but I don't feed trolls. I'm sure you can find someone else to fall for your bullshit.
"It looks like you need to look up the definition of irony"
Irony is a situation in which there is a poignant, dramatic or poetic incongruity pertaining to an intention (or perceived intention). None of this applies to perceived or substantive misunderstanding relating to the definition of pedantry.
Secondly, if you claim that basic formal logic is being "overly concerned with minute details" or "ostentatious", then I'm afraid you -are- waving the "I'm an imbecile" flag.
@monitor301 Again you insist on playing with semantics instead of facing the fact that you're delusional. More backtracking. Have fun looking up these words to see if they're real. Clearly you can't address the issue. All you do is nit-pick and plagiarize. You're an idiot with an imaginary friend.
Your problem is the assumption that the simplest levels of scientific explanation for natural phenomena automatically invalidate any concurrent "metaphysical" explanation.
A basic understanding of science demonstrates that this is untrue. As an example of this, in biology, we have physiological explanations for cellular function, but these explanations don't necessarily invalidate biophysical or self-organisational explanations of cell/tissue function.
There are certain things that evidence cannot explain, such as foundational beliefs. Only the philosophically incompetent think that evidentiary assessment can be applied to everything in existence. For example, you cannot prove, using sensory evidence, that logic is valid.
The philosophy you adhere to, where you assert the omnipotence of 'evidence', is called "positivism." Among intellectuals and academics, the term is synonymous with philosophical incompetence.
@monitor301 And even more pedantic blather. How about coming down to earth and telling me specifically what these "foundational beliefs" are that can't be explained? The fact is philosophical nonsense isn't evidence. Sorry.
"And even more pedantic blather. How about coming down to earth and telling me specifically what these "foundational beliefs" are that can't be explained?"
Is your literacy a problem? I already gave you a perfect example of a foundational belief.
Logical systems are foundational. So is mathematics and geometry. So are beliefs about human perception such as realism or anti-realism. So are metaphysical positions such as naturalism, atheism and theism.
"where's that evidence of your imaginary friend in the sky? Any evidence!"
The universe "began to exist" at a specific point in its past history, according to the best cosmological evidence. (Borde et al. 2003).
Scientific rationalism encompasses basic ontological ideas such as "from nothing, nothing comes."
Therefore, the best cosmological evidence, as interepreted by the precepts of scientific rationalism, points to the universe having a transcendant, immaterial cause.
@monitor301 " the best cosmological evidence, as interepreted by the precepts of scientific rationalism, points to the universe having a transcendant, immaterial cause."
In your dreams. This is called wishful thinking. In this case it's under the guise of philosophical blather. It's nothing more than seeking an excuse to believe in something that has no evidence.
@sybite: Did you see his latest comment to me? It's a hoot- search for "we are not retarded like atheist". It sounds like it was written by someone with a severe head injury.
No, based on figures readily available from a variety of sources. Churches are losing membership left and right, and many are merging with other churches just to stay in business. Deny it all you want, it's a fact. :)
People just aren't falling for the magical-guy-in-the-sky story anymore. Religion is bogus and everyone knows it. Look around you pal, the church used to rule the world...now it's just something to laugh at. :)
Churches are losing memberships same as school is losing students... sir, almost the 80% of YT atheist are idiots that are outside the school; means, that people becoame atheist for ignorance, and it's a fact, the level of education in lot of countries is becoming low, because teenagers prefer to be at home scratching it's stomach while they play WoW and became "atheist". People are falling into the I'm-intelligent-because-I'm-atheist stupid story, that's, very sad.
Riiight because believing in an incoherent-evolution-process that got more enigmas than a ghost house is more logical, son, evolution got millions of illogical counters, 1st, the theory of the first cell it's one of the most stupid things i've ever heard, I mean, one cell without base created more than 2 millions of creatures and plants without a logical proccess, and then you think that you can accuse of bogus other way of think, sure, rite.
@ForceOfLight: "believing in an incoherent-evolution-process that got more enigmas than a ghost house is more logical"
It's far more logical than believing in a magical sky-god. It's also supported by ALL the evidence, but don't let that cloud your 'thinking'.
"it's one of the most stupid things i've ever heard"
It's not stupider than the bible, I'll tell you that for free. You've never actually read a textbook, have you? (Or gotten someone to read one to you.)
More logical?, explain the proccess of the cell then, because in my books of biology I don't find the answer, so, can you please explain me how a single cell without any living base could create around 2 million of live things including plants, humans and animals?, if it's so logical, then explain the proccess, meanwhile, it's still a retarded theory.
Dude, there's nothing more stupid than atheism, just read your post, you are filling spaces with ad hominem fallacies w/o refuting.
"It's far more logical than believing in a magical sky-god"
Not quite.
The doctrine of common descent is empirico-inductive. The cosmological arguments are either deductive, or empirico-deductive, from a basis of metaphysics that is presupposed as part of scientific rationalism.
"Does that psychobabble [sic] lead to a claim that the scientific method supports religion? How about trying to make sense instead of trying to be pedantic? [sic]"
Not quite, but almost.
It means that science requires a metaphysical framework in order to function. That encompasses the most basic precepts of ontology, such as "ex nihilo, nihil fit" and the causal principle.
"And that proves that it's more logical to believe in an invisible sky-daddy than all the scientific evidence? Seriously?"
Do you even know what logic is? Perhaps you'd like to define it for us, before you start making inferential metaphysical claims which you don't fully understand.
@ForceOfLight "Atheist is Ignorance, look your own comment."
Oh the irony. For your information the majority of scientists and multiple degree holders are atheists. In other words you are delusional, ignorant and butthurt. Get used to it.
But scientists are not experts on the questions about whether God does or does not exist. That's not what empirical science studies. The academic area which focusses on that question is called the philosophy of religion. And then bad news for you there is that the majority of philosophers of religion are actually theists [even though many of them are atheists]. Still - the number games you wish to play do not suggest which is more likely to be true. That's a fallacy.
Wow, it's the second time that you use the "oh the irony" argument, a lack of ideas it seems. For YOUR information, Canada, Uk, Germany, and France, that got the biggest and the most advance scientific labs, are countries with a highly christian poblation. Including labs iteselfs. Don't came with hipocresy and lies about atheism and science because that's coward, coward because you are using something beautiful as sceince to shiled the stupid atheism, please.
@ForceOfLight: I find it fascinating that someone who can't even spell the word "instead" has the balls to insist that he knows how the universe was created, and is also sure that evolution isn't true.
So, that's your best argument?, thanks for making us notice that you are butt hurt because you can't refute or ask my question, I'm glad that you made this kind of stupid post to surrender, have a nice day.
@sybite: You'll never convince someone like ForceOfLight with mere proof. His magical sky-daddy is the answer to everything in his little world.
