3nd Month memorial celebratory sing along! Truth be told I must confess, Hitchens life was one big mess, And he’s not only merely dead, he’s really most sincerely dead Ding Dong! The Hitch is dead. Which old Hitch? The AtheiHitch! Ding Dong! The Wicked Hitch is dead. Wake up Dunderheads, rub your eyes, get out of bed Wake up, the Wicked Hitch is dead. He’s gone where the demons go, Below below below-Yo-ho. Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low Ding Dong the AtheiHitch is dead!
I've been patiently sifting for a voice of sanity and reason post-Hitchens. This man not only seems to fill that need but his rational and polished presentation of solid statement; his clear debate mastery-leaves me with a new Hero.
Poster: TY for uploading this -- and of course thanks to The Doctor. ;-)
To All: You will never out-'crazy' a crazy. Period.. Yes, they're wrong, but don't sweat it: just feel sad for them that they don't have the openness and intellect needed to understand.
@jrishaw You may be right, but "they" still impose their evil beliefs on others, and permeate every part of our lives with their stupid unintelligent actions (in politics, legislature, in schools/institutions, in communities etc.). Thank reality for people like Sam.
'This commendably noble comment you've made should probably be directed to BattleshipAgincount...'
Says the lying cunt who created a new account for the sole purpose of pretending to be someone else and misrepresenting everything he said. I can proudly say that most of your comments are flagged as spam anyway... so don't blame me for your trolling.
You have no idea just how much you're despised by both sides as a result of your dishonorable and dishonest tactics. You are alone in this.
So sorry, this is just your delusional denial and fallacious attribution rearing it's not so calmly head again, Blabbs.
Despite the fact that I never lied about creating a new account, and did created it order to expose you for the liar, hypocrite, sore loser, troll etc. that you are, what if I hadn't created a new account"
Would that justify you flagging all my comments and denying it until you couldn't because I had conclusive evidence proving you a liar? 'Lol!
Oops!, you've unwittingly upped and done it again, Blabbs.
Observe: You've proven yourself a liar again for having originally said that you didn't want my comments flagged, because according to your lying blabbermouth, my comments only help your cause, but now you "proudly" proclaim that other coward, hypocritical, trolls, like you are doing it anyway. 'Lol!
Are you even capable of blabbering anything that isn't a decietful, bumbling, provable lie? :)
You have no idea just how much... "I lie."You are alone in this"
Oh!, so sorry Mr. lonely, but you blabbered this same nonsense in absolute factual terms, even before I had exposed you for your irrefutable lies.
Now you've only proven yourself in delusional defensive denial of your guilt for your indisputable convictions and projecting/deflecting onto me, your irrational fantasies of me being "dishonest-dishonorable", when in reality and fact you actually are.
your...credibility is shot Blabbs, and there's justifiable reason/s to believe that whatever you say would just be more blabbering deceitfulness and lies.
Now please allow me to break this to you as gently as I possibly feel like and was going to anyway.
To put it in layman's terms, you Blabbs, are one very sic Pup.
Oh! so sorry Blabbs, but because your credibility is as dead as the Dodo, (shot) for being a proven liar and hypocrite etc., I'm going to have to demand that you present the evidence which would substantiate this, your further blabber, bleated in positive, absolute, factual terms again as veracious, so Go?! Shot dead as Dodo credibility Crickets................................ :)
If my credibility was shot, why then did you create a new user name on my behalf? After thinking about it, I actually have to admit I'm flattered at what you did. It means I have a reputation worth tarnishing... which is much more than I can say for yours.
Given as you've failed to address any of my points, you resorted to the most dishonest tactic here on youtube. You've failed. Get over it.
"If my credibility was shot, why then did you create a new user name on my behalf? After thinking about it, I actually have to admit I'm flattered at what you did"
Well, since you now claim to be "flattered" by me changing usernames, "flatter" this! 'Lol!
No Blabbs, you conveniently Failed! to get the memo again. Your credibility was irrefutably shot after I created a new user account and baited you into admitting that you're a liar, which proved you a hypocrite as well, thus Fail! :)
Please do not report comments on this video as spam. It's censorship and improper. If you see a comment that's flagged as spam please un-flag it. Censorship has no place here.
This commendably noble comment you've made should probably be directed to BattleshipAgincourt....not that it would necessarily do any good, because he's proven himself many times over to be an obstinate, incorrigible, logically challenged, sore loser, bald faced liar and hypocrite, etc.
He initially denied flagging my comments as spam,...
...but when I presented to him the evidence in his own words, encouraging others to flag my comments, he couldn't deny it.
Then he admitted it and stated; "I flag ALL your comments as spam"
Then he tried to justify his proven lie by interjecting the two wrongs make a right fallacy, claiming that he had lied because I lie.
Sadly, he doesn't distinguish the difference between peoples views and opinions, and arguments which refute his illogical/irrational position, from lying. :)
Yes, this one is especially logically corrupt, obstinate, and incorrigible.
I figure, since he wishfully chooses to believe that he'll cease to exist after his physical existence, I'll just help him to enjoy his little life to the fullest...and he does seem to be having a banging good time with me. 'Lol!
P.S. I think you inverted what you meant to say in your subsequent post, but I know exactly what you mean.
I agree that flagging comments is disruptive. However what's even more disruptive is when one or two individuals (or one guy pretending to be two individuals) escalates this to insults and stops debating altogether.
Some people DO genuinely spam these comments, and I don't discourage posts from being flagged for what they are. Reading personal insults amounts to a waste of time. I've since stopped flagging his spam, simply because I want people to see Lizard's lies for what they are.
@BattleshipAgincourt If you see his name then don't read his comments. It's that simple. The flagging feature exists to remove comments that are actual spam, not merely disagreeable sentiments. If you'd like to carry on an extended dialogue with a YouTube user do it through personal messaging.
"If you see his name then don't read his comments. It's that simple. The flagging feature exists to remove comments that are actual spam, not merely disagreeable sentiments"
The burden of proof IS on Craig here. He's the one making the positive statement. He's the one saying the universe was created from nothing by magic. That IS a faith-based claim, and it's what creationists have to believe.
Atheists don't claim the universe was self-propogated! Most atheists don't make the positive statement that a god doesn't exist! These may be faith-based claims, but they're NOT what atheists believe. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
@BattleshipAgincourt Atheists DO say that nothing came from something. If an atheist is really a champion of science, then they would understand the first 3 laws of thermodynamics, the theory behind the big bang, the implications of the primordial vacuum and the idea of a "beginning in time." If an atheist understands all of these things but still denies an original creator, then they are only trying to AVOID God, not disprove him.
'Atheists DO say that nothing came from something.'
No, they do not! This is the part where you deliberately misrepresent what your opponents believe for the sole purpose of shooting it down... it's called a straw man argument.
Being an atheist isn't contingent on believing in evolution or the big bang. The ONLY thing it's contingent on is not believing in a god. That's all it is!
Theist have failed to meet their burden of proof, therefore I don't believe in anyone's god.
'If an atheist is really a champion of science...'
And what answers can you possibly provided that are any better than simply making one up without ANY evidence to speak of? To all those questions you presented, I will simply shrug my shoulders and say I don't know.
'...If an atheist understands all of these things but still denies an original creator...'
I'm still waiting on you just to prove your god actually exists. You're making an argument from ignorance.
This is the story of a tiny little leech living inside the intestines of an atheist, who stood up on his tiny little soap box and announced to all the other leeches, that there is no such thing as a human being. And furthermore, it is not up to this tiny little leech to prove his blind faith assumed position, it is up to the other leeches claiming there is a human to prove there is one or else, there is no human being. ATHEISM=OBVIOUS LIE; no human could possibly remotely know there is no God
@sillygames 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the big bang, the anthropic principle, and some simple ontology. That right there is enough evidence for a 5000 page essay that would conclude that religion is 1) reasonable and 2) more plausible than its denial.
@steffencollen Theology is always trying to steal scientific principles for unrelated claims.
I have a list of things it would be wise to learn about before engaging in such a fruitless venture as trying to concoct an undeniable deity from the bastardization of science.
Those laws apply to closed systems not receiving matter/energy from distant stars at random.
QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS aka VIRTUAL PARTICLES also exist due to uncertainty which is EVIDENCED in physics.
Think about why you deny witches. Not because you can prove witches cannot possibly exist but because you see nothing to support their existence. Theists claim they know and are in communication with a super man who created the universe by magic. Atheists find God just as likely as any other supernatural entity for which there is no evidence. Atheism is a judgement that follows from the recognition that there is no valid reason or credible evidence for any of the religions.
@AD6043 Many people claim to believe in God because they have an awareness of God working in their lives. So do I--that is why I believe in God. You have the same problem all atheists have, you pretend that you can deny the experience of somebody else, which no human being can do. All any human can do is speak from their own experience--you have no way of knowing if someone else has awareness of God or not. Anybody can have awareness of God if they check out the forgiveness of Jesus.
True, I cannot say for sure that your experience of God is psychotic and I don't. I say you cannot expect your experience to have any effect on how others make up their mind. Especially when your experience tells others what they should do with their life. You of course may organize your own life around them.
Atheism does not replace religion with another world view. It says religion is no more credible than any other supernatural stuff with no evidence to back it up
@AD6043 That's right, you can't speak for anyone else's experience. Thus, when atheists pretend people are foolish or childish for claiming awareness of God, they have no way of knowing this and thus, they are obviously lying. Just as atheists have no way of remotely knowing there is no Creator and thus, they are obviously just lying. To say there is no God or might be no God without a better explanation for what can be observed, is an obvious grade-school lie no rational person would embrace
@AD6043 That's right, you can't speak for anyone else's experience. Thus, when atheists pretend people are foolish or childish for claiming awareness of God, they have no way of knowing this and thus, they are obviously lying. Just as atheists have no way of remotely knowing there is no Creator and thus, they are obviously just lying. To say there is no God or might be no God without a better explanation for what can be observed, is an obvious grade-school lie no rational person would embrace
@AD6043 That's right, you can't speak for anyone else's experience. Thus, when atheists pretend people are foolish or childish for claiming awareness of God, they have no way of knowing this and thus, they are obviously lying. Just as atheists have no way of remotely knowing there is no Creator and thus, they are obviously just lying. To say there is no God or might be no God without a better explanation for what can be observed, is an obvious grade-school lie no rational person would embrace
@AD6043 If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all of the time and, see how well you do. If you don't believe in God, try coming up with a better explanation for the existence of yourself and the universe, than Jesus already taught us for free; “before Abraham was, I AM”. Now that you have demonstrated to yourself atheism and agnosticism are dishonest, you can freely admit you are a sinner who needs God's help, just like the rest of us.
