This was like watching one of the coolest things I've watched on Youtube. You should get a pair of aviators and be sitting in a Black Dodge Charger. That would be bamf
Hate to be the guys that messes with you. Not only would they get there ass kicked intellectually but they will literally get there ass kicked. I mean look at those arms O_O.
Holy Shit! Oh the Humanity! Not even one break in this vid, Wow, You've left quite a bloody mess in the opposite corner, and you didn't even break a sweat. Have a Great Day.
@SnowPatrolRulz, what happened was you wanted to create an account called MrsDarkMatter2525 only to discover that there already IS a MrsDarkMatter2525 (I made sure she secured that name JUST because I knew there'd be sick fucks out there), so you thought you'd direct some attention her way. Bravo. Which of these accounts are familiar: AngelsDoNotExist, AlanSugarRulz, dooyeweerd, FranzsGurl, MrAdversusHaereses, soctratesforthewin, ThePOWERisWITHIN? CT and his sons. This is sicker than I thought.
To eleborate, if you look at the 3d image of the first shroud, there is no blurriness, however, on the replica, it is blurry and not nearly as precise. Google both 3 dimensional
pictures of the shroud and you will see what I am talking about.
No, the guy failed miserabley. For one his image is not nearly as percise as the original shroud in regards to 3 dimensional information. Furthermore, he placed the blood stains onto the shroud after he painted the image (this makes it much easier). Finally, he used iron oxide to create the image, iron oxide did not create the original image on the shroud. He also hasn't allowed his replica to be scrutinized, so there are probably going to be more holes.
team could not figure out what created the image. That is what makes the shroud so mysterious.
However, as I said before, your claims about the image being made up of blood shows that you have done absolutely no research on the topic. You seem to be very deceitful and I do not want to talk to you anymore.
@MegaExelo "The image is not a blood image" "you have done no research"
I disagree
"The faint image of a crucified man has pseudonegative properties, is superficial, contains three-dimensional information and consists of a discoloration of the top cellulose fibers of the linen. The authors were able to obtain a good replica of the Shroud of Turin at a 1:1 scale that possesses all the above-mentioned features and the same visual and spectroscopic properties as the original."
Yet you go around talking about the Shroud of Turin. Well STURP was the research team which proved that no pigments, dyes (or blood) created the image. We are unsure hoew the image has been formed.
However, I no longer wish to have any conversation with you, you are either incredibley dishonest or stupid.
@MegaExelo "You don't know what" It was a joke directed at you contraddicting yourself. It doesn't take a jedi to google sturp perhaps you should google herp derp.
"no pigments, made the picture"
The image is not made of pigments?
When you say an image of blood is not made of blood how can you accuse me of dishonesty? Do you have no idea how ridiculous you are? Let alone the problem of hairs that defy gravity, now you tell me the shroud is not made of any coloured material known to man!!! DERP!
regardless of anyones views, seriously, do you ever get any pussy? fuck your debate. go and get yours. theres a girl for everyone you know. many times there are many girls for one guy. watch anchorman, take will farrells humor, use it and get some.
@ASleazy "regardless of anyones views, seriously, do you ever get any pussy? fuck your debate. go and get yours. theres a girl for everyone you know. many times there are many girls for one guy. watch anchorman, take will farrells humor, use it and get some."
Ah yes -so the true motivations to be an atheist finally reveal themselves. :)
Women are the only reason why you guys are atheists, whether you admit it or not, because on everything else you guys agree with us theists. :)
Blood? Last time I checked blood can be used as a pigment. ROFL
STURP, researched the shroud and could not figure out what created the image.
But a moron on a computer figured it out, it's not like a team of highly trained chemists would have realized the image on the shroud was made of blood.
Either the image on the shroud is not made of pigments (and thus blood), or you are quoting things without even using your brain to understand them. Tough unintentionally, you're an awesome comic man XD
Again, I cannot stress enough that the shroud was not painted. It was created in a completely different way (as i said it is 3d) and thats why some of the facial features seem to be odd. When examined under high tech instrument, one can see that the shroud image is 3d, making the image much more realistic.