Why do birds fly? The magical sky-daddy!
What makes electrons flow? The magical sky-daddy!
How do cells reproduce? The magical sky-daddy!
It's sad to think that people like him vote, drive cars, and have children. But religion is dying and someday people like him will only exist in history books.
Is that the best you can do to refute the claims made by Dusty ?. 1st, you make it clear that you are a grammer Nazi and try an add hominem and you accuse him of being "working class" .What is wrong with working class ?, you are using that as an insult ?. 2nd, you did not address the issue of more hits for Atheist videos over Cultist ones. You made an assumption that views mean nothing.People are obviously viewing the said vids because that is what they want to view.
Dusty is the biggest retarded Nazi and you acuse Cartesiantheist of being nazi, hypocrit. You even are that ignorant to ask what is wrong with working class?, means that I can brainwash with working class and then argue "waht is wrong with working class?, people love me, so my arguments are correct", the fact that people watch more vids than others doesn't mean that the video got correct arguments, that means, Lady Gaga is the best for its views?, jesus, get a brain.
@ForceOfLight Google " Grammer Nazi" ...I do not understand your points about "working class" Are you pro or anti ?...The extremely large amount of hits that Lady GaGa gets is because ppl want to hear LG and like her music,just like why Athiest vids get on the net(ppl searching for opinions because they are intrested).I have a brain and jesus has nothing to do with it or in it.
Means that Gaga sucks, but ignorant people listen it's music same as Bieber fans incult people that listen garbage music for it's lack of knowleadge about music.
Means that Dusty is a retarded ignorant but ignorants watch it's videos because they are ignorant that claims victory same as him. You got a brain?, congrats, now, USE IT.
This video is idiotic. Rusty or whatever his name is gave a coherent explanation of why atheists own the internet. He clearly stated that its occurred, because religion when held up to scrutiny on a free and open media like the internet is easily exposed as being ridiculous.
So, I dont really understand your point, and I think you have wasted your time.
Bigboy said " If religious people could be reasoned with there wouldn't be any religious people."
Haha Notice how this layman didn't say Theists, as religion does not equal theism. Cf. Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism
So in his own words one can still believe in God and still be rational. Ok I'll agree with that, though I still think the nature-heads are intellectually bankrupt.
@TimelessApologist I used the words religious people instead of Theists but this hardly makes me a laymen on anything Theological. If you can't demonstrate the existence of your God then every word you say on Theological Apologetic matters is from a layman. How could anyone talk about matters they have no idea about and only hearsay accounts written thousands of years earlier from a book which is clearly mythology?
Just so you know, CT, CultofDusty was not trying to show Christianity to be a falsehood. This entire criticism is irrelevant. Atheists own the internet. That was his whole point. Whether or not we're actually right or not is another issue.
Well I don't even agree with that point either. And yes - he was trying to make something of it more than a mere observation. Watch his video for the full context.
As Christians what you can't do is prove the existence of your imaginary sky wizards. Sure as a group you're all referred to as Christians but you're all more like a group of deluded people with imaginary friends. The fact that you cannot demonstrate your God speaks volumes about Christian logic. We start and finish right here with this fact before anything else. Your book of fairytales sure isn't any help. A book with talking snakes and rib-women. And you want to be taken seriously, how cute.
Ahhhh. If only I had a pound for everytime an atheist has pulled the old "you can't prove" card!
Problem is you can't even prove that you exist enough to ask me the question. Therefore the requirement of proof is a false standard to be working with. I suggest reading some philosophy of science mate.
@TheCartesianTheist The issue you have is, that there are no lines of evidence at all that god exists, apart from a very problematic book that makes claims which appear to contravene the known laws of nature, as well as is self contradictory, wrong on aspects of biology, and astronomy, and is morally inconsistent.
So saying its a red herring when I say to people, prove your claim... is not a good way to make a case.
And if proving things is not valid, how else do you propose to prove god?
@TheCartesianTheist And I a post grad in medical science, I believe I know the philosophy of science well and how theories are created and tested to make working models or theories.
The foundation is empiricism (or positivism). This means positive tangible evidence must exist to back up your ideas.
Your god hypothesis does not have any empirical evidence, so from a scientific perspective, we can dismiss the idea until evidence exists, which as time goes on is becoming less likely.
@bigboy45454545 I can't prove that I exist is it? Well I guess I didn't write these words back you then, right retard? You're a Philosopher who doesn't believe in shit (unless it's your own bullshit assumptions of God) and a Christian. Congratulations you're completely retarded and lack the logic you speak of if this very video.
@TheCartesianTheist Use the "Tree" on them. They hate it when you take that...root...I mean "route". Except for the Amazing Atheist...he loves Bananas. Quite the conundrum really.
@TheCartesianTheist Oh I see, well that's fantastic bullshit. I'm a computer program is it? You're in the UK so I'll give you "programme." You don't seem to need any evidence for your God. I'd just like to ask you. What is your God made from, is it energy or matter? Where is your God right now? Why isn't there any way to detect this God an any real way? Let the mental gymnastics begin. I exist but your imaginary friends certainly do not.
Oh so you exist because you tell me you exist - is that it? Is that your evidence for your own existence? Wow and I thought atheists like scepticism. Clearly not anymore - they sound more like naive realists to me. You still have not even proven your own existence to me. When you have some proof let me know. PS. It needs to be more than an assertion.
@TheCartesianTheist I keep breaking my promise of not trying to reason with Philosophizing Theists. Clearly some of the dimmest bulbs around. You question my existence but yet don't question the existence of your imaginary friends who live in the sky, even though there's not a shred of evidence for your supernatural sky wizards. My words are proof of my existence. Take care now Mr. unreasoned fucked up thinking person.
@TheCartesianTheist You can infer that he exists, based on the fact that you know with a high degree of certainty that the comment sections on u tube are used and maintained by people. You also know that computers are not (as far as we know) capable of engaging in a complex conversation. You also know that you use the comment section, and that requires you to exist.
obviously its not 100% he exists. Maybe he is a machine from the matrix, or an angel, or a u tube ghost... but this is unlikely.
Well you should get to know philosophy a bit better then before wading in and suggesting that empiricism and positivism are the same thing. Also - it would be worth you noting that philosophers of science think positivism is all but dead so you're working with an outdated paradigm for starters. Once you get over that you might be in a position to start thinking about types of evidence other than physical ones.
@TheCartesianTheist When it comes to the existence of an entity, such as god, what other evidence is there exist empirical?