@richardaberdeen dude, I'm a Christian, but you need to be careful. The things you have said are the reason why atheists think Christians are so ignorant. You can't ram Jesus down atheists throats. If you are trying to persuade people to believe that God exists, I would recommend you do some research in cosmological, ontological, moral and teleological philosophy so that you can have a more secular discussion with these people. You should also look into some physics.
@steffencollen I'm not addressing atheists. When atheists promote lies, I point out how obvious they are for people who are not well educated who aren't atheists. Atheism is obviously a lie and is easily debunked as a lie. At the bottom line, atheism embraces magic and gross superstition--athesits have no explanation for how the universe exists, they just pretend nobody created it, similar to pretending the moon is larger and warmer than the sun or pretending the sun will rise in in the west.
@AD6043 If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all of the time and, see how well you do. If you don't believe in God, try coming up with a better explanation for the existence of yourself and the universe, than Jesus already taught us for free; “before Abraham was, I AM”. Now that you have demonstrated to yourself atheism and agnosticism are dishonest, you can freely admit you are a sinner who needs God's help, just like the rest of us.
@AD6043 If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all of the time and, see how well you do. If you don't believe in God, try coming up with a better explanation for the existence of yourself and the universe, than Jesus already taught us for free; “before Abraham was, I AM”. Now that you have demonstrated to yourself atheism and agnosticism are dishonest, you can freely admit you are a sinner who needs God's help, just like the rest of us.
@AD6043 If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all of the time and, see how well you do. If you don't believe in God, try coming up with a better explanation for the existence of yourself and the universe, than Jesus already taught us for free; “before Abraham was, I AM”. Now that you have demonstrated to yourself atheism and agnosticism are dishonest, you can freely admit you are a sinner who needs God's help, just like the rest of us.
@AD6043 Atheism doesn't DIRECTLY replace religion with another world view, but it seems like it indirectly does. All of the atheists I have ever known have replaced religion with either 1) drugs 2) arbitrary moral values 3) faith in scientific discoveries 4) a hatred of religion.
@steffencollen All those sound better than 1) stimulating the brain with make believe to produce irrational religious behavior 2) arbitrary and/or evolved moral values TOUTED as absolute moral values 3) faith in INTANGIBLES while accusing the opposition of strawman faith which is really valid reasoning applied to the real world 4) cognitive dissonance at the fact that there are people who didn't fall for the empty rhetoric of their mental controllers, i.e. priests, and their mass mindfuck.
@richardaberdeen People can imagine things like gods. The brain has direct chemical responses (EMOTIONS and THOUGHTS) to external AND internal stimuli all the time; we call those behaviors perception and cognition. Claiming that your IMAGININGS are real is MEANINGLESS without evidence. Nonsense. Just a claim! Evidence or we can call it your IMAGINARY FRIEND.
So it's "Dr." (quotes added) Craig because a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Birmingham (which boasts eight Nobel Prize Laureates) and another post-graduate degree (ThD) from the University of Munich (thirty-four Nobel Laureates) doesn't really "count" as being a Dr...And where is Dr. (no quotes needed) Craig's rebuttal?
Craig didn't make a rebuttal... he merely followed the same script he'd been using for the last 20-30 years. As far as I can tell, he doesn't even addresses the arguments of his opponents anymore.
In these debates, Craig stops being a Dr. and instead promotes a completely faith-based argument.
Notice how BattleshipAgincourt, (affectionately referred to as 'Blabbs') conveniently Failed! to acknowledge your initial premise of the ("quotes added") ploy to deceitfully discredit/misrepresent Dr. Craig's credentials.
Blabbs’s claim of Craig not having a rebuttal is a lie and his, ("as far as I can tell") is an intentional ignoramus assertion, thus lie as well.
Craig exposed Harris for his red herring diversions, failed exegesis, failure to address the issues,...
@LizardLeaps Mr. Craig started with baseless assumptions, ignored bald exposures of this, and attempted countless fallacies of his own, mostly just embellishing his language to make his and YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND sound as awesome as possible, declare that it exists by default, and then demand proof that it DOESN'T EXIST.
What pathetic fucking excuses for discourse. Give up the CON GAME; churches are going out of BUSINESS. We don't believe in your SUPERSTITIOUS BULLSHIT and we're here to stay.
Mr. Craig started with baseless assumptions, ignored bald exposures of this,...and more baseless blabber. Why sure he did Booty Bleats, and just because you say so, with a deficit of logically sound reasoning that would make a dolt look like Einstein on steroids. :)
@LizardLeaps Oops. More completely empty statements where reasonable people would put an argument or an admission. Those hardly even pass for insults coming from someone who wants me to PROVE an IMAGINARY FRIEND shared by a bunch of common idiot SHEEPLE is IMAGINARY.
PROVE there aren't INFINITE GODS or NO GODS or 92 GODS or that the UNIVERSE itself isn't "GOD" with US as the only MINDS around. Those are just IDEAS like your BAD LOGIC is just a POPULAR MYTH you FUCKTARDED MINDFUCKED FUCKTARD.
"What pathetic fucking excuses for discourse. Give up the CON GAME; churches are going out of BUSINESS. We..."blabber.. and we're here to stay"
Did you get this verifiable information from Maniacal Atheist Monthly, or are you just blowing it out your paranoid caboose again. 'Lol!
Splendid!, stay for as long as you like. We just keep you around for entertainment purposes only, and it's far cheaper to let you free range around than to confine you to rubber romper rooms. 'Lol!
...emotional pleading in scathing, biased, opinionated, sardonic ranting and below the belt insults of believers as being "psychopathic", etc.
If you go to : The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig- NDdotEdu at 1:12:25, you'll see for yourself how Dr. Craig's "rebuttal" exposed and eviscerated Harris's Logically fallacious reasoning in argumentation quite masterfully.
Your point is moot. It not Craig's responsibility to offer anything of "substance", as that's the obligation of those who believe that no God exists, and that the reality of existence is the result of self-propagated, non-purposed, wishful naturalistic processes to the preclusion of God, and to render theirs as anything more than a fantasy blind FAITH.
As to proof, Craig's arguments are logically iron clad and to those operating in logical soundness would recognize Craig's proofs.
@LizardLeaps i think you'll find obligation of proof is with you the theist as you claim to know the when and how the world and man was made .and as for wishful thinking and blind faith thats all on you as well
"i think you'll find obligation of proof is... theist as you claim to know the when and how the world and man was made"
No, this is just what deceptive, illogical, ad nauseam, canned atheistic propaganda brainwashing rhetoric has snookered you into believing is the case.
I have demonstrated by the actual unambiguous very definition of what faith is, it's a logical contradiction to demand proof of that which is not contingent on proof, thus exempt from requirement of proof. :)
@LizardLeaps How the fuck is that a rebuttal? When you've broadened your definition of your god to include everything you can to validate it, the only thing necessary to rebut THAT is to point that fact out. Cry about my language and expect more of it.
You and your pseudo-logical apologist hero make claims to a priori knowledge that cannot be known by an organism more likely to FANTASIZE such monstrosities, typically as justification for INNER ANIMAL DRIVES to succeed, reproduce, etc.
"How the fuck is that a rebuttal? When you've broadened your definition of your god to include everything you can to validate it,..."and further nonsensical blabber.
What are you even babbling about now and again, illogical blabbering Bumble Bottoms?
It's the exposure of stupendous logically fallacious reasoning in argumentation, thus REFUTATION in FACT.
...of god", but the diametric opposite in categorical preclusion of what by theological definition and irrelevancy to scientific testable prerequisites mandate.
This atheism thingy has rendered you a logically bankrupt, bombastic blabbering buffoon of epic proportions and far too delusional to even realize it.
"More fallacies. Where is the evidence required for you to reject the null hypothesis of your claim?"
The reality check is in the mail Strawmanic...and when you receive it, it's going to say something exactly like this: From the instances that you fabricated in your meadow muffin making mind, and then sent your male bovine fecal matter to me, you had miserably Failed!.
Now read my fingertips Strawmaniac, Maker Of Momentous Steaming Prairie Pies.
"Hypotheses"... are non-sequitur to theology, as is theistic faith requiring proof a non-sequitur, and theistic beliefs by faith are not claims in and of themselves, but are statements of belief in God/s by faith.
...Consequently, yours is the ignoramus blabber of logical fallacies having been committed by me, and in doing so, you're guilty of committing the fallacy of fallacies, and a strawman fallacy, via non-sequitur fallacies and these in actuality, have all been committed by you, thus Fail!+++ :)
@LizardLeaps Where is the evidence of your original claim, that this god thing is somehow extant simply because you declare it is? I need EVIDENCE or you are FULL OF SHIT you idiot. We are all laughing at you. Every comment of yours is spam.
@sillygames "You and your pseudo-logical apologist hero make claims to a priori knowledge that cannot be known by an organism more likely to FANTASIZE such monstrosities,... INNER ANIMAL DRIVES to succeed, reproduce, etc"
Hey, It's not our fault that we are wiser than you, and know when certain thoughts and knowledge could not be our own.
It's just unfortunate for you that you're not us, and I don't know if you were born unto perdition or not, so I leave that knowledge and Judgment to God. :)
"So no evidence?Your claim is bullshit, then, along with all the associated claims, such as your claim to wisdom.Provide EVIDENCE for your CLAIMS or FAIL"
Wrongio Flatulento Orificeus, you're the one who's making the "claims" that you've Failed! to support.
Observe:
Your claims of theistic beliefs requiring "proof" is non-sequitur and proven false, thus Fail!
Your "null hypothesis" blabber is non-sequitur to theism and is proven false, thus Fail!
Your...failure to provide evidence to support your wishful presupposition notion of existence having propagated itself, by itself, for nothing to the preclusion of your "IMAGINARY FRIENDS" (God/s) "claim", is conclusive evidence that you're steeped in a blind, fatally flawed, foolish fantasy FAITH and in delusional denial of the fact.
These are demonstrative of you being a momentous ignoramus, logically/factually fallacy bleating blabbermouth,...
...and your "claim" of being an intellectual "BAD ASS" has only proven you to be a blabbering bombastic buffoon, expelling really BAD GAS. 'Lol!
And my wisdom and knowledge is proven for my ability to recognize logically fallacious reasoning/argumentation, and for knowing a fool when I see one, and for having exposed you as such. :)
Now please hold your applause and just throw money. 'Lol!