@MegaExelo "It was created in a completely different way" certainly not by laying it on top of a man whose hair defy gravity. More likely by baking a bad image of a face on a iron platter (they should have made a statue instead, they'd at least get the basics right) smearing it with blood and then putting the linen on it.
"high tech instrument" dude an image is still an image, and as thus should not be hard to share. Do share your marvelous image that is not as flat as those on google images.
This just shows how little research you have done on the shroud of turin. The image on the shroud is not made up of pigments and therefore could not have been painted. So, your argument does not hold.
3d means that the image is like an elevation map, where different facial features have a higher evelation than others (forming a 3d face). If you want, I will send you a few peer reveiwed articles on this.
@MegaExelo "pigments and therefore could not have been painted." "I'm not idiotic enough". Yes indeed, i was overestimating your intelligence. It's not painted with paint, therefore it can't have been painted? IT'S PAINTED WITH BLOOD YOU MORON, OBVIOUSLY IT WAS NOT PAINTED WITH FUCKING PAINT IDIOT, IT WAS PAINTED WITH BLOOD DO YOU FUCKING GET IT? HOW THE FUCK DOES STATING THAT ITS BLOOD AND NOT PAINT DISPROVE THAT IT WAS PAINTED???? DOES YOUR BRAIN HAVE A LOOSE SCREW OR SOMETHING???
@MegaExelo "paint my face!" Well you should, since you're too stupid to realize that the hair of the shroud are simply... wrong. Even a kid would realize it but apparently the emperor is sure that he is wearing clothes that only the intelligent can see.
Stupid. You won't accept the fact that the image is wrong and you won't do the experiment to check it. You are dishonest, you are simply defending an absurdity you're emotionally attached to, end of the story.
Go look up, shroud of turin, 3d information encoded. You will find several peer reveiwed articles on the topic confirming my comments.
I really don't care wether you believe that the shroud proves jesus's divinity in same way. What angers me is that you skew facts for some hidden purpose which is not even clear. Any simple google search disproves you.
"3d information encoded." What does "encoded information" mean? That the image is the result of something that was 3d. What was it? A face with hairs that DEFY GRAVITY or an iron stamp?? Dude, i told you: wash your face with paint (or if you have a problem with paint then wash it with BLOOD) and then put a towel on your face. When your hair will end up 6 inches away from your face you'll understand why that image is WRONG. Try it and see for yourself ;)
The rewoven theory was proven when tests showed that the portion of the cloth cut (a corner) had a different chemical make up then the rest of the cloth. Therefore yoir argument is invalid.
How can the image of the cloth be even painted on as there are no pigments on the cloth.
No person who has bothered to actually look into the evidence for Jesus would make the absolutely idiotic statement you just made.
I will issue you a challenge,
For every reputable (PhD) historian of Jewish antiquity who you cite that believes Jesus did not exist, I will give you three who do believe that he existed.
Bart Erhman (an agnostic who has debated several christians) has claimed that we have more evidence for Jesus's existance than almost any other person in
What the Hell are you talking about! The shroud has 3d information stored in it, so the image on the shroud becomes even more life like when convertes from 2d to 3d. You seriously need to check your facts. Where are you getting your facts from? That is one of the biggest mysteries of the shroud. Along with the undetectable pigments used to paint the shroud.
May I suggest more neutral websites such as shroudstory.
@MegaExelo "becomes even more life" Go wash your face in paint then wrap a cloth around your head. You'll notice a striking problem: either jesus performed another miracle as he died, that is to have his hair defy gravity or the image is simply wrong. (That or jesus' head was as flat as a platter... one of the two).
The radio carbon dating was taken from a portion of the cloth that was rewoven (proven and advocated by one of the scienticsts who originally dated the shroud).
They have also found dirt at the heels of the shroud image taken from the same dirt in isreal. They have found pollen, which also goes directly back to isreal and new dating techniques have put the shroud's age to adleast the 6th century!