I never said physical evidence, because god is apparently supernatural, so other evidence is required.But if god exists and made the world and can be prayed to - these are scientific questions and can be answered therefore. If god listens to prayers there is a process in how this works eg does god use an email system, or can he hear all prayers together? that kind of thing
@TheCartesianTheist What happened to your imaginary sky wizard hypothesis and your hypothesis that I don't exist? Who are you talking to then? Are you talking to yourself just like when you talk to your imaginary Gods? Philosophical skepticism is rather silly in light of epistemology and methodological naturalism. But retards like you want to think the world is the matrix or some other bullshit. Clearly you know that it's not. Love how you think "Atheist" is an insult
Actually epistemologists take scepticism quite seriously. That shows you haven't read any! Then you appeal to ridicule. Oh dear - clearly you don't like epistemology or logic. And you still haven't even met your own methodological requirement of proof for your own existence. You tried asserting it and now you've given up! Even by the low standards atheists have on YT - I'm disappointed. :(
@TheCartesianTheist If I still haven't even met your own methodological requirement of proof for your own existence, then who are you talking to? Atheism is only a lack of belief in Gods because no evidence exist. If you didn't collect stamps would it be rational to call you a Non-Stamp-Collector as your world view? Logic suggests beliefs need evidence to be rational. As a Theist you have no evidence for God making your beliefs unreasoned. Theists are unreasoned idiots.
I told you already. I'm talking to a linguistically challenged, overly defensive, New Atheist, passive aggressive, slightly paranoid and lacking in any sense of humour automated computer programme! The fact you don't recall shows they didn't spend much money on you and that you were programmed by someone who doesn't do their job properly too. Still the proof is lacking.
@TheCartesianTheist Alright I'm gone then, so you can pretend you won with this unreasoned video and comments back to me as well. Say hello to your imaginary friends who live in the sky, and maybe Santa Claus as well. I don't know you and couldn't guess at how many imaginary friends you have. Keep telling yourself that you're a reasoned thinker. With your level of self deception you might actually believe it too. Bye bye.
@TheCartesianTheist What do yo want to philosophize next? How many Angels came sit on the head of a pin maybe? Like I said before, Christian Philosophers are a waste of time for me because the irrational can't be debated. If religious people could be reasoned with there wouldn't be any religious people.
@TheCartesianTheist nobody can prove anything without faith, except to themselves that their own conscience exists. congratulations, you've argued solipsism.
How can I describe Disneyland to a Martian? Or can a pig ever be made to appreciate a fine pearl necklace? Or can a dog be made to understand what is Holy? NO, no and no. These things are impossible to make happen and so it is with some of you
@wilson2012er - It's a pile of stupidity is what his formula is, I assume you could insert any Noun or pronoun into his formula and have just as much evidence to support it. After TimelessApologist gets the courage to speak in language we all speak. I have no time for his games and you shouldn't waste yours either.
Dusty thinks that the number of anti-christian memes out there on reddit, 9gag, etc proves that atheists must be correct? If anything it goes to show the extent of which atheism's moronic ideology has choked up the younger generation's minds. In fact, it's quite sad to see how such internet memes are taken to be on the cutting-edge of truth, when in fact they are so poorly logically put together that they are easily picked apart in seconds. But read the comments sections, nobody cares.
@wazpoppin9 Guys, please understand that these sorts of anti-christian memes aren't there to raise a serious objections to Christianity. They are just there to be provoking, to increase the hit-count of the website, and therefore raise its revenue. It's purposely controversial just to make more money, just like how a lot of American-produced TV shows operate.
@wazpoppin9 - Oh we have serious objections to Christianity, that's why we provoke. You seem to think atheism is a joke. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
@stevenweir76 You may have serious objections to Christianity alright, but internet memes are where these serious objections come to die. Instead the pubescent boys who make them resort to dumb provocative jabs because that is the only weapon they have when it comes to dealing with something they don't understand.
This has been flagged as spam show
"At the moment "angry atheism" sells though! I could rationally take him to the cleaners and someone in the comment thread of the debate will write: "I loved it when you shouted at him and called him a f***ing idiot! Ur the best Dusty!!""
Truer words hath not been spoken.
M3PanoS 2 weeks ago
Yesterday I have a little debate with dusty in it's "fuck chuck norris video".
When I asked him if smart people need to be rash, need to insult, and need to got a very angry attitude to explain it's points he remains on silence and never answered me.
If this angry ignorant is pretending to debate with CartesianTheist, it wil be a 2 minutes edbate, Dusty it's clearly very incapable of making a proper debate.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight
Well done. Is he a bit nicer when debating him?
He was supposed to debate me last weekend but didn't turn up so I'm hoping we can rearrange it soon.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist
He just can't say other word than "fuck" or "motherfucker" and blame everybody because we're not atheist, you know, what common atheist do usually.
I hope to see that debate soon man =) would be very funny watch Dusty more angry than ever.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight
Well don't tell him but I've done my homework and caught him saying all kinds of contradictory things. So his version of 'logic' must ignore the law of noncontradiction that's for sure! This is not likely to make him a happy bunny.
That's a shame. I thought all the swearing would just be bluster for his video ratings. I didn't think he'd keep the persona going in debates. That's only going to make him look even worse. Shame.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Absolutely, I was waiting a nice debate since it's first answer, but when he rampages and fill the posts with insults, contradictory arguments about moral and incoherent sentences about the classic "no proof" argument, I was like "wow, and people like this guy?". It's a shame, indeed but someone have to put Dusty on it's place.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight
At the moment "angry atheism" sells though! I could rationally take him to the cleaners and someone in the comment thread of the debate will write: "I loved it when you shouted at him and called him a f***ing idiot! Ur the best Dusty!!"
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist
I know, when I debated with him people write that, and I laugh a lot, there are loss people that hide into their imaginary world of their supposed "logic", so, it's just... normal.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
monitor301 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@sybite
"Do you know what evidence means? Making an absurd claim is far from evidence. Look up the word evidence and try again."
I know precisely what evidence is, and its epistemological foundations. You've not managed to provide a definition of logic, so I'm willing to bet that you can't define what evidence actually is, and what foundational ideas it regresses to. :)
monitor301 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
monitor301 2 weeks ago
I'm amused how so many atheists expound upon the importance of logic, yet they don't understand exactly what logic is, or its epistemic foundations.
Using the right arguments, you can even provoke them into using logic to try to refute the axioms of logic.
I blame the failing education system for the near-total absence of critical reasoning abilities in current teen-tween generation.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
Any news on the CartesianTheist vs Dusty debate? I heard it was scheduled for this weekend just gone.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
Oh the irony. This clown is using the same logical fallacy he's saying Dusty is using. And he continues down a path based on that fallacy. What a moron. Obviously he is butt hurt because Dusty is right.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
In what damn part Dusty is right?
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight He is right when he says the religious are the butt of jokes all over pop culture. Look around. You can find dozens of clips making fun of religion on shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, SNL etc.. If you don't see that then you aren't paying attention. Actually he's right about most of what he says. It'd be easier to point out where he's wrong. Give it a try. Show me the evidence. Good luck.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
So means that just because the ignorance of the masses something is right.