"Null hypothesis has not been rejected. Evidence not provided. Claim invalid"
This is just your delusions of grandeur and premature fecal elimination rearing their not so calmly, but highly odoriferous heads again, Bellowing Bassoon Bottom.
You had FAILED! right from the gate since that which is not testable in "HYPOTHESIS" or falsifiable, as is anything postulated in essence of the Supernatural is NON-SEQUITUR.
You've come to the formal dress affair BARE BUTT NAKED, thus Fail! :)
@LizardLeaps Do you realize that in writing that comment, you literally declared,
"I have no idea what I'm talking about but I must push my imaginary friend on people so I will take his words and try to use them against him, even if I do not realize what they mean or that there is no way around them except to provide EVIDENCE"
?
YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER LOOK UP "NULL HYPOTHESIS" OR CONTINUE TO BE RIDICULED AS AN UNEDUCATED RELIGIOUS LIAR
"We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy."
William Lane Craig should show his incomparable joy of death by ending his life as an example for all Christians to emulate. Farewell Craig! Enjoy your blissful reward.
Christians can be universalists or inclusivists about hell
Christians needn't believe in biblical inherency, so commands in the bible needn't be divine commands
Christians can believe God is good because goodness is a greatness making property and God is the greatest conceivable being, rather than because of good experiences they attribute to God
It's plausible that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing the suffering in the world since God is good.
Sure it's FAITH. What's reasonable about believing that everything non-purposefully propagated itself, by itself for nothing?
Tough pterodactyls to you tootsie, but what makes you think you're so special that you get to have what nobody can have, which is any more than the evidence of everything in existence as the evidence of the most premier ongoing miraculous Supernatural occurrence in and of itself?
"How is it axiomatic that the universe is SUPERNATURAL just because it exists? That just makes it NATURAL!"
Oh! sorry BOLD FACED barking bottom, but you have affirmed the consequent and your reasoning is circular, as you are clueless as a cabbage ( no offense to cabbages) because you don't know that the physical universe is the cause of the physical universe, thus momentous FAIL! on your logically fallacious BOLD FACE BARKING BOTTOM, and Next! :)
Moreover, Crap Yap, belief that the physical laws of the universe propagated themselves by themselves to subjugate matter-energy is not axiomatic, but counter intuitive and utter foolishness, as nothing has ever been observe to propagate itself, by itself, thus BUFFOONISH "BITCHSLAP #4"- 4 = 0 and your ABACUS IS CONSPICUOUSLY ON THE BLINK AND FAIL! :)
@LizardLeaps In case you didn't notice, religions were spread around the world largely through conquest, and used as justifications for this. Everyone with half my brain capacity, which seems to be a considerably greater amount than you have demonstrated, knows that POPULAR MYTHS are commonly believed by the LOCALS. Now take the Roman Empire, Muhammad, the Spanish Inquisition, and an assload of missionaries over the centuries and you have a GLOBAL MINDFUCK with NO EVIDENCE.
@TomFynn Don't worry. See, in this reality, there is something practical in not basing your life on a belief that is contingent with derp. In the same reason it's quite damaging that our justice system applies the same notions of retributions into it's courts through blind acceptance of "free-will". One could take a pragmatic position, but that'd be too much for a Lizard which Leaps. It's odd how a can of soda seems to be of much higher use. Metaphorically, and realistically.
@LizardLeaps God's powers are at work, because apparently AncestorOfExstictDino is not synonymous with LizardLeaps, which I could have sworn was a reference to the harrowing story of evolutionary proportions.
"God's powers are at work, because apparently AncestorOfExstictDino is not synonymous with LizardLeaps, which I could have sworn was a reference to the harrowing story of evolutionary proportions"
This must be the carbonation going to your head and the sugar from the soda causing you to bounce off the walls again, or Charles Manson has somehow gotten access to a computer at Corcoran state prison. 'Lol!
@LizardLeaps ROFLLMAO! DID YHUU C WUT I DUN?! Yes, It was quite spectacle. Over the course of the harsh beating I took from obfuscated conversation and misinterpretation, I realized: "Worms hate onion, garlic, pumpkin seed & cranberry. They will also not inhabit a clean, strong colon as there is no soft and tasty mucus to make them feel at home." - This is of great importance, and I don't think you are taking the situation as seriously as one might find moral permissible.
"ROFLLMAO! DID YHUU C WUT I DUN?! Yes, It was quite spectacle. Over the course of the harsh beating I took from obfuscated..."and more unintelligible blabber.
Errrr...WHAT!?!? Please hold on.
I'm going to check the IP address from whence this incomprehensible blabber is originating.
If my suspensions are correct, I will notify the warden at Corcoran state prison that Charlie Manson has somehow accessed a computer and is blabbering full blown barmy bonkers from his 8 x10. 'Lol!
TomFynn never stated any of his views on anything, and from analysis of the other comments you've sent, it seems that my accusations in ending the conversation were sought correctly.
This naturalistic process, whatever you so are referring to, would be the subject of science. Contrary to your thoughts, one can practice the epistemology that leads scientific thought without actually presuming that any theory is true, more so than the best explanation pragmatically.
What are you even blabbering about now and again Carbonation Clown?
Tom foolery clearly stated that faith is delusion. He claims in absolute factual terms that "faith is delusion"
Therefore, If all faiths are false and no God/s exists, then the origination of the cosmos and viable life must have been the result of naturalistic process/es
He has no alternative but to believe that everything propagated itself, by itself, for nothing.
This naturalistic process,... "and more irrelevant blabber.
Nonsense Carbonation Clown. When one claims that "faith is delusion", any reasonable, rational person could only deduce from this statement that the one making the claim believes that all faiths in God/s as false and delusional.
I could give a fist full of flying pterodactyls what one doesn't have to presume, when one makes such assertions in absolve factual terms, it proves what they actually do believe, thus Fail! :)
This is the original post I replied to, and after demonstrating why the false parroted ad nauseum, atheistic propaganda rhetorical claim of religions as having any such burden of proof is false.
"It is up to you to prove your extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. I'm still waiting on that"--BattleshipAgincourt AKA: Blabbs
Nonsense, you're just parroting Lapface's misnomer, as there is nothing "extraordinary" or a "claim" in and of itself requiring "evidence..."
@LizardLeaps Indeed. Although, that is not the original post I, myself, replied to, and the defense of the youtuber was stated with certain respects, Sir. Not all the arguments he gave, for surely the one's against the other fellow youtuber were not well developed.
Look...you replied to my post and proposition directed to and specifically to BattleshipAgincourt AKA: Blabbs
I'm not even going to bother reading or responding to your replies anymore, because they are utterly irrelevant to my actual proposition and argument.
Go back and read these replies of mine (synopsis forthcoming) to BattleshipAgincourt AKA:Blabbs, and when/if you get a clue and you're up to it, then get back to me. Thanks! :)
@LizardLeaps I replied to a particular proposition. Do not tell me what I did, or did not, reply to in my initial response when I stated directly what I did.
@LizardLeaps Obviously your ego's up your ass to try.. Get that, the keyword is "TRY" to sound a bit more intellectual by trying to push other people's words down and use sarcastic remarks. You're not a debater, you're a troll. :)
"Obviously your ego's up your ass to try..."and further blabber.
Then unless you have X ray vision and can "obviously" see up my "ass" (which I highly doubt), what is your head doing peering up my "ass"?
Kindly and wisely remove your head which is "obviously" peering up my "ass" as quickly as you possibly can, or I disavow all responsibility/liability for what you're going to have "obviously" as highly odoriferous all over your "obviously trollish" face. 'Lol!
@LizardLeaps You just repeated words.. Nice try though :) I can see up your ass. I would suggest using Colon cleanse. You need it with all your un-backed up shit all over the place.
"You just repeated words.. Nice try though :) I can see up your ass. I would suggest using Colon cleanse. You need it with all your un-backed up shit all over the place"
Ut oh, BrownFacedFox! you Failed! to heed my warning, but instead insisted on precariously peering up my "ass"
I had taken the "Colon cleanse" which was what I was trying to warn you about.
Now, because you Insisted on playing amateur proctologist, you look like a meadow muffin with teeth and eyes. 'Lol!
@LizardLeaps Why did you say brown? You know it's green. I suggest getting your eyes checked.. I guess while you're at that get some colon cleanse. You know, it's funny :) I'm a round-worm. I am here to write a formal complaint. If I grow sow seeds on my face then I guess you'd have some growing in your intestines.. Not very healthy. I don't have any friends and I never go outdoors. I have such a great life living with you in your mother's basement :) Never wanna go away from yhuu
@LizardLeaps I am in this for the long run I can't wait to keep eating your mucus. :) You know I am never going to leave. :) Plus, ten years ago after you had sex with that nasty sweaty man that worked at McDonalds doesn't count ;)
@LizardLeaps There is nothing to state that faith is something devoid of criticism regardless of the very notions that separate it from evidence. Atheism, in my general case, is the neutral position one would take towards any potential belief in any existence. It's also a more pragmatic view considering I haven't had "faith", thus my position itself is intelligent given that. Though highly bias, I've also never seen faith not associated with preference, in the same way a normative may act.
"I just stated the first statement I made to you, and which was the very basis of our argument"
You have no "very basis" to claim that this is "our argument" because you have bumbled in and are oblivious to what the actual argument which I have presented to Blabbs is.
@LizardLeaps I'm done. This is not a debate. I've been attacked since response one on things I've never stated, claims made of me through misrepresentation of my quotes, and to be honest - The attitude one can sense in your text is quite irritating. Like, really? "Now Go?! or just Go! :)" - Really? Honestly? Is this how somebody whom truly is desiring to argue about particular cases would want to act? Would this be acceptable in the above debate video? It wasn't at my school.
@LizardLeaps "There seems to be a supposition I am not seeing. Apologies if that's the case. "...intrinsic human proclivity of belief by faith in God/s, theism, religiosity, etc..." - What point are you attempting to state about this, and how is it intrinsic? Human proclivity can be readily described, but not the intrinsic nature you so speak of. In fact, even if all members of a group exhibited a said quality, it doesn't necessarily make it intrinsic. That statement quite bothers me."
@LizardLeaps Once again, I said I am not diverting. I shall repeat this, as I even stated going "off-topic" to address these issues which I feel inhibit our ability to communicate will not effect the main point. I have directly stated this. You also did not use "..." and misrepresented the context of the sentence. I do no appreciate that. These are not becoming relevant issues.
@LizardLeaps I can see speaking with you will be difficult. Humans are the only species that demonstrate that, though the defining characteristic of the species is not that. Human demonstrating it does not make it intrinsic, which I believe was my question. You would, in this case, be playing word-games. Also, I never wished to claim what you had said.