@MegaExelo "Rewoven" Then reperform it with a middle section? No? Thought so.... I mean, isn't it just too nice? The samples are taken, after they disprove he fraud a new heory comes about that the samples were taken from rewoven cloth.... why not redo the test with a section coming from the middle of jesus' face? What if that sample too shows 12th century? Why doesn't the vatican let us do this experiment? Is it too busy protecting pedophile and genocidial preists?
@MegaExelo " even more life like when convertes from 2d to 3d."
Do it... go google images, "shroud 3d image" do it instead of quoting a study performed by some christian apologetic. Go and look up the actual 3d image, while you do that also notice that there's a representation of jesus inside the shroud... notice anything??? Hint: the HEAD's height is not 1/10th of its width like in the "image that comes to life". Of course it's 3D, it doesn't change the fact that it's WRONG.
I just "published" a direct challenge to you on my channel. Produce the intellectual business to back up your stupid comment, or we can conclude you have made a fool of yourself again.
One of the problems I have with the Kalem argument is the fact that random elementary particles and their anti versions have been observed popping into and out of existence all the time with no apparent cause or reason. Where do these fit into god(s)' plan? Are THEY "god"? because they begin to exist with no cause? The only answer I can come up with is "fuck knows".
I've "debated" this guy in comment sections of his own video and other than "freely choosing god" he can't give me a justifiable reason for god allowing evil. Then he has no answer to my freewill rebuttal. That if god were omniscient then it would make it impossible for humans to have free will. A god that knows what we are going to before we do it would remove freewill because it would make it proordained for it to happen. If not then god isn't omniscient and not "god".
@lautz73 Don't worry you're not alone. When i explained to him the problem in his probabilistic argument for jesus he blocked me on the basis that i did not understand the argument (of course without giving any explaination).
When he starts doing his appeals to authority know that if you reply anything you're blocked on the basis that the authority is always right and if you disagree you're a troll that doesn't understand shit and deserves to burn in hell.
It's not that I don't understand the problem at hand, for I do. Personally, I believe we must move past religion in order to prevail as a species; and, I applaud those who make the effort to do so, despite a possible negative shift in reputation. However, I'm
more of a Dawkins fan than a Sam Harris fan, if you know what I mean.
@TheLivingDinosaur THANK YOU! I'm also very sick of the philosophical jargon; and, many times, the intellectual pretense (as Leonard Susskind would say).
I had a loooong argument with CT on one of my videos once. I discovered he enjoys hiding behind jargon and insult, rather than argue rationally. But I eventually uncovered numerous amusing holes in his positions, to which he had no response.
I have to thank him for trying, tho, since he provided me with all sorts of unique fodder with which to take apart the KCA. I've finally had the time to make a video on the topic, which should be ready within a few days. Stay tuned!
Hahahaha - it's the guy who can't decide if child torture is right or wrong!! We all thought you'd be banged up in some jail by now with the comments you've made on child abuse!
I saw most of that. CT pwned you on your own thread and then pwned you some more on his video on morality. Oh we can't wait to see more of your self-pwnage!! Should be a hoot!
@SnowPatrolRulz Sorry, but it's the Christian God who condones and even ORDERS child abuse. I have no problem finding it reprehensible (can you name even ONE instance where I couldn't decide if child torture is right or wrong? Or are you just lying for the hell of it?)
Huh...so your definition of MY being pwned is HIS repeatedly being caught using fallacies and HIS inability to contest ridiculous conclusions about God based on HIS own reasoning? Interesting!
@SnowPatrolRulz What do you think reprehensible means? Do you not understand subtext? Then let me spell it out for you: YES, child abuse is WRONG. Was that not made evident by my condemnation of the Bible God?
It's not whether child abuse is wrong that CT was hung up on, but whether morality is objective or subjective. He claims it's the former, though he could never provide any basis for it. I claim it's subjective and DID provide evidence for it.
"YES, child abuse is WRONG. Was that not made evident by my condemnation of the Bible God?"
Thank you for admitting that. After all the lying you did to CT then in order to try to get out of the point he was making. Your own quotes show that you're either a pathological liar or you're so philosophically inconsistent that most 9 year olds think more coherently than you do. Subjective? That element comes out in your account of what happened in that exchange.