Oh, I get it, means that if people prefer to watch the artist on the Emmy's the emmy's are better than any documental.
Atheist stupidity on stupid arguments, nothing more to say.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight "So means that just because the ignorance of the masses something is right."
No. So is an adverb, conjunction, pronoun and idiom. It has several meanings.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
Eh, no, it's that, just because the ignorance of the masses watch this retarded of Dusty means that Dusty is right?, come on, how old are you to get that retarded idea, 14?.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight It's funny you still don't get it. If you knew how to spell you'd understand the humor. But this is a joke you'll never get because you don't have the education to grasp it.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
Humor on a debate?, what- .... Oh, yeah! you are one of those dumb fans of Dusty... I should knew that debating with someone like you was goin to be a waste of time.
Education?, who in this world try to be humoristic on a debate?, only a fan of Retarded Dusty.
Get out of here son, your stupidity it's not something that we need.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight Sorry if fans of Dusty have a sense of humor. It's even funnier that you don't understand that you, and your ilk, are the butt of our jokes. We make fun of you because there's no point in debating a robot. A robot is programmed. The forceoflight robot is programmed to avoid evidence, facts, logic and reason. The forceoflight robot is programmed not to hear dissent. So we make fun of you. You are the joke. So just keep on ranting. It's entertainment.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
It's more funnier that idiots like you think that just because Dusty says "motherfucker" he's right, honestly, it's nothing more stupid than that. A robot?, come on, your stupidity is even highter than before, avoid evidence?, facts?, what evidence?, what facts? I ask you for the evidence of the first cell and you remain on silence, so, it seems that the robor that elude evidence, is YOU, hipocrit.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight "It's more funnier"
lol. Yeah. It's more funnier. You're home-schooled aren't you?
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
Yeah,it's more funnier read stupid atheist write shit like this. You're buut-hurted aren't you?, u can't even answer a question that i made to you, and u presume of logic, then, you came with your natural atheist stupidity and write shit like this.
Typical Dusty fan
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight "u can't even answer a question that i made to you"
Actually I did. It can also be found in any biology book. Now it's your turn. Show me evidence of your imaginary friend in the sky. Any evidence.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
You don't answer anything, you make a stupid Copy-paste from wikipedia of any cell in this case a vegetable cell, and don't response anything, just left you as a a retarded.
Arqueological evidence, Noah's ark, rest of Sodoma and Gomorra, and the Holy Mant.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sybite
You don't answer anything, you make a stupid Copy-paste from wikipedia of any cell in this case a vegetable cell, and don't response anything, just left you as a a retarded.
Arqueological evidence, Noah's ark, rest of Sodoma and Gomorra, and the Holy Mant.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight " I ask you for the evidence of the first cell "
First of all atheism doesn't address that so it's moot. Duh. But regardless - H2O, CH4, NH3 and H2 are perfect building blocks for the first cell and that was the atmosphere of early earth. It kept circulating because it was boiling and cooling. Amino acids and organic molecules formed small molecules containing acids used in protein synthesis, purines and pyrimidines needed for nucleic acid synthesis.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
WAT?!, you are too stupid to even understand chemistry and biology?!. A cell needs a living base to make it's own cell proccess, the synthesis is a quality of a vegetal Cell, destined to, yeah, only create and make grow PLANTS, how stupid are you to believe that a vegetal cell is the answer?, if you don't know, stupid, the first cell also created animals, humans, and rocks, you think that a simple vegetal cell could make that?, you are, seriously retarded.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight You can't even spell and punctuate so you're in very deep water trying to explain biology. A "vegetal cell" has nothing to do with what I said. Your answer for life on earth is a magic genie blinked us into existence. I'll accept scientific evidence and biological fact over your brand of ignorance, superstition and brainwashing.
BTW - where's that evidence of your imaginary friend in the sky? Any evidence!
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
Dude, honestly, tell me on wich part of a animal cell exist the synthesis. You accept scientific evidence?, why?, because atheist are so stupid that they shield their retarded theories on science?, let me tell you something, science got NOTHING to do with atheism, science is the search for the confort of the human kind, not the search of a god or the search to deny god, science is apart of this, but idiots like you think that science is atheism, one of the biggest stupidities ever.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight "It's more funnier"
Another example of why we laugh at you. And you still don't even get it. Hilarious.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite: You notice how believers almost never have any sense of humor?
They can make a joke about science or Darwin and we'll laugh.
But make a joke about their god or their moldy old holy book and they get all pissy and uptight.
Question: Hey, you know how many Old Testament gods it takes to change a light bulb?
Answer: DEATH TO YOU, YOU FILTHY HEATHEN!! YOU SHALL BURN IN HELL FOREVER AND EVER!!
Yeah, believers have about as much humor as a root canal.
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
@mikefromwa
Why have sense of humor in a debate?, we are not retarded like atheist, we debate with brain, not with humor, since we are not ignorant.
Dude, honestly, joke on debates it's a sign of ignorance and inmature people, and, all atheist, are like that; the real answer is: Don't make stupid Jokes, at least, put some effort on them.
We can be wathever you want, but we prefer to be that instead of a stupid atheist likee you and Dusty.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight: Sorry, did jokes about your magical sky-daddy make you cranky? :)
A sense of humor is a key indicator of intelligence; it's no surprise that you seem to have little or none of either. :)
"We can be wathever you want"
Then try being smarter. It's hard to face reality without your imaginary sky-pal, but even people like you can do it. All you have to do is stop believing in 2,000 year-old fairy tales, and join the rest of us in the current century.
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ForceOfLight "we are not retarded like atheist"
What are you retarded like, then? Like a monkey with attention deficit disorder?
"joke on debates it's a sign of ignorance"
Lol, you're too funny. In a sad, childlike way, but still funny. It's hard not to laugh at people like you who can barely communicate but who still think they know all the secrets of the universe. I'm shocked you haven't been drafted into MENSA. (For you, DENSA might be more appropriate. :) lol
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
@mikefromwa lol. I know. And cretins like forceoflight are "more funnier" without knowing it. Sometimes I feel arrogant laughing at their ignorance but it's just too hilarious not to.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
Cretins?, why?, because you are butt hurt and u can't refute anything what i said?
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight "Cretins?, why?"
Because you're dumber than a bucket of wet hair.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
And that's your best argument?, wow, amazing, just proves atheist stupidity even more than before.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight "And that's your best argument?"
You wouldn't understand my best argument. Too many big words for you.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
In the absence of a reply, let me spell out both to you:
"Evidence" is an aggregate of sensory experience that is construed to have epistemic truth value connotations in accordance with the precepts of empiricism. Empiricism is the belief that knowledge can be acquired via sensory experience.