The last sentence seemed to fail in understanding figurative speech, which was used in that context of "extraordinary". I do dislike word games
"Humans are the only species that demonstrate that, though the defining characteristic of the species is not that"
Your point is moot since my premise is irrelevant to your strawman insinuation of religiosity, theism, etc. as being the "defining" intrinsic attribute to humans.
It's just the one intrinsic attribute that is pertinent to the false allegation of "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" which my preceding post elaborates upon and refutes. Try to focus :)
"Human demonstrating it does not make it intrinsic, which I believe was my question"
What does it make it then? do you believe that you have a better word to define the demonstrable proclivity of religiosity, theism, etc. as evidenced from our earliest recorded history and overwhelmingly until this day? Innate, peculiar, natural etc.?
Take your pick and then go back to the actual issue as my proposition postulates, if you believe that you have a valid rebuttal to it.
@LizardLeaps State the actual issue for me please, because the side-points you have thrown have had as much of an effect on putting aside the issues as my complaints with your behavior, which I stated directly had nothing to do with the main point. I also said that none of which would be used against you, as I have no reason to. So, please, try and understand that.
@LizardLeaps As stated, you miss the point of "intrinsic" and what it means, especially by the definition you cited. You seem to pinpoint questions in my sentences, reply to them ignoring all the others, then state that I am the one diverging from the main topic. I have not refuted that humans demonstrated it. But even 100% of any set demonstrating does not logically follow that it is intrinsic within the set.
As to this opinionated hypocrisy of your, why don't you take on my actual proposition if you can, instead of being "difficult", and diverting, via irrelevancies in word play nonsense which have no bearing on the actual issue?
If you're looking to argue for the sake of argument itself, and aren't interested or capable of dealing with the issues directly...by operating in logically sound argumentation, then please don't waste my time.
@LizardLeaps There seems to be a supposition I am not seeing. Apologies if that's the case. "...intrinsic human proclivity of belief by faith in God/s, theism, religiosity, etc..." - What point are you attempting to state about this, and how is it intrinsic? Human proclivity can be readily described, but not the intrinsic nature you so speak of. In fact, even if all members of a group exhibited a said quality, it doesn't necessarily make it intrinsic. That statement quite bothers me.
Don't let it bother you unless you want to contradict and self-refute your entire position being the of lack of belief in God/s.
Intrinsic in my sense of use, means belonging naturally to something. eg.(peculiar to human nature)
If religiosity, theism etc. weren't a natural proclivity, then by process of elimination in logical deduction and by what is useful/practical in normal discourse, (true dichotomy) it would therefore be Supernatural. :)
I feel misrepresented under the strawman argument, actually. Firstly, "Humans are the only species that demonstrate that, though the defining characteristic of the species is not that" was more to reference "then at best you're arguing against yourself" after "If you wish to claim that it's unknown as to whether or not other species are religions, theistic, etc.", which made me question the connectivity of the two. Just in case, the following sentence was made. I then asked, just in case.
@LizardLeaps Secondly, "It's axiomatic in that humans are the only species that demonstrate the proclivity of religiosity, theism, etc." does not mean it's intrinsic, which you said means "means belonging naturally to something. eg.(peculiar to human nature)". In fact, it is stated that even if 100% of a group exhibited a quality, that doesn't mean it's intrinsic to the group.
@LizardLeaps Now, you say Intrinsic means "belonging naturally to something", which you designated that something as "human" - correct? In that case, through natural belonging to "something", which you are designating as a group, which we have defined, then simply an individual at the time not exhibiting that behavior would show it isn't natural to humans, more-so than some humans find it natural.
@LizardLeaps "If religiosity, theism etc. weren't a natural proclivity, then by process of elimination in logical deduction and by what is useful/practical in normal discourse, (true dichotomy) it would therefore be Supernatural. :)" - This confuses me greatly. I am presuming, like we've talked about, "natural proclivity" is referring to humans. Like you stated. In that case, it doesn't necessarily mean supernatural.
@LizardLeaps It's not supernatural because the "weren't" can refer towards two things: That not all members(humans) exhibit this tendency, yet some due such that I could create a subgroup of individuals, which this natural proclivity is not natural to humans, but of the defined subgroup or that all humans do not exhibit natural proclivity, and you instead interpret that something else. Unless I am misinterpreting your sentence. If so, my apologies. It didn't make sense. Too much fluff.
@LizardLeaps "Don't let it bother you unless you want to contradict and self-refute your entire position being the of lack of belief in God/s." - What did this exactly have to do with anything, and how could that statement of mine contradict my lack of belief in God/s? Tell me. I'd be glad to hear.
@LizardLeaps That superstition is a common error of organisms new to using their imaginations is not evidence of a god concept. Hello; I'm a badass. I'll be interjecting my own observations wherever the fuck I will. Don't bother playing rational/irrational with me unless you can SUPPORT that your ASSUMPTIONS are AXIOMATIC with more than CLAIMS and give me more than syntax with apologist gibberish word salad, you mindfucked fucktard.
"That superstition is a common error of organisms new to using their imaginations is not evidence of a god concept"
You have just begged the question and have failed to provide evidence in support of your biased, opinionated, blabbering in factual terms as being anything more than your logically defective propensity on conspicuous parade, thus instant Fail!
The CIA FactBook of World Demographics has atheism tabulated as an anomalous, tenuous, est. 2.03% worldwide, and even in this day and age when atheism has had it's strongest insurgence in all of recorded history.
Moreover, many of this relative negligible number claim to have formerly believe in God/s. (before going bonkers like you have) 'Lol!
...as evidenced from earliest recorded history, and overwhelmingly until this very moment as I speak, and as you blabber is demonstrative of it being AXIOMATIC to believe Supernatural higher intelligence as ultimately responsible for the origination and maintenance of the universe.
Now, Nasty Crack, put forth your authoritative, neutral, (non-biased parroting in canned atheistic propaganda speculative wishful FAITH based rhetoric)...
BattleshipAgincount 4 hours ago
@BattleshipAgincount YOUR MIND IS ROTTING...GO DIE.
12Monkeys8u 3 hours ago
@BattleshipAgincount / Lizardleaps
You're seriously a psychopath. If you're so convinced that heaven exists, why don't you kill yourself now and get it over with?
I don't care where you go, just leave this place.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 hours ago
I've been patiently sifting for a voice of sanity and reason post-Hitchens. This man not only seems to fill that need but his rational and polished presentation of solid statement; his clear debate mastery-leaves me with a new Hero.
Poster: TY for uploading this -- and of course thanks to The Doctor. ;-)
To All: You will never out-'crazy' a crazy. Period.. Yes, they're wrong, but don't sweat it: just feel sad for them that they don't have the openness and intellect needed to understand.
-j
jrishaw 14 hours ago
@jrishaw You may be right, but "they" still impose their evil beliefs on others, and permeate every part of our lives with their stupid unintelligent actions (in politics, legislature, in schools/institutions, in communities etc.). Thank reality for people like Sam.
12Monkeys8u 7 hours ago
No comment with 70 thumbs up, on how brillian Sam Harris?! Well, here it is.
Sam Harris is totally brilliant, and is surely one of the most important people alive.
Joeystampe 17 hours ago
'This commendably noble comment you've made should probably be directed to BattleshipAgincount...'
Says the lying cunt who created a new account for the sole purpose of pretending to be someone else and misrepresenting everything he said. I can proudly say that most of your comments are flagged as spam anyway... so don't blame me for your trolling.
You have no idea just how much you're despised by both sides as a result of your dishonorable and dishonest tactics. You are alone in this.
BattleshipAgincourt 21 hours ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@BattleshipAgincourt Oh, just keep trolling him. Have some fun!
Try asking for evidence again; it sends him into a 3-4 comment frenzy.
sillygames 20 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
"@BattleshipAgincourt Oh, just keep trolling him. Have some fun!
Try asking for evidence again; it sends him into a 3-4 comment frenzy.
sillygames 7 hours ago"
Your comment got flagged as spam but deserves so many thumbs up, that I don't believe it can get now, but I tried anyway.
robvlob 12 hours ago
Comment removed
LizardLeaps 7 hours ago
@Blabbs
Says the..."Blabbs
So sorry, this is just your delusional denial and fallacious attribution rearing it's not so calmly head again, Blabbs.
Despite the fact that I never lied about creating a new account, and did created it order to expose you for the liar, hypocrite, sore loser, troll etc. that you are, what if I hadn't created a new account"
Would that justify you flagging all my comments and denying it until you couldn't because I had conclusive evidence proving you a liar? 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 13 hours ago
@Blabbs
"I can proudly say..."I'm a liar
Oops!, you've unwittingly upped and done it again, Blabbs.
Observe: You've proven yourself a liar again for having originally said that you didn't want my comments flagged, because according to your lying blabbermouth, my comments only help your cause, but now you "proudly" proclaim that other coward, hypocritical, trolls, like you are doing it anyway. 'Lol!
Are you even capable of blabbering anything that isn't a decietful, bumbling, provable lie? :)
LizardLeaps 13 hours ago
@Blabbs
You have no idea just how much... "I lie."You are alone in this"
Oh!, so sorry Mr. lonely, but you blabbered this same nonsense in absolute factual terms, even before I had exposed you for your irrefutable lies.
Now you've only proven yourself in delusional defensive denial of your guilt for your indisputable convictions and projecting/deflecting onto me, your irrational fantasies of me being "dishonest-dishonorable", when in reality and fact you actually are.
Your...
Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 12 hours ago
@Blabbs
(Continued....
your...credibility is shot Blabbs, and there's justifiable reason/s to believe that whatever you say would just be more blabbering deceitfulness and lies.
Now please allow me to break this to you as gently as I possibly feel like and was going to anyway.
To put it in layman's terms, you Blabbs, are one very sic Pup.
Hope you seek he, errr...Hope this helps! :)
LizardLeaps 12 hours ago
@Lizard
According to you... and ONLY you.
BattleshipAgincourt 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blabbs
"According to you... and ONLY you"
Oh! so sorry Blabbs, but because your credibility is as dead as the Dodo, (shot) for being a proven liar and hypocrite etc., I'm going to have to demand that you present the evidence which would substantiate this, your further blabber, bleated in positive, absolute, factual terms again as veracious, so Go?! Shot dead as Dodo credibility Crickets................................ :)
LizardLeaps 10 hours ago
@Blabbs
P.S. Was that sufficiently "flattering" to your satisfaction or should I "flatter" you some more? 'Lol!
Face it Blabbulous dearest, you just can't win for losing.