@SnowPatrolRulz Huh? Your memory is faulty, CT. The argument we had was whether or not child abuse is OBJECTIVELY wrong (as opposed to subjectively). That's hard to answer because it depends what you mean by objective. If you consider behavior selected to improve social cohesion and thus improve species survivability to be objective, then YES it's objectively wrong. But if you don't, then NO child abuse is not objectively wrong.
@SnowPatrolRulz You claimed that as a Christian you have an OBJECTIVE basis for your morality, whereas atheists do not. But the funny thing is, Christians have a LESS objective basis for their morality, since they base it on whatever God decides is moral. So if God says raping children is moral, then it's moral, end of story. What could possibly be MORE subjective than to base your morality on the whims of one individual, rather than basing them on what improves social cohesion?
@SnowPatrolRulz Oh, and sadly enough, God DOES condone child abuse, according to the Bible. So whereas most atheist agree it's wrong to severely beat children, or slaughter them, or force them into sexual slavery, the Bible indicates it's just fine...as long as God says it's okay. Like in Numbers 31:17-18, Genesis 7:18-23, Exodus 32:27-29, Deuteronomy 13:6-11, Isaiah 13:15-18, Judges 11:29-40, Proverbs 23:13-14...
But you cannot judge ANY of that behaviour by your own admission. There's something wrong with your head if you cannot spot that you're directly contradicting yourself here. You argue AGAINST objective morality [morality which supercedes the personal view] and then you use it when it suits you.
@SnowPatrolRulz But I DO judge behavior, thus proving you WRONG. I am fully aware that morality is subjective in absolute terms, but objective as far as human society is concerned. I judge behavior based on its harmful impact, treating others as I would be treated.
That's a HELL of a lot more thoughtful than simply obeying some imaginary God's orders, especially one whose own behavior is what virtually ALL of us consider evil. Your own morality is FAR more subjective than my own.
@SnowPatrolRulz What you view as playing both sides of the game is actually a NUANCED POSITION. Is rape always wrong? To ME, it is. Sure that's subjective, but I know the damage it can do to individuals and society, and THAT is objective. See? Nuance. And CONSISTENT nuance.
You, OTOH, would consider it evil, right? Except when God tells you to rape someone, as he does in the Bible. Then it's GOOD, right? Talk about the ultimate in subjective morality. You've abdicated thinking for yourself.
Yes FOR YOU! But that's the nature of subjective morals. You can only say it's wrongness applies as far as to yourself. You cannot extend it onto anyone else [even with silly assertions such as "subjective in absolute terms, but objective as far as human society is concerned"]. And yet you still wish to exist that God has done things wrong in a sense well beyond a mere breaking of your own moral code. That you cannot see this is quite sad for you.
@SnowPatrol I can EXPECT others to live by the morals I do, by treating others the way I want to be treated, by helping and befriending those who do, and even voting in legislative officials who share my morals. Just because YOU can't understanding how morals can be subjective in absolute terms (machine life might consider biological life to be parasitic vermin) yet objective within human society (behaviors that improve our survivability), doesn't mean I and millions like me don't understand it.
@SnowPatrolRulz You've declined several times now here as well as on the original thread to respond to the fact that YOUR moral code is, if anything MORE subjective than any atheist's. That's indicative that you realize you have a failed argument and are trying to avoid defending it. C'mon, show some moral courage and explain how you following God's whims in ANY WAY makes your moral code any less subjective than my own.
God breaks the moral code of ANY moral person, not just mine.
So the route you're going in is to concede that you cannot state child abuse is objectively wrong and what makes your case the stronger is that NO-ONE ELSE CAN!? Really? How utterly laughable are you. Who said what is moral is subject to God's whims? Many have pointed out that it can be based on his moral nature [of which his commands reflect]. Therefore you strawman. Then you exhort me to show some "moral courage"!! Why? Why would I need to?
@SnowPatrolRulz Not at all. I said IF you regard morality as behavior that is beneficial to society as objective, then YES, child abuse is objective. But if you regard morality from outside human interests, then NO, child abuse is subjective.