Logic is an axiomatic system that provides a basic ruleset or framework for cognitive critical thinking tasks.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@monitor301 More pedantic nonsense. This is called backtracking. Where is evidence of your imaginary friend?
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
"More pedantic [sic] nonsense. This is called backtracking [sic]"
I suggest you look up the definitions of basic terms such as this before using them in a discussion. For your own sake.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@monitor301 The irony is those words are correct, you are pedantic and you are backtracking. Nice try but it's not working. Now how about some actual evidence for your imaginary friend. Not semantic chicken scratching. Not philosophical blather. Not hearsay. How about some evidence instead on happy horseshit?
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
"Now how about some actual evidence for your imaginary friend"
So evidence from cosmology is not evidence?
This is the paper (now a consensus view among cosmologists) you need to look up and refute: A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin (2003). "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions". Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (15): 151301
Academically illiterate teenage atheist basement dweller versus mathematically-trained cosmologists. Hmm. :)
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@monitor301 "So evidence from cosmology is not evidence?"
Spacetime is not evidence of your imaginary friend. Not even close. You use the same blather William Lane Craig uses. Indeed it's not hard to play your game - example - this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”). In other words your pedantic, plagiarized attempts are pathetic
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
"no-boundary proposal"
Note that the Hartle-Hawking model does not refute the earlier Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems. All it does is to give an alternative set of initial conditions with which to escape the theorem.
Moreover, Hawking was able to do so only by implementing numbers for the time variable that are a product of the square root of -1 ("imaginary numbers"). ie. It is dependent upon a mathematical artifice that is demonstrably of no real world validity.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@monitor301 This isn't evidence of your imaginary friend. Sorry. Try again.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
When questioned about the notion of "imaginary time", Hawking refused to convert to real numbers for the Hartle-Hawking model, because doing so reestablishes the singularity. He didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that it renders the model essentially non-realistic.
In "The Nature of Space and Time" (2000), he states: "I take the positivist view point that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality."
monitor301 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@monitor301 This isn't evidence of your imaginary friend. Sorry. Try again.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
In addition to concerns that the model is essentially a "non-realistic" exercise in mathematics, there are other problems::
"Although a uniform probability distribution in this measure would solve the flatness problem, it gives an ambiguous probability for inflation, since both the set of inflationary solutions and the set of noninflationary solutions have infinite measure."
Hawking, S. W. (1988). "How probable is inflation?". Nucl. Phys. B298 (4): 789
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@monitor301 This isn't evidence of your imaginary friend. Sorry. Try again.
sybite 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sybite
"This isn't evidence of your imaginary friend. Sorry. Try again."
Care to provide an actual, substantive argument, rather than a "just-so" statement or knee-jerk coping response? :)
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@sybite
Here's an exercise in basic critical reasoning.
The only substantive objection you've raised to Borde et al.'s conjecture regarding the incompleteness of past space-time is the Hawking-Hartle model. I've raised substantive objections to the no-boundaries proposal in that it is essentially non-realistic. You need to either defend the latter or formulate new arguments against the former.
"plagiarize"
Oh have I now? Perhaps you'd like to web search the text and see what you get?
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@sybite
Thank you for the chat. Enjoy the rest of your night. :)
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@sybite
"The irony is those words are correct"
Looks like you also need to look up the definition of irony. Hah. :)
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@monitor301 It looks like you need to look up the definition of irony. It's becoming obvious what's going on here. You're a troll. Sorry but I don't feed trolls. I'm sure you can find someone else to fall for your bullshit.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
"It looks like you need to look up the definition of irony"
Irony is a situation in which there is a poignant, dramatic or poetic incongruity pertaining to an intention (or perceived intention). None of this applies to perceived or substantive misunderstanding relating to the definition of pedantry.
Secondly, if you claim that basic formal logic is being "overly concerned with minute details" or "ostentatious", then I'm afraid you -are- waving the "I'm an imbecile" flag.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@monitor301 Again you insist on playing with semantics instead of facing the fact that you're delusional. More backtracking. Have fun looking up these words to see if they're real. Clearly you can't address the issue. All you do is nit-pick and plagiarize. You're an idiot with an imaginary friend.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
Your problem is the assumption that the simplest levels of scientific explanation for natural phenomena automatically invalidate any concurrent "metaphysical" explanation.
A basic understanding of science demonstrates that this is untrue. As an example of this, in biology, we have physiological explanations for cellular function, but these explanations don't necessarily invalidate biophysical or self-organisational explanations of cell/tissue function.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@monitor301 And none of this is evidence of god. It's moot.
sybite 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sybite
"And none of this is evidence of god. It's moot."
So cosmological evidence and scientific rationalism aren't evidence?
Then you are opposed to:
1. Empiricism.
2. Scientific rationalism.
ie. You are essentially defining yourself as anti-science. Good job :)
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@sybite
There are certain things that evidence cannot explain, such as foundational beliefs. Only the philosophically incompetent think that evidentiary assessment can be applied to everything in existence. For example, you cannot prove, using sensory evidence, that logic is valid.
The philosophy you adhere to, where you assert the omnipotence of 'evidence', is called "positivism." Among intellectuals and academics, the term is synonymous with philosophical incompetence.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@monitor301 And even more pedantic blather. How about coming down to earth and telling me specifically what these "foundational beliefs" are that can't be explained? The fact is philosophical nonsense isn't evidence. Sorry.
sybite 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sybite
"And even more pedantic blather. How about coming down to earth and telling me specifically what these "foundational beliefs" are that can't be explained?"
Is your literacy a problem? I already gave you a perfect example of a foundational belief.
Logical systems are foundational. So is mathematics and geometry. So are beliefs about human perception such as realism or anti-realism. So are metaphysical positions such as naturalism, atheism and theism.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight: Sorry, should I type slower for you? Is all thinking making your brain-thingy hurt?
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
@sybite
"where's that evidence of your imaginary friend in the sky? Any evidence!"
The universe "began to exist" at a specific point in its past history, according to the best cosmological evidence. (Borde et al. 2003).
Scientific rationalism encompasses basic ontological ideas such as "from nothing, nothing comes."
Therefore, the best cosmological evidence, as interepreted by the precepts of scientific rationalism, points to the universe having a transcendant, immaterial cause.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@monitor301 " the best cosmological evidence, as interepreted by the precepts of scientific rationalism, points to the universe having a transcendant, immaterial cause."
In your dreams. This is called wishful thinking. In this case it's under the guise of philosophical blather. It's nothing more than seeking an excuse to believe in something that has no evidence.
sybite 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ForceOfLight: "Cretins?, why?"
Because you have the reasoning skills of a brick.
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
@sybite: Did you see his latest comment to me? It's a hoot- search for "we are not retarded like atheist". It sounds like it was written by someone with a severe head injury.