Hope this helps! :)
LizardLeaps 10 hours ago
@Lizard
'Your...credibility is shot Blabbs...'
If my credibility was shot, why then did you create a new user name on my behalf? After thinking about it, I actually have to admit I'm flattered at what you did. It means I have a reputation worth tarnishing... which is much more than I can say for yours.
Given as you've failed to address any of my points, you resorted to the most dishonest tactic here on youtube. You've failed. Get over it.
BattleshipAgincourt 12 hours ago
@Blabbs
"If my credibility was shot, why then did you create a new user name on my behalf? After thinking about it, I actually have to admit I'm flattered at what you did"
Well, since you now claim to be "flattered" by me changing usernames, "flatter" this! 'Lol!
No Blabbs, you conveniently Failed! to get the memo again. Your credibility was irrefutably shot after I created a new user account and baited you into admitting that you're a liar, which proved you a hypocrite as well, thus Fail! :)
BattleshipAgincount 10 hours ago
What happened to my comment? What happened to the reply LizardLeaps made to it?
Whats the point of spending time here if it does not lead to an honest discussion?
Underheaven8 21 hours ago
Comment removed
LizardLeaps 23 hours ago
Comment removed
LizardLeaps 23 hours ago
Comment removed
LizardLeaps 23 hours ago
Sam really nailed it on this one
samuraistrings 1 day ago
Please do not report comments on this video as spam. It's censorship and improper. If you see a comment that's flagged as spam please un-flag it. Censorship has no place here.
Sardonac 1 day ago 6
@Sardonac
This commendably noble comment you've made should probably be directed to BattleshipAgincourt....not that it would necessarily do any good, because he's proven himself many times over to be an obstinate, incorrigible, logically challenged, sore loser, bald faced liar and hypocrite, etc.
He initially denied flagging my comments as spam,...
Continued...
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
@Sardonac
(Cont'd
...but when I presented to him the evidence in his own words, encouraging others to flag my comments, he couldn't deny it.
Then he admitted it and stated; "I flag ALL your comments as spam"
Then he tried to justify his proven lie by interjecting the two wrongs make a right fallacy, claiming that he had lied because I lie.
Sadly, he doesn't distinguish the difference between peoples views and opinions, and arguments which refute his illogical/irrational position, from lying. :)
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps You have a claim of a thing that you have no evidence for, only meaningless empty words.
Evidence. Provide it or FAIL.
sillygames 1 day ago
@LizardLeaps I've been putting up with that guy all week. Your story doesn't surprise me.
steffencollen 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steffencollen
"I've been putting up with that guy all week"
Yes, this one is especially logically corrupt, obstinate, and incorrigible.
I figure, since he wishfully chooses to believe that he'll cease to exist after his physical existence, I'll just help him to enjoy his little life to the fullest...and he does seem to be having a banging good time with me. 'Lol!
P.S. I think you inverted what you meant to say in your subsequent post, but I know exactly what you mean.
Ttylater friend. :)
LizardLeaps 9 hours ago
@Sardonac
I agree that flagging comments is disruptive. However what's even more disruptive is when one or two individuals (or one guy pretending to be two individuals) escalates this to insults and stops debating altogether.
Some people DO genuinely spam these comments, and I don't discourage posts from being flagged for what they are. Reading personal insults amounts to a waste of time. I've since stopped flagging his spam, simply because I want people to see Lizard's lies for what they are.
BattleshipAgincourt 18 hours ago
@BattleshipAgincourt If you see his name then don't read his comments. It's that simple. The flagging feature exists to remove comments that are actual spam, not merely disagreeable sentiments. If you'd like to carry on an extended dialogue with a YouTube user do it through personal messaging.
Sardonac 18 hours ago
@Sardonac
"If you see his name then don't read his comments. It's that simple. The flagging feature exists to remove comments that are actual spam, not merely disagreeable sentiments"
Right, thus Pass! A+ :)
LizardLeaps 10 hours ago
This is getting quite tiresome.
The burden of proof IS on Craig here. He's the one making the positive statement. He's the one saying the universe was created from nothing by magic. That IS a faith-based claim, and it's what creationists have to believe.
Atheists don't claim the universe was self-propogated! Most atheists don't make the positive statement that a god doesn't exist! These may be faith-based claims, but they're NOT what atheists believe. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
BattleshipAgincourt 1 day ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Atheists DO say that nothing came from something. If an atheist is really a champion of science, then they would understand the first 3 laws of thermodynamics, the theory behind the big bang, the implications of the primordial vacuum and the idea of a "beginning in time." If an atheist understands all of these things but still denies an original creator, then they are only trying to AVOID God, not disprove him.
steffencollen 10 hours ago
@steffencollen
'Atheists DO say that nothing came from something.'
No, they do not! This is the part where you deliberately misrepresent what your opponents believe for the sole purpose of shooting it down... it's called a straw man argument.
Being an atheist isn't contingent on believing in evolution or the big bang. The ONLY thing it's contingent on is not believing in a god. That's all it is!
Theist have failed to meet their burden of proof, therefore I don't believe in anyone's god.
BattleshipAgincourt 2 hours ago
@steffencollen
'If an atheist is really a champion of science...'
And what answers can you possibly provided that are any better than simply making one up without ANY evidence to speak of? To all those questions you presented, I will simply shrug my shoulders and say I don't know.
'...If an atheist understands all of these things but still denies an original creator...'
I'm still waiting on you just to prove your god actually exists. You're making an argument from ignorance.
BattleshipAgincourt 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the story of a tiny little leech living inside the intestines of an atheist, who stood up on his tiny little soap box and announced to all the other leeches, that there is no such thing as a human being. And furthermore, it is not up to this tiny little leech to prove his blind faith assumed position, it is up to the other leeches claiming there is a human to prove there is one or else, there is no human being. ATHEISM=OBVIOUS LIE; no human could possibly remotely know there is no God
richardaberdeen 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardaberdeen We know enough to know that your god is just another baseless claim.
Evidence or STFU.
sillygames 1 day ago
@sillygames 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the big bang, the anthropic principle, and some simple ontology. That right there is enough evidence for a 5000 page essay that would conclude that religion is 1) reasonable and 2) more plausible than its denial.
steffencollen 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steffencollen Theology is always trying to steal scientific principles for unrelated claims.
I have a list of things it would be wise to learn about before engaging in such a fruitless venture as trying to concoct an undeniable deity from the bastardization of science.
Those laws apply to closed systems not receiving matter/energy from distant stars at random.
QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS aka VIRTUAL PARTICLES also exist due to uncertainty which is EVIDENCED in physics.
See also "Casimir effect"
sillygames 9 hours ago
@richardaberdeen
Think about why you deny witches. Not because you can prove witches cannot possibly exist but because you see nothing to support their existence. Theists claim they know and are in communication with a super man who created the universe by magic. Atheists find God just as likely as any other supernatural entity for which there is no evidence. Atheism is a judgement that follows from the recognition that there is no valid reason or credible evidence for any of the religions.
AD6043 1 day ago 4
@AD6043 Many people claim to believe in God because they have an awareness of God working in their lives. So do I--that is why I believe in God. You have the same problem all atheists have, you pretend that you can deny the experience of somebody else, which no human being can do. All any human can do is speak from their own experience--you have no way of knowing if someone else has awareness of God or not. Anybody can have awareness of God if they check out the forgiveness of Jesus.
richardaberdeen 1 day ago
@richardaberdeen
True, I cannot say for sure that your experience of God is psychotic and I don't. I say you cannot expect your experience to have any effect on how others make up their mind. Especially when your experience tells others what they should do with their life. You of course may organize your own life around them.
Atheism does not replace religion with another world view. It says religion is no more credible than any other supernatural stuff with no evidence to back it up
AD6043 1 day ago
@AD6043 That's right, you can't speak for anyone else's experience. Thus, when atheists pretend people are foolish or childish for claiming awareness of God, they have no way of knowing this and thus, they are obviously lying. Just as atheists have no way of remotely knowing there is no Creator and thus, they are obviously just lying. To say there is no God or might be no God without a better explanation for what can be observed, is an obvious grade-school lie no rational person would embrace
richardaberdeen 22 hours ago
@AD6043 That's right, you can't speak for anyone else's experience. Thus, when atheists pretend people are foolish or childish for claiming awareness of God, they have no way of knowing this and thus, they are obviously lying. Just as atheists have no way of remotely knowing there is no Creator and thus, they are obviously just lying. To say there is no God or might be no God without a better explanation for what can be observed, is an obvious grade-school lie no rational person would embrace
richardaberdeen 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AD6043 That's right, you can't speak for anyone else's experience. Thus, when atheists pretend people are foolish or childish for claiming awareness of God, they have no way of knowing this and thus, they are obviously lying. Just as atheists have no way of remotely knowing there is no Creator and thus, they are obviously just lying. To say there is no God or might be no God without a better explanation for what can be observed, is an obvious grade-school lie no rational person would embrace
richardaberdeen 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AD6043 If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all of the time and, see how well you do. If you don't believe in God, try coming up with a better explanation for the existence of yourself and the universe, than Jesus already taught us for free; “before Abraham was, I AM”. Now that you have demonstrated to yourself atheism and agnosticism are dishonest, you can freely admit you are a sinner who needs God's help, just like the rest of us.
richardaberdeen 22 hours ago
@richardaberdeen dude, I'm a Christian, but you need to be careful. The things you have said are the reason why atheists think Christians are so ignorant. You can't ram Jesus down atheists throats. If you are trying to persuade people to believe that God exists, I would recommend you do some research in cosmological, ontological, moral and teleological philosophy so that you can have a more secular discussion with these people. You should also look into some physics.
steffencollen 9 hours ago
@steffencollen I'm not addressing atheists. When atheists promote lies, I point out how obvious they are for people who are not well educated who aren't atheists. Atheism is obviously a lie and is easily debunked as a lie. At the bottom line, atheism embraces magic and gross superstition--athesits have no explanation for how the universe exists, they just pretend nobody created it, similar to pretending the moon is larger and warmer than the sun or pretending the sun will rise in in the west.
richardaberdeen 9 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AD6043 If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all of the time and, see how well you do. If you don't believe in God, try coming up with a better explanation for the existence of yourself and the universe, than Jesus already taught us for free; “before Abraham was, I AM”. Now that you have demonstrated to yourself atheism and agnosticism are dishonest, you can freely admit you are a sinner who needs God's help, just like the rest of us.