God's "moral nature" is EVIL...that is, unless you consider murder, torture, theft, rape, child abuse, lying, etc. to be GOOD behavior. What possible argument is there that God is good without applying the ULTIMATE in moral subjectivity?
If you could be consistent then you really ought not to be commending your own subjective standard of morals as some moral rule that I need to meet. Now it appears you believe the subjective whim theory yourself only you think people need to meet the 'Underlings whim' of morality.
Then you say there are "moral person[s]". No, not on your view there is not. There is just behaviour [isms]. You really cannot keep your subjective view subjective can you? Muddled boy.
@SnowPatrolRulz Yes, you DO have to meet many of my (and society's) moral standards and NOT follow God's. If you obey God's morality and kill your family members for joining different religions or if you buy a slave, you will be removed from society.
Ironically, it is YOU who are muddled. You use God a the moral standard, though his behavior almost certainly matches the behavior YOU YOURSELF use to identify evil.
If God ordered you to kill your family, would you do it?
@aikidocrazy testable and easily falsifiable predictions....
"All religions bear traces of the fact that they arose during the intellectual immaturity of the human race — before it had learned the obligation to speak the truth. Not one of them makes it the duty of its god to be truthful and understandable in his communications."
What in the hell has a "testable and easily falsifiable prediction" got to do with what he asked? He wasn't even asking you! He said what constitutes evidence?
Really? If i brought you the rest of a decomposed body you'd say "omg that's jesus!"??? how would you recognize it after 2000 years? I hope that was just a sick joke... I mean look at the shroud of tourin... after many years they finally conceded to test it with carbon dating and guess what 4 blind tests all dated it to the year 1200 you'd think they'd throw it away? No they did what every christian apologetic does.... deny the evidence.
@DSkaz89 First off, all the people surrounding the tomb had more than ample time to properly falsify the Resurrection hypothesis -not only that, but that was their OBJECTIVE. So the fact that they couldn't do it, shows that it couldn't be done.
Second off, carbon dating isn't as reliable as you make it out to be -it's actually the worst of the radioactive isotopes for determining dates since there's a plethora of underlying assumptions that are embedded into its methodology.
"it was their objective"what if their objective was to actually steal the body to make up the story? How do you know? Hypocrite.
"Carbon dating" Dont feed me creationist bullshit, if carbon dating is as vague as you make it out to be first of all it wouldn't be used by scientists world wide, and secondly, 4 blind tests would give 4 different dates instead of exactly the same one, unless you propose a systematic mistake in which case i would be happy to see you ridicule yourself.
@M3PanoS "serious allegations" Serious? So is it a COINCIDENCE that BLIND tests gave the excpected age from historical evidence? It might do you well to read that page, some are as silly as "the canvas was revowen with newer cloth in 1200 but the original is from the first century!" Yeah right...
But then again, if that is considered serious then you might as well consider serious the fact that the face drawn there is a good 2D portrait but a totally wrong 3D flat surface of a person's head.
@DSkaz89 No, it's not a coincidence, the tests were illegitimate, hence why I said there were serious allegations... -_-
If you can dismiss a line of evidence by just saying, "yea right," then I can just as easily do the same thing.
Dude please, you don't know what you're talking about with the 3D claim -you're so desperate to disprove the shroud that you'll jump from sinking position to sinking position until you've finally exhausted all your options. I'm not willing to chase you though.
@M3PanoS What? A body not being there wouldn't prove a ressurection, it would prove the body not being there and that alone. Not to mention it hasn't even been proven that Jesus existed, so stating that possibly fictional characters with poor educations couldn't falsify a ressurection theory doesn't, in turn, prove that theory. This is the same horrid logic people use to prove God of the 'Well you can't disprove it" nonsense. You can't disprove Zues either, but I doubt you believe in him. (cont)
@DarkBunnyLord If you want to argue that Jesus didn't even exist then I'm not even going to take your position seriously anymore. If you want to make sensationalist claims in order to shock people (or maybe even yourself) into not having to examine the evidence, go ahead -but I'm not going to deal with it.