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ForceOfLight "Oh, I get it, means that if people prefer to watch the artist on the Emmy's the emmy's are better than any documental."
No. I get it means that something has been understood.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight " nothing more to say."
Thanks. You've said enough.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
Againist human fails like you?, bleh, son, you are ridicolous.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ForceOfLight: "bleh, son, you are ridicolous."
Says a guy who thinks that an invisible super-being runs the universe and reads our minds.
Now THERE'S irony for you.
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
Religion is dying. Get used to it.
mikefromwa 3 weeks ago
@mikefromwa
Best argument ever.
Based on atheist ignorance and "wanna be" attitude.
Atheist is Ignorance, look your own comment. Get used to it.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight: "Based on atheist ignorance"
No, based on figures readily available from a variety of sources. Churches are losing membership left and right, and many are merging with other churches just to stay in business. Deny it all you want, it's a fact. :)
People just aren't falling for the magical-guy-in-the-sky story anymore. Religion is bogus and everyone knows it. Look around you pal, the church used to rule the world...now it's just something to laugh at. :)
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
@mikefromwa
Churches are losing memberships same as school is losing students... sir, almost the 80% of YT atheist are idiots that are outside the school; means, that people becoame atheist for ignorance, and it's a fact, the level of education in lot of countries is becoming low, because teenagers prefer to be at home scratching it's stomach while they play WoW and became "atheist". People are falling into the I'm-intelligent-because-I'm-atheist stupid story, that's, very sad.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@mikefromwa
Dude, You are bogus, not religion, if there's something to laugh, I think that it must be your face, and your dumb argument.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight: "You are bogus, not religion"
Riiiiiiiight...because believing in an invisible telepathic super-being is just so logical!
"I think that it must be your face, and your dumb argument."
Wow, your reasoning is so logical and well thought out. I'm impressed.
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
@mikefromwa
Riiight because believing in an incoherent-evolution-process that got more enigmas than a ghost house is more logical, son, evolution got millions of illogical counters, 1st, the theory of the first cell it's one of the most stupid things i've ever heard, I mean, one cell without base created more than 2 millions of creatures and plants without a logical proccess, and then you think that you can accuse of bogus other way of think, sure, rite.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight: "believing in an incoherent-evolution-process that got more enigmas than a ghost house is more logical"
It's far more logical than believing in a magical sky-god. It's also supported by ALL the evidence, but don't let that cloud your 'thinking'.
"it's one of the most stupid things i've ever heard"
It's not stupider than the bible, I'll tell you that for free. You've never actually read a textbook, have you? (Or gotten someone to read one to you.)
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
@mikefromwa
More logical?, explain the proccess of the cell then, because in my books of biology I don't find the answer, so, can you please explain me how a single cell without any living base could create around 2 million of live things including plants, humans and animals?, if it's so logical, then explain the proccess, meanwhile, it's still a retarded theory.
Dude, there's nothing more stupid than atheism, just read your post, you are filling spaces with ad hominem fallacies w/o refuting.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@mikefromwa
"It's far more logical than believing in a magical sky-god"
Not quite.
The doctrine of common descent is empirico-inductive. The cosmological arguments are either deductive, or empirico-deductive, from a basis of metaphysics that is presupposed as part of scientific rationalism.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@monitor301 "presupposed as part of scientific rationalism."
Does that psychobabble lead to a claim that the scientific method supports religion? How about trying to make sense instead of trying to be pedantic?
sybite 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sybite
"Does that psychobabble [sic] lead to a claim that the scientific method supports religion? How about trying to make sense instead of trying to be pedantic? [sic]"
Not quite, but almost.
It means that science requires a metaphysical framework in order to function. That encompasses the most basic precepts of ontology, such as "ex nihilo, nihil fit" and the causal principle.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@monitor301: "Not quite."
Oh, yes quite. :)
"blah blah cosmological blah blah deductive blah empirico-deductive blah blah"
And that proves that it's more logical to believe in an invisible sky-daddy than all the scientific evidence? Seriously?
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikefromwa
"And that proves that it's more logical to believe in an invisible sky-daddy than all the scientific evidence? Seriously?"
Do you even know what logic is? Perhaps you'd like to define it for us, before you start making inferential metaphysical claims which you don't fully understand.
monitor301 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight "Atheist is Ignorance, look your own comment."
Oh the irony. For your information the majority of scientists and multiple degree holders are atheists. In other words you are delusional, ignorant and butthurt. Get used to it.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
But scientists are not experts on the questions about whether God does or does not exist. That's not what empirical science studies. The academic area which focusses on that question is called the philosophy of religion. And then bad news for you there is that the majority of philosophers of religion are actually theists [even though many of them are atheists]. Still - the number games you wish to play do not suggest which is more likely to be true. That's a fallacy.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist If you don't believe the research then find some evidence that counters it. Otherwise my point stands.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
Wow, it's the second time that you use the "oh the irony" argument, a lack of ideas it seems. For YOUR information, Canada, Uk, Germany, and France, that got the biggest and the most advance scientific labs, are countries with a highly christian poblation. Including labs iteselfs. Don't came with hipocresy and lies about atheism and science because that's coward, coward because you are using something beautiful as sceince to shiled the stupid atheism, please.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight "poblation. Including labs iteselfs. Don't came with hipocresy "
Your conclusions are as sound as your spelling.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
There are not conclusions son, there are facts, get over it.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight "There are not conclusions son, there are facts"
Again. Figure out how to spell before debating.
sybite 2 weeks ago
@sybite
Why don't you innstead of posting bullshit try to refute something?
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
@ForceOfLight: I find it fascinating that someone who can't even spell the word "instead" has the balls to insist that he knows how the universe was created, and is also sure that evolution isn't true.
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
@mikefromwa
So, that's your best argument?, thanks for making us notice that you are butt hurt because you can't refute or ask my question, I'm glad that you made this kind of stupid post to surrender, have a nice day.
ForceOfLight 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ForceOfLight: "I'm glad that you made this kind of stupid post to surrender, have a nice day."
Lol, look who's running away with his tail between his legs: you.
What a great way to say you have no argument. So you gonna go whisper in your hands to your magical sky-daddy now? :)
Lol, like I said, religion is dying and soon people like you will only exist in history books.
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
@sybite: You'll never convince someone like ForceOfLight with mere proof. His magical sky-daddy is the answer to everything in his little world.
Why do birds fly? The magical sky-daddy!
What makes electrons flow? The magical sky-daddy!
How do cells reproduce? The magical sky-daddy!
It's sad to think that people like him vote, drive cars, and have children. But religion is dying and someday people like him will only exist in history books.
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikefromwa " But religion is dying and someday people like him will only exist in history books."