richardaberdeen 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AD6043 If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all of the time and, see how well you do. If you don't believe in God, try coming up with a better explanation for the existence of yourself and the universe, than Jesus already taught us for free; “before Abraham was, I AM”. Now that you have demonstrated to yourself atheism and agnosticism are dishonest, you can freely admit you are a sinner who needs God's help, just like the rest of us.
richardaberdeen 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AD6043 If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all of the time and, see how well you do. If you don't believe in God, try coming up with a better explanation for the existence of yourself and the universe, than Jesus already taught us for free; “before Abraham was, I AM”. Now that you have demonstrated to yourself atheism and agnosticism are dishonest, you can freely admit you are a sinner who needs God's help, just like the rest of us.
richardaberdeen 22 hours ago
@AD6043 Atheism doesn't DIRECTLY replace religion with another world view, but it seems like it indirectly does. All of the atheists I have ever known have replaced religion with either 1) drugs 2) arbitrary moral values 3) faith in scientific discoveries 4) a hatred of religion.
steffencollen 10 hours ago
Comment removed
sillygames 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steffencollen All those sound better than 1) stimulating the brain with make believe to produce irrational religious behavior 2) arbitrary and/or evolved moral values TOUTED as absolute moral values 3) faith in INTANGIBLES while accusing the opposition of strawman faith which is really valid reasoning applied to the real world 4) cognitive dissonance at the fact that there are people who didn't fall for the empty rhetoric of their mental controllers, i.e. priests, and their mass mindfuck.
sillygames 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardaberdeen People can imagine things like gods. The brain has direct chemical responses (EMOTIONS and THOUGHTS) to external AND internal stimuli all the time; we call those behaviors perception and cognition. Claiming that your IMAGININGS are real is MEANINGLESS without evidence. Nonsense. Just a claim! Evidence or we can call it your IMAGINARY FRIEND.
sillygames 1 day ago
So it's "Dr." (quotes added) Craig because a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Birmingham (which boasts eight Nobel Prize Laureates) and another post-graduate degree (ThD) from the University of Munich (thirty-four Nobel Laureates) doesn't really "count" as being a Dr...And where is Dr. (no quotes needed) Craig's rebuttal?
IoannisThree16 2 days ago
@IoannisThree16
Craig didn't make a rebuttal... he merely followed the same script he'd been using for the last 20-30 years. As far as I can tell, he doesn't even addresses the arguments of his opponents anymore.
In these debates, Craig stops being a Dr. and instead promotes a completely faith-based argument.
BattleshipAgincourt 2 days ago
@IoannisThree16
Notice how BattleshipAgincourt, (affectionately referred to as 'Blabbs') conveniently Failed! to acknowledge your initial premise of the ("quotes added") ploy to deceitfully discredit/misrepresent Dr. Craig's credentials.
Blabbs’s claim of Craig not having a rebuttal is a lie and his, ("as far as I can tell") is an intentional ignoramus assertion, thus lie as well.
Craig exposed Harris for his red herring diversions, failed exegesis, failure to address the issues,...
Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps Mr. Craig started with baseless assumptions, ignored bald exposures of this, and attempted countless fallacies of his own, mostly just embellishing his language to make his and YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND sound as awesome as possible, declare that it exists by default, and then demand proof that it DOESN'T EXIST.
What pathetic fucking excuses for discourse. Give up the CON GAME; churches are going out of BUSINESS. We don't believe in your SUPERSTITIOUS BULLSHIT and we're here to stay.
sillygames 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
Mr. Craig started with baseless assumptions, ignored bald exposures of this,...and more baseless blabber. Why sure he did Booty Bleats, and just because you say so, with a deficit of logically sound reasoning that would make a dolt look like Einstein on steroids. :)
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps Oops. More completely empty statements where reasonable people would put an argument or an admission. Those hardly even pass for insults coming from someone who wants me to PROVE an IMAGINARY FRIEND shared by a bunch of common idiot SHEEPLE is IMAGINARY.
PROVE there aren't INFINITE GODS or NO GODS or 92 GODS or that the UNIVERSE itself isn't "GOD" with US as the only MINDS around. Those are just IDEAS like your BAD LOGIC is just a POPULAR MYTH you FUCKTARDED MINDFUCKED FUCKTARD.
sillygames 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
"What pathetic fucking excuses for discourse. Give up the CON GAME; churches are going out of BUSINESS. We..."blabber.. and we're here to stay"
Did you get this verifiable information from Maniacal Atheist Monthly, or are you just blowing it out your paranoid caboose again. 'Lol!
Splendid!, stay for as long as you like. We just keep you around for entertainment purposes only, and it's far cheaper to let you free range around than to confine you to rubber romper rooms. 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps Evidence? No? Let me know when you have any. Lol.
sillygames 1 day ago
@IoannisThree16
(Continued...
...emotional pleading in scathing, biased, opinionated, sardonic ranting and below the belt insults of believers as being "psychopathic", etc.
If you go to : The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig- NDdotEdu at 1:12:25, you'll see for yourself how Dr. Craig's "rebuttal" exposed and eviscerated Harris's Logically fallacious reasoning in argumentation quite masterfully.
Take care and God bless! :)
LizardLeaps 2 days ago
@LizardLeaps craig talks shite, he has got the gift of the gab but never give any actual answers of substance or proof
twilight8181 2 days ago
@twilight8181
Your point is moot. It not Craig's responsibility to offer anything of "substance", as that's the obligation of those who believe that no God exists, and that the reality of existence is the result of self-propagated, non-purposed, wishful naturalistic processes to the preclusion of God, and to render theirs as anything more than a fantasy blind FAITH.
As to proof, Craig's arguments are logically iron clad and to those operating in logical soundness would recognize Craig's proofs.
LizardLeaps 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps We are trying not to insult you, but how can you consider that to be logical?
You don't get to ASSUME something and then DEMAND its negation you fucking moron.
sillygames 2 days ago
@LizardLeaps i think you'll find obligation of proof is with you the theist as you claim to know the when and how the world and man was made .and as for wishful thinking and blind faith thats all on you as well
twilight8181 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@twilight8181
"i think you'll find obligation of proof is... theist as you claim to know the when and how the world and man was made"
No, this is just what deceptive, illogical, ad nauseam, canned atheistic propaganda brainwashing rhetoric has snookered you into believing is the case.
I have demonstrated by the actual unambiguous very definition of what faith is, it's a logical contradiction to demand proof of that which is not contingent on proof, thus exempt from requirement of proof. :)
LizardLeaps 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps How the fuck is that a rebuttal? When you've broadened your definition of your god to include everything you can to validate it, the only thing necessary to rebut THAT is to point that fact out. Cry about my language and expect more of it.
You and your pseudo-logical apologist hero make claims to a priori knowledge that cannot be known by an organism more likely to FANTASIZE such monstrosities, typically as justification for INNER ANIMAL DRIVES to succeed, reproduce, etc.
sillygames 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
"How the fuck is that a rebuttal? When you've broadened your definition of your god to include everything you can to validate it,..."and further nonsensical blabber.
What are you even babbling about now and again, illogical blabbering Bumble Bottoms?
It's the exposure of stupendous logically fallacious reasoning in argumentation, thus REFUTATION in FACT.
It's NOT the "BROADENING of the DEFINITION"...
(Continued....
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
(Continued).... .
...of god", but the diametric opposite in categorical preclusion of what by theological definition and irrelevancy to scientific testable prerequisites mandate.
This atheism thingy has rendered you a logically bankrupt, bombastic blabbering buffoon of epic proportions and far too delusional to even realize it.
Hope you get, errr...Hope this helps! :)
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps More fallacies. Where is the evidence required for you to reject the null hypothesis of your claim?
sillygames 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
"More fallacies. Where is the evidence required for you to reject the null hypothesis of your claim?"
The reality check is in the mail Strawmanic...and when you receive it, it's going to say something exactly like this: From the instances that you fabricated in your meadow muffin making mind, and then sent your male bovine fecal matter to me, you had miserably Failed!.
Now read my fingertips Strawmaniac, Maker Of Momentous Steaming Prairie Pies.
"Hypotheses"...
(Continued...
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
(Cont'd...
"Hypotheses"... are non-sequitur to theology, as is theistic faith requiring proof a non-sequitur, and theistic beliefs by faith are not claims in and of themselves, but are statements of belief in God/s by faith.
Consequently,...
(Continued...
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
(Continued...
...Consequently, yours is the ignoramus blabber of logical fallacies having been committed by me, and in doing so, you're guilty of committing the fallacy of fallacies, and a strawman fallacy, via non-sequitur fallacies and these in actuality, have all been committed by you, thus Fail!+++ :)
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps Where is the evidence of your original claim, that this god thing is somehow extant simply because you declare it is? I need EVIDENCE or you are FULL OF SHIT you idiot. We are all laughing at you. Every comment of yours is spam.
sillygames 1 day ago
Comment removed
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames "You and your pseudo-logical apologist hero make claims to a priori knowledge that cannot be known by an organism more likely to FANTASIZE such monstrosities,... INNER ANIMAL DRIVES to succeed, reproduce, etc"
Hey, It's not our fault that we are wiser than you, and know when certain thoughts and knowledge could not be our own.
It's just unfortunate for you that you're not us, and I don't know if you were born unto perdition or not, so I leave that knowledge and Judgment to God. :)
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps So no evidence?
Your claim is bullshit, then, along with all the associated claims, such as your claim to wisdom.
Provide EVIDENCE for your CLAIMS or FAIL.
sillygames 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
"So no evidence?Your claim is bullshit, then, along with all the associated claims, such as your claim to wisdom.Provide EVIDENCE for your CLAIMS or FAIL"
Wrongio Flatulento Orificeus, you're the one who's making the "claims" that you've Failed! to support.
Observe:
Your claims of theistic beliefs requiring "proof" is non-sequitur and proven false, thus Fail!
Your "null hypothesis" blabber is non-sequitur to theism and is proven false, thus Fail!
Your...
(Continued...
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
(Continued...
Your...failure to provide evidence to support your wishful presupposition notion of existence having propagated itself, by itself, for nothing to the preclusion of your "IMAGINARY FRIENDS" (God/s) "claim", is conclusive evidence that you're steeped in a blind, fatally flawed, foolish fantasy FAITH and in delusional denial of the fact.
These are demonstrative of you being a momentous ignoramus, logically/factually fallacy bleating blabbermouth,...
(Continued...
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
(Continued...
...and your "claim" of being an intellectual "BAD ASS" has only proven you to be a blabbering bombastic buffoon, expelling really BAD GAS. 'Lol!