I certainly hope so. Religion is the scourge of humanity. It's for barbarians.
sybite 2 weeks ago
Im a Christian but CultofDusty kind of does have a point about the internet and media being dominated by bigoted secularists
TheFaithHunter 3 weeks ago
@TheFaithHunter So being intolerant of intolerance is bigotry.
CRaschNet 3 weeks ago
Is that the best you can do to refute the claims made by Dusty ?. 1st, you make it clear that you are a grammer Nazi and try an add hominem and you accuse him of being "working class" .What is wrong with working class ?, you are using that as an insult ?. 2nd, you did not address the issue of more hits for Atheist videos over Cultist ones. You made an assumption that views mean nothing.People are obviously viewing the said vids because that is what they want to view.
"Religon= FAILED SCIENCE.
jonerkinch 3 weeks ago
@jonerkinch
Dusty is the biggest retarded Nazi and you acuse Cartesiantheist of being nazi, hypocrit. You even are that ignorant to ask what is wrong with working class?, means that I can brainwash with working class and then argue "waht is wrong with working class?, people love me, so my arguments are correct", the fact that people watch more vids than others doesn't mean that the video got correct arguments, that means, Lady Gaga is the best for its views?, jesus, get a brain.
ForceOfLight 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos 2
@ForceOfLight Google " Grammer Nazi" ...I do not understand your points about "working class" Are you pro or anti ?...The extremely large amount of hits that Lady GaGa gets is because ppl want to hear LG and like her music,just like why Athiest vids get on the net(ppl searching for opinions because they are intrested).I have a brain and jesus has nothing to do with it or in it.
jonerkinch 3 weeks ago
@jonerkinch
Means that Gaga sucks, but ignorant people listen it's music same as Bieber fans incult people that listen garbage music for it's lack of knowleadge about music.
Means that Dusty is a retarded ignorant but ignorants watch it's videos because they are ignorant that claims victory same as him. You got a brain?, congrats, now, USE IT.
ForceOfLight 3 weeks ago
This video is idiotic. Rusty or whatever his name is gave a coherent explanation of why atheists own the internet. He clearly stated that its occurred, because religion when held up to scrutiny on a free and open media like the internet is easily exposed as being ridiculous.
So, I dont really understand your point, and I think you have wasted your time.
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
Bigboy said " If religious people could be reasoned with there wouldn't be any religious people."
Haha Notice how this layman didn't say Theists, as religion does not equal theism. Cf. Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism
So in his own words one can still believe in God and still be rational. Ok I'll agree with that, though I still think the nature-heads are intellectually bankrupt.
TimelessApologist 4 weeks ago
@TimelessApologist I used the words religious people instead of Theists but this hardly makes me a laymen on anything Theological. If you can't demonstrate the existence of your God then every word you say on Theological Apologetic matters is from a layman. How could anyone talk about matters they have no idea about and only hearsay accounts written thousands of years earlier from a book which is clearly mythology?
bigboy45454545 2 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545
Hello layman of philosophy, I heard you are a village atheist that promotes "Nature did it" dogmatics, so tell me, does this sound right?
Naturalism can explain away any process that seems irrational
Reason came from a reasonless process, in which only an irrational solution can explain
Therefore "nature did it"
TimelessApologist 4 weeks ago
Just so you know, CT, CultofDusty was not trying to show Christianity to be a falsehood. This entire criticism is irrelevant. Atheists own the internet. That was his whole point. Whether or not we're actually right or not is another issue.
TheBowsersMario 4 weeks ago
@TheBowsersMario
Well I don't even agree with that point either. And yes - he was trying to make something of it more than a mere observation. Watch his video for the full context.
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
topprospect67 4 weeks ago
so when is cartesiantheists debate with cultofdusty?
topprospect67 4 weeks ago
@topprospect67
Next weekend.
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago
As Christians what you can't do is prove the existence of your imaginary sky wizards. Sure as a group you're all referred to as Christians but you're all more like a group of deluded people with imaginary friends. The fact that you cannot demonstrate your God speaks volumes about Christian logic. We start and finish right here with this fact before anything else. Your book of fairytales sure isn't any help. A book with talking snakes and rib-women. And you want to be taken seriously, how cute.
bigboy45454545 4 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545
Ahhhh. If only I had a pound for everytime an atheist has pulled the old "you can't prove" card!
Problem is you can't even prove that you exist enough to ask me the question. Therefore the requirement of proof is a false standard to be working with. I suggest reading some philosophy of science mate.
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist The issue you have is, that there are no lines of evidence at all that god exists, apart from a very problematic book that makes claims which appear to contravene the known laws of nature, as well as is self contradictory, wrong on aspects of biology, and astronomy, and is morally inconsistent.
So saying its a red herring when I say to people, prove your claim... is not a good way to make a case.
And if proving things is not valid, how else do you propose to prove god?
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist And I a post grad in medical science, I believe I know the philosophy of science well and how theories are created and tested to make working models or theories.
The foundation is empiricism (or positivism). This means positive tangible evidence must exist to back up your ideas.
Your god hypothesis does not have any empirical evidence, so from a scientific perspective, we can dismiss the idea until evidence exists, which as time goes on is becoming less likely.
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545 I can't prove that I exist is it? Well I guess I didn't write these words back you then, right retard? You're a Philosopher who doesn't believe in shit (unless it's your own bullshit assumptions of God) and a Christian. Congratulations you're completely retarded and lack the logic you speak of if this very video.
bigboy45454545 4 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545
But you see - you set the standard at PROOF and you've not given me any.
You could, of course, be just a slightly paranoid, very aggressive, linguistically challenged auotomated computer programme.
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago 2
@TheCartesianTheist Use the "Tree" on them. They hate it when you take that...root...I mean "route". Except for the Amazing Atheist...he loves Bananas. Quite the conundrum really.
TheCaptainSlappy 4 weeks ago in playlist Great Political Videos
@TheCartesianTheist Oh I see, well that's fantastic bullshit. I'm a computer program is it? You're in the UK so I'll give you "programme." You don't seem to need any evidence for your God. I'd just like to ask you. What is your God made from, is it energy or matter? Where is your God right now? Why isn't there any way to detect this God an any real way? Let the mental gymnastics begin. I exist but your imaginary friends certainly do not.
bigboy45454545 4 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545
Oh so you exist because you tell me you exist - is that it? Is that your evidence for your own existence? Wow and I thought atheists like scepticism. Clearly not anymore - they sound more like naive realists to me. You still have not even proven your own existence to me. When you have some proof let me know. PS. It needs to be more than an assertion.