And my wisdom and knowledge is proven for my ability to recognize logically fallacious reasoning/argumentation, and for knowing a fool when I see one, and for having exposed you as such. :)
Now please hold your applause and just throw money. 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 1 day ago
Comment removed
sillygames 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence for your INSUBSTANTIAL claim while pointing out your VAPID excuses for argumentation.
Got any evidence?
No?
I didn't think so.
Queue more of your useless text.
sillygames 1 day ago
@IoannisThree16 Proves the bias that's inherent in every religion centered video
steffencollen 9 hours ago
The ocean called, they're running out of shrimp -- Reilly
Oh yeah!, well the jerk store called and they're running out of you -- George Costanza
What's the difference, you're their all time best seller -- Reilly
Yeah, well I had sex with your wife! -- Costanza
His wife is in a coma -- CEO
"If I was a baby being born...would you rather it was me ...or a Wahhabi baby?"- Christopher Hitchens
Your Maker called and you ran out of time -- Lizard
Unfortunately, I know...Ouch!!! -- The AtheiHitch
LizardLeaps 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps Null hypothesis has not been rejected. Evidence not provided. Claim invalid.
sillygames 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
"Null hypothesis has not been rejected. Evidence not provided. Claim invalid"
This is just your delusions of grandeur and premature fecal elimination rearing their not so calmly, but highly odoriferous heads again, Bellowing Bassoon Bottom.
You had FAILED! right from the gate since that which is not testable in "HYPOTHESIS" or falsifiable, as is anything postulated in essence of the Supernatural is NON-SEQUITUR.
You've come to the formal dress affair BARE BUTT NAKED, thus Fail! :)
LizardLeaps 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps Do you realize that in writing that comment, you literally declared,
"I have no idea what I'm talking about but I must push my imaginary friend on people so I will take his words and try to use them against him, even if I do not realize what they mean or that there is no way around them except to provide EVIDENCE"
?
YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER LOOK UP "NULL HYPOTHESIS" OR CONTINUE TO BE RIDICULED AS AN UNEDUCATED RELIGIOUS LIAR
i.e. FUCKTARD
sillygames 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy."
William Lane Craig should show his incomparable joy of death by ending his life as an example for all Christians to emulate. Farewell Craig! Enjoy your blissful reward.
scotttebben 2 days ago
"Faith is trust or commitment to what you think is true." -William Lane Craig
"Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it." -George Costanza (Seinfeld 1990)
scotttebben 2 days ago 7
Comment removed
LizardLeaps 2 days ago
Craig's only thought after this : "Fuck , I'm screwed ."
NexisFilms 2 days ago
Christians can be universalists or inclusivists about hell
Christians needn't believe in biblical inherency, so commands in the bible needn't be divine commands
Christians can believe God is good because goodness is a greatness making property and God is the greatest conceivable being, rather than because of good experiences they attribute to God
It's plausible that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing the suffering in the world since God is good.
moomin468 3 days ago
@TomFynn
"Oh and it's not "faith..."
Sure it's FAITH. What's reasonable about believing that everything non-purposefully propagated itself, by itself for nothing?
Tough pterodactyls to you tootsie, but what makes you think you're so special that you get to have what nobody can have, which is any more than the evidence of everything in existence as the evidence of the most premier ongoing miraculous Supernatural occurrence in and of itself?
It's axiomatic so prove me wrong.
Submit...
Cont'd
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps How is it axiomatic that the universe is SUPERNATURAL just because it exists? That just makes it NATURAL!
That's a given. You'll have to do better than that. ANY cosmology can be stretched to fit the fact that WE ARE HERE.
PAY ATTENTION FUCKTARD BECAUSE THIS IS BITCHSLAP #4
sillygames 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
"How is it axiomatic that the universe is SUPERNATURAL just because it exists? That just makes it NATURAL!"
Oh! sorry BOLD FACED barking bottom, but you have affirmed the consequent and your reasoning is circular, as you are clueless as a cabbage ( no offense to cabbages) because you don't know that the physical universe is the cause of the physical universe, thus momentous FAIL! on your logically fallacious BOLD FACE BARKING BOTTOM, and Next! :)
LizardLeaps 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
Moreover, Crap Yap, belief that the physical laws of the universe propagated themselves by themselves to subjugate matter-energy is not axiomatic, but counter intuitive and utter foolishness, as nothing has ever been observe to propagate itself, by itself, thus BUFFOONISH "BITCHSLAP #4"- 4 = 0 and your ABACUS IS CONSPICUOUSLY ON THE BLINK AND FAIL! :)
LizardLeaps 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps In case you didn't notice, religions were spread around the world largely through conquest, and used as justifications for this. Everyone with half my brain capacity, which seems to be a considerably greater amount than you have demonstrated, knows that POPULAR MYTHS are commonly believed by the LOCALS. Now take the Roman Empire, Muhammad, the Spanish Inquisition, and an assload of missionaries over the centuries and you have a GLOBAL MINDFUCK with NO EVIDENCE.
Evidence or NONSENSE
sillygames 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TomFynn
"Tom Foolery" Ah name-calling. How theistic of you.
Ah "delusional" how hypocritical of you Tomfoolery. :)
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@TomFynn Don't worry. See, in this reality, there is something practical in not basing your life on a belief that is contingent with derp. In the same reason it's quite damaging that our justice system applies the same notions of retributions into it's courts through blind acceptance of "free-will". One could take a pragmatic position, but that'd be too much for a Lizard which Leaps. It's odd how a can of soda seems to be of much higher use. Metaphorically, and realistically.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps God's powers are at work, because apparently AncestorOfExstictDino is not synonymous with LizardLeaps, which I could have sworn was a reference to the harrowing story of evolutionary proportions.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ACANOFSODA
"God's powers are at work, because apparently AncestorOfExstictDino is not synonymous with LizardLeaps, which I could have sworn was a reference to the harrowing story of evolutionary proportions"
This must be the carbonation going to your head and the sugar from the soda causing you to bounce off the walls again, or Charles Manson has somehow gotten access to a computer at Corcoran state prison. 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps ROFLLMAO! DID YHUU C WUT I DUN?! Yes, It was quite spectacle. Over the course of the harsh beating I took from obfuscated conversation and misinterpretation, I realized: "Worms hate onion, garlic, pumpkin seed & cranberry. They will also not inhabit a clean, strong colon as there is no soft and tasty mucus to make them feel at home." - This is of great importance, and I don't think you are taking the situation as seriously as one might find moral permissible.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@ACANOFSODA
"ROFLLMAO! DID YHUU C WUT I DUN?! Yes, It was quite spectacle. Over the course of the harsh beating I took from obfuscated..."and more unintelligible blabber.
Errrr...WHAT!?!? Please hold on.
I'm going to check the IP address from whence this incomprehensible blabber is originating.
If my suspensions are correct, I will notify the warden at Corcoran state prison that Charlie Manson has somehow accessed a computer and is blabbering full blown barmy bonkers from his 8 x10. 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@AncestorOfExstictDino
TomFynn never stated any of his views on anything, and from analysis of the other comments you've sent, it seems that my accusations in ending the conversation were sought correctly.
This naturalistic process, whatever you so are referring to, would be the subject of science. Contrary to your thoughts, one can practice the epistemology that leads scientific thought without actually presuming that any theory is true, more so than the best explanation pragmatically.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@ACANOFSODA
What are you even blabbering about now and again Carbonation Clown?
Tom foolery clearly stated that faith is delusion. He claims in absolute factual terms that "faith is delusion"
Therefore, If all faiths are false and no God/s exists, then the origination of the cosmos and viable life must have been the result of naturalistic process/es
He has no alternative but to believe that everything propagated itself, by itself, for nothing.
There in lies TomFoolery's FAITH "delusion" :)
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@ACANOFSODA
This naturalistic process,... "and more irrelevant blabber.
Nonsense Carbonation Clown. When one claims that "faith is delusion", any reasonable, rational person could only deduce from this statement that the one making the claim believes that all faiths in God/s as false and delusional.
I could give a fist full of flying pterodactyls what one doesn't have to presume, when one makes such assertions in absolve factual terms, it proves what they actually do believe, thus Fail! :)
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@ACANOFSODA
This is the original post I replied to, and after demonstrating why the false parroted ad nauseum, atheistic propaganda rhetorical claim of religions as having any such burden of proof is false.
"It is up to you to prove your extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. I'm still waiting on that"--BattleshipAgincourt AKA: Blabbs
Nonsense, you're just parroting Lapface's misnomer, as there is nothing "extraordinary" or a "claim" in and of itself requiring "evidence..."
Cont'd
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps Indeed. Although, that is not the original post I, myself, replied to, and the defense of the youtuber was stated with certain respects, Sir. Not all the arguments he gave, for surely the one's against the other fellow youtuber were not well developed.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@ACANOFSODA
(Continued)
Look...you replied to my post and proposition directed to and specifically to BattleshipAgincourt AKA: Blabbs
I'm not even going to bother reading or responding to your replies anymore, because they are utterly irrelevant to my actual proposition and argument.
Go back and read these replies of mine (synopsis forthcoming) to BattleshipAgincourt AKA:Blabbs, and when/if you get a clue and you're up to it, then get back to me. Thanks! :)
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps I replied to a particular proposition. Do not tell me what I did, or did not, reply to in my initial response when I stated directly what I did.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
Comment removed
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ACANOFSODA
"I replied to a particular proposition. Do not tell me what I did, or did not, reply to in my initial response when I stated directly what I did"
It's too late. I have already told you and I will tell you again.
You immediately diverted off of the issue for the definition of intrinsic, which for some reason, you Failed! to mentioned,"bothered" you.
I elaborated further and you appeared oblivious.
You have continually Failed! to address the actual proposition, thus Fail! :)
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps Obviously your ego's up your ass to try.. Get that, the keyword is "TRY" to sound a bit more intellectual by trying to push other people's words down and use sarcastic remarks. You're not a debater, you're a troll. :)
SilverFoxStar 3 days ago
@SilverFoxStar
"Obviously your ego's up your ass to try..."and further blabber.
Then unless you have X ray vision and can "obviously" see up my "ass" (which I highly doubt), what is your head doing peering up my "ass"?
Kindly and wisely remove your head which is "obviously" peering up my "ass" as quickly as you possibly can, or I disavow all responsibility/liability for what you're going to have "obviously" as highly odoriferous all over your "obviously trollish" face. 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps You just repeated words.. Nice try though :) I can see up your ass. I would suggest using Colon cleanse. You need it with all your un-backed up shit all over the place.
SilverFoxStar 3 days ago
Comment removed
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BrownFacedFox
"You just repeated words.. Nice try though :) I can see up your ass. I would suggest using Colon cleanse. You need it with all your un-backed up shit all over the place"
Ut oh, BrownFacedFox! you Failed! to heed my warning, but instead insisted on precariously peering up my "ass"
I had taken the "Colon cleanse" which was what I was trying to warn you about.
Now, because you Insisted on playing amateur proctologist, you look like a meadow muffin with teeth and eyes. 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps See what I did thur?
SilverFoxStar 3 days ago
@BrownFacedFox
"See what I did thur?"
I cannot see what you did "thur" and I don't even know what you were doing "thur" to begin with.
Bizarre fetish I suspect...
Now I can "see what I did thur" and smell it as well. :(
P.S. Why don't you sow grass seeds on your face, as I hear that stuff makes excellent fertilizer.
You'll be the hit with all your friends at outdoor parties because they can play lawn darts on your face. 'Lol!
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps Why did you say brown? You know it's green. I suggest getting your eyes checked.. I guess while you're at that get some colon cleanse. You know, it's funny :) I'm a round-worm. I am here to write a formal complaint. If I grow sow seeds on my face then I guess you'd have some growing in your intestines.. Not very healthy. I don't have any friends and I never go outdoors. I have such a great life living with you in your mother's basement :) Never wanna go away from yhuu
SilverFoxStar 3 days ago
@BrownFacesFox
Why did you say brown? You know it's green..."and further nonsensical blabbering.... Never wanna go away from yhuu.
Too bad round worm, wannabe green, but still brown worm, I've taken the colon cleanse with parasitic eradication action and effective 100% guaranteed!
Thus,Flush!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>o__________ and bye bye round worm, enjoy your new home in the sewer. :)
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps I am in this for the long run I can't wait to keep eating your mucus. :) You know I am never going to leave. :) Plus, ten years ago after you had sex with that nasty sweaty man that worked at McDonalds doesn't count ;)
SilverFoxStar 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps There is nothing to state that faith is something devoid of criticism regardless of the very notions that separate it from evidence. Atheism, in my general case, is the neutral position one would take towards any potential belief in any existence. It's also a more pragmatic view considering I haven't had "faith", thus my position itself is intelligent given that. Though highly bias, I've also never seen faith not associated with preference, in the same way a normative may act.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ACANOFSODA
"I just stated the first statement I made to you, and which was the very basis of our argument"
You have no "very basis" to claim that this is "our argument" because you have bumbled in and are oblivious to what the actual argument which I have presented to Blabbs is.
Look,...
(Continued...
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps I'm done. This is not a debate. I've been attacked since response one on things I've never stated, claims made of me through misrepresentation of my quotes, and to be honest - The attitude one can sense in your text is quite irritating. Like, really? "Now Go?! or just Go! :)" - Really? Honestly? Is this how somebody whom truly is desiring to argue about particular cases would want to act? Would this be acceptable in the above debate video? It wasn't at my school.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps "There seems to be a supposition I am not seeing. Apologies if that's the case. "...intrinsic human proclivity of belief by faith in God/s, theism, religiosity, etc..." - What point are you attempting to state about this, and how is it intrinsic? Human proclivity can be readily described, but not the intrinsic nature you so speak of. In fact, even if all members of a group exhibited a said quality, it doesn't necessarily make it intrinsic. That statement quite bothers me."
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps Once again, I said I am not diverting. I shall repeat this, as I even stated going "off-topic" to address these issues which I feel inhibit our ability to communicate will not effect the main point. I have directly stated this. You also did not use "..." and misrepresented the context of the sentence. I do no appreciate that. These are not becoming relevant issues.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps I can see speaking with you will be difficult. Humans are the only species that demonstrate that, though the defining characteristic of the species is not that. Human demonstrating it does not make it intrinsic, which I believe was my question. You would, in this case, be playing word-games. Also, I never wished to claim what you had said.
The last sentence seemed to fail in understanding figurative speech, which was used in that context of "extraordinary". I do dislike word games
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@ACANOFSODA
"Humans are the only species that demonstrate that, though the defining characteristic of the species is not that"
Your point is moot since my premise is irrelevant to your strawman insinuation of religiosity, theism, etc. as being the "defining" intrinsic attribute to humans.
It's just the one intrinsic attribute that is pertinent to the false allegation of "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" which my preceding post elaborates upon and refutes. Try to focus :)
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
Comment removed
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@ACANOFSODA
"Human demonstrating it does not make it intrinsic, which I believe was my question"
What does it make it then? do you believe that you have a better word to define the demonstrable proclivity of religiosity, theism, etc. as evidenced from our earliest recorded history and overwhelmingly until this day? Innate, peculiar, natural etc.?
Take your pick and then go back to the actual issue as my proposition postulates, if you believe that you have a valid rebuttal to it.
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps State the actual issue for me please, because the side-points you have thrown have had as much of an effect on putting aside the issues as my complaints with your behavior, which I stated directly had nothing to do with the main point. I also said that none of which would be used against you, as I have no reason to. So, please, try and understand that.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps As stated, you miss the point of "intrinsic" and what it means, especially by the definition you cited. You seem to pinpoint questions in my sentences, reply to them ignoring all the others, then state that I am the one diverging from the main topic. I have not refuted that humans demonstrated it. But even 100% of any set demonstrating does not logically follow that it is intrinsic within the set.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@ACANOFSODA
"I can see speaking with you will be difficult"
As to this opinionated hypocrisy of your, why don't you take on my actual proposition if you can, instead of being "difficult", and diverting, via irrelevancies in word play nonsense which have no bearing on the actual issue?
If you're looking to argue for the sake of argument itself, and aren't interested or capable of dealing with the issues directly...by operating in logically sound argumentation, then please don't waste my time.
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
Joe Rogan Anyone?!
BENdotEDU 3 days ago
Yeah, Christianity just got demolshed
superfrisbie 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps There seems to be a supposition I am not seeing. Apologies if that's the case. "...intrinsic human proclivity of belief by faith in God/s, theism, religiosity, etc..." - What point are you attempting to state about this, and how is it intrinsic? Human proclivity can be readily described, but not the intrinsic nature you so speak of. In fact, even if all members of a group exhibited a said quality, it doesn't necessarily make it intrinsic. That statement quite bothers me.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@ACANOFSODA
"That statement quite bothers me"
Don't let it bother you unless you want to contradict and self-refute your entire position being the of lack of belief in God/s.
Intrinsic in my sense of use, means belonging naturally to something. eg.(peculiar to human nature)
If religiosity, theism etc. weren't a natural proclivity, then by process of elimination in logical deduction and by what is useful/practical in normal discourse, (true dichotomy) it would therefore be Supernatural. :)
LizardLeaps 3 days ago
I feel misrepresented under the strawman argument, actually. Firstly, "Humans are the only species that demonstrate that, though the defining characteristic of the species is not that" was more to reference "then at best you're arguing against yourself" after "If you wish to claim that it's unknown as to whether or not other species are religions, theistic, etc.", which made me question the connectivity of the two. Just in case, the following sentence was made. I then asked, just in case.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps Secondly, "It's axiomatic in that humans are the only species that demonstrate the proclivity of religiosity, theism, etc." does not mean it's intrinsic, which you said means "means belonging naturally to something. eg.(peculiar to human nature)". In fact, it is stated that even if 100% of a group exhibited a quality, that doesn't mean it's intrinsic to the group.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps Now, you say Intrinsic means "belonging naturally to something", which you designated that something as "human" - correct? In that case, through natural belonging to "something", which you are designating as a group, which we have defined, then simply an individual at the time not exhibiting that behavior would show it isn't natural to humans, more-so than some humans find it natural.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps "If religiosity, theism etc. weren't a natural proclivity, then by process of elimination in logical deduction and by what is useful/practical in normal discourse, (true dichotomy) it would therefore be Supernatural. :)" - This confuses me greatly. I am presuming, like we've talked about, "natural proclivity" is referring to humans. Like you stated. In that case, it doesn't necessarily mean supernatural.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps It's not supernatural because the "weren't" can refer towards two things: That not all members(humans) exhibit this tendency, yet some due such that I could create a subgroup of individuals, which this natural proclivity is not natural to humans, but of the defined subgroup or that all humans do not exhibit natural proclivity, and you instead interpret that something else. Unless I am misinterpreting your sentence. If so, my apologies. It didn't make sense. Too much fluff.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
@LizardLeaps "Don't let it bother you unless you want to contradict and self-refute your entire position being the of lack of belief in God/s." - What did this exactly have to do with anything, and how could that statement of mine contradict my lack of belief in God/s? Tell me. I'd be glad to hear.
ACANOFSODA 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps That superstition is a common error of organisms new to using their imaginations is not evidence of a god concept. Hello; I'm a badass. I'll be interjecting my own observations wherever the fuck I will. Don't bother playing rational/irrational with me unless you can SUPPORT that your ASSUMPTIONS are AXIOMATIC with more than CLAIMS and give me more than syntax with apologist gibberish word salad, you mindfucked fucktard.
I am your NULL HYPOTHESIS.
Nice to meet you. PROVE ME WRONG.
sillygames 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
"That superstition is a common error of organisms new to using their imaginations is not evidence of a god concept"
You have just begged the question and have failed to provide evidence in support of your biased, opinionated, blabbering in factual terms as being anything more than your logically defective propensity on conspicuous parade, thus instant Fail!
Now read my fingertips Nasty Bumps,...
(Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LizardLeaps Where is your evidence that your IMAGINARY friend is real?
Ad Populum? Can't you do better than that, you SUPERSTITIOUS LIAR?
I need EVIDENCE or your BELIEF is UNBELIEVABLE.
FUCKTARD.
sillygames 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames
(Continued)
The CIA FactBook of World Demographics has atheism tabulated as an anomalous, tenuous, est. 2.03% worldwide, and even in this day and age when atheism has had it's strongest insurgence in all of recorded history.
Moreover, many of this relative negligible number claim to have formerly believe in God/s. (before going bonkers like you have) 'Lol!
Religiosity, theism, etc,....
(Cont'd...
LizardLeaps 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillygames (Cont'd...
...as evidenced from earliest recorded history, and overwhelmingly until this very moment as I speak, and as you blabber is demonstrative of it being AXIOMATIC to believe Supernatural higher intelligence as ultimately responsible for the origination and maintenance of the universe.
Now, Nasty Crack, put forth your authoritative, neutral, (non-biased parroting in canned atheistic propaganda speculative wishful FAITH based rhetoric)...
(Cont'd...