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCartesianTheist I keep breaking my promise of not trying to reason with Philosophizing Theists. Clearly some of the dimmest bulbs around. You question my existence but yet don't question the existence of your imaginary friends who live in the sky, even though there's not a shred of evidence for your supernatural sky wizards. My words are proof of my existence. Take care now Mr. unreasoned fucked up thinking person.
bigboy45454545 4 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist You can infer that he exists, based on the fact that you know with a high degree of certainty that the comment sections on u tube are used and maintained by people. You also know that computers are not (as far as we know) capable of engaging in a complex conversation. You also know that you use the comment section, and that requires you to exist.
obviously its not 100% he exists. Maybe he is a machine from the matrix, or an angel, or a u tube ghost... but this is unlikely.
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
"Complex conversation"? Hubris indeed! ;)
Well you should get to know philosophy a bit better then before wading in and suggesting that empiricism and positivism are the same thing. Also - it would be worth you noting that philosophers of science think positivism is all but dead so you're working with an outdated paradigm for starters. Once you get over that you might be in a position to start thinking about types of evidence other than physical ones.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist When it comes to the existence of an entity, such as god, what other evidence is there exist empirical?
I never said physical evidence, because god is apparently supernatural, so other evidence is required.But if god exists and made the world and can be prayed to - these are scientific questions and can be answered therefore. If god listens to prayers there is a process in how this works eg does god use an email system, or can he hear all prayers together? that kind of thing
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist I accept positivism and empiricism are slightly different.
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545
Why did you take your post down on the thread? It ended:
"My words are proof. Take care now Mr. unreasoned fucked up thinking person."
Trying to teach philosophical scepticism to atheists is clearly a waste of time.
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist You mean trying to teach me your cognitive biases to a rational person. Yes this is a waste of time for you.
bigboy45454545 4 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist What happened to your imaginary sky wizard hypothesis and your hypothesis that I don't exist? Who are you talking to then? Are you talking to yourself just like when you talk to your imaginary Gods? Philosophical skepticism is rather silly in light of epistemology and methodological naturalism. But retards like you want to think the world is the matrix or some other bullshit. Clearly you know that it's not. Love how you think "Atheist" is an insult
bigboy45454545 4 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545
Actually epistemologists take scepticism quite seriously. That shows you haven't read any! Then you appeal to ridicule. Oh dear - clearly you don't like epistemology or logic. And you still haven't even met your own methodological requirement of proof for your own existence. You tried asserting it and now you've given up! Even by the low standards atheists have on YT - I'm disappointed. :(
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist If I still haven't even met your own methodological requirement of proof for your own existence, then who are you talking to? Atheism is only a lack of belief in Gods because no evidence exist. If you didn't collect stamps would it be rational to call you a Non-Stamp-Collector as your world view? Logic suggests beliefs need evidence to be rational. As a Theist you have no evidence for God making your beliefs unreasoned. Theists are unreasoned idiots.
bigboy45454545 4 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545
I told you already. I'm talking to a linguistically challenged, overly defensive, New Atheist, passive aggressive, slightly paranoid and lacking in any sense of humour automated computer programme! The fact you don't recall shows they didn't spend much money on you and that you were programmed by someone who doesn't do their job properly too. Still the proof is lacking.
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Alright I'm gone then, so you can pretend you won with this unreasoned video and comments back to me as well. Say hello to your imaginary friends who live in the sky, and maybe Santa Claus as well. I don't know you and couldn't guess at how many imaginary friends you have. Keep telling yourself that you're a reasoned thinker. With your level of self deception you might actually believe it too. Bye bye.
bigboy45454545 4 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545
You couldn't even prove your own existence to me!! What a world of fail you are?! ROFL
TheCartesianTheist 4 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist What do yo want to philosophize next? How many Angels came sit on the head of a pin maybe? Like I said before, Christian Philosophers are a waste of time for me because the irrational can't be debated. If religious people could be reasoned with there wouldn't be any religious people.
bigboy45454545 4 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist nobody can prove anything without faith, except to themselves that their own conscience exists. congratulations, you've argued solipsism.
charyoshi1 3 weeks ago
I misunderstood everything and liked it;)
CivilRights4Olympia 1 month ago
What does the Angry ignorant Dusty will respond if I quote him with this?
"The imposibility that I got on deny God, just prove me his existence." - Jean de la Bruyère
ForceOfLight 1 month ago
Watch retarded and ignorant atheist like him make me feel even more proud of not being one... may god bless this angry ignorants.
ForceOfLight 1 month ago
How can I describe Disneyland to a Martian? Or can a pig ever be made to appreciate a fine pearl necklace? Or can a dog be made to understand what is Holy? NO, no and no. These things are impossible to make happen and so it is with some of you
MerozCurse 1 month ago
I'm an atheist and the video is stupid, but what's more stupid is for people to point that out
lupianwolf 1 month ago
@wazpoppin9 may God bless u and keep of fighting the good fight of faith!!!!!!!!!
katelling1 1 month ago
@types00000
Simple tautology until it is disproven, which you haven't shown. Therefore the argument stands. Unless you can show me otherwise?
Do you believe anything can begin to exist and just pop into existence? Is that rational to hold?
"Nature did it" dogmatics strikes out again.
TimelessApologist 1 month ago
TimelessApologist 1 month ago
@TimelessApologist Is that an equation? If it is where does it come from?
wilson2012er 1 month ago
@wilson2012er - It's a pile of stupidity is what his formula is, I assume you could insert any Noun or pronoun into his formula and have just as much evidence to support it. After TimelessApologist gets the courage to speak in language we all speak. I have no time for his games and you shouldn't waste yours either.
stevenweir76 1 month ago
@TimelessApologist - Why are you acting like an idiot?
stevenweir76 1 month ago
@TimelessApologist - If you can't dazzle em' with brilliance, baffle em' with bullshit.
stevenweir76 1 month ago
Dusty thinks that the number of anti-christian memes out there on reddit, 9gag, etc proves that atheists must be correct? If anything it goes to show the extent of which atheism's moronic ideology has choked up the younger generation's minds. In fact, it's quite sad to see how such internet memes are taken to be on the cutting-edge of truth, when in fact they are so poorly logically put together that they are easily picked apart in seconds. But read the comments sections, nobody cares.
wazpoppin9 1 month ago
@wazpoppin9 Guys, please understand that these sorts of anti-christian memes aren't there to raise a serious objections to Christianity. They are just there to be provoking, to increase the hit-count of the website, and therefore raise its revenue. It's purposely controversial just to make more money, just like how a lot of American-produced TV shows operate.
wazpoppin9 1 month ago
@wazpoppin9 - Oh we have serious objections to Christianity, that's why we provoke. You seem to think atheism is a joke. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
stevenweir76 1 month ago
@stevenweir76 You may have serious objections to Christianity alright, but internet memes are where these serious objections come to die. Instead the pubescent boys who make them resort to dumb provocative jabs because that is the only weapon they have when it comes to dealing with something they don't understand.
wazpoppin9 1 month ago