I can disprove Zeus very easily based just on his origin. So, where'd he come from?
I would say that the testing is not authentic, but that would cause an uproar around these parts...
@M3PanoS Of course you wouldn't because that would mean you'd have to admit that there wasn't a single contemporary source written about Jesus nor anything he did. You don't find it a bit odd that a man was going around healing the blind, pissing off the big authorities of the times, raising the dead, walking on water, feeding the masses with single loaves of bread, etc, etc, etc and NO ONE thought "gee I should write about this guy".
The bible wasn't written until after his death, and it (cont)
@DarkBunnyLord What are you talking about there are extra-biblical accounts of the life of Jesus Christ -more than a dozen of them by secular sources. And then there are also the Gnostic Gospels which crop up a couple centuries later. Why were people writing the Gnostic Gospels if not to try and spin doctor who Jesus was to fit their own pagan beliefs? Jesus Christ is one of the most well established historical figures in history, and that statement comes from an agnostic -Bart Ehrman,
@M3PanoS Name a single contemporary source. People writing about how a character in another book is real or not after the fact is not really convincing.
Take Alexander the great, a character many have questioned the existence of. He had several different sources (ie different authors in different documents written at different times) about him from authors that where alive at the same time as him (in case your confused about what a contemporary source is.)
@DarkBunnyLord What are you talking about? There are extra-biblical accounts of the life of Jesus Christ -more than a dozen of them by secular sources. And then there are also the Gnostic Gospels which crop up a couple centuries later. Why were people writing the Gnostic Gospels if not to try and spin doctor who Jesus was to fit their own pagan beliefs? Jesus Christ is one of the most well established historical figures in history, and that statement comes from an agnostic -Bart Ehrman,
@M3PanoS (cont) was the only book (the new testament that spoke of him that is) that supposidly had authors that wrote about him that where even alive when he was. The next closest writing would be from Josephus who wasn't even born until 30 years after his death.
As for Zeus then please do so. He was the child of Cronus and Rea, their origins where merely that they always where and always would be.
@DarkBunnyLord And about Zeus, I wasn't taking about Zeus himself as a character, but rather the idea -where did the idea of Zeus and the gods come from...
@M3PanoS From a group of ignorant people trying to explain phenomina they didn't understand, ie the same source of all Gods.
People looked into the sky and asked how the sun worked, how the stars worked, how the earth held them in place, where they cam from, etc. Not having answers for these man kind invented Gods, we like to know things, admitting ignorance to an answer makes us uncomfortable. However inventing an answer is damaging as it tells people to stop looking for the truth.
@DarkBunnyLord Alexander the Great was the king of the largest empire in history -Jesus was a homeless man who went from house to house and who was only in the public eye for about 2-3 years. So, I don't know exactly what type of 'evidence' you'd be looking for when you take that into account.
Also, you've erected a false "God of the Gaps" where you think the ancients just used God to explain what they didn't understand, but this doesn't apply to Jesus since He never made scientific claims.
@M3PanoS Right it's not like Jesus was claimed to have drawn the attention of kings that got him executed was it? It's not as if he was claimed to have feed thousands, ressurected the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, etc because clearly if such claims had been made he would have had many historians logging these things.
It does apply to Jesus as he's part of the bigger God story that claims the age of the earth, the way the universe works, etc. All proven false to by the way.
@DarkBunnyLord Yea, so you have the Bible testifying to those things that Jesus did. If there were any MORE sources that attested to Jesus' divinity, let me assure you, that they'd also be in the Bible and you'd also be contesting those. See the problem isn't really the source but rather the prejudice your ascribe to all the documents that fall under the Bible heading.
And I have no idea where you got the notion that the Bible is wrong about how old the earth is or how the universe works...
@M3PanoS@M3PanoS I suggest you watch this video.: watch?v=hDC_NcihiV8&list=FLi0Jppxqdn28ON3tVwiAk7w&index=18 It's a theory proposed by Douglas Adams for the emergence of belief in god(s). I found it very interesting and you might too.
@M3PanoS " This 13th to 14th century dating matches the first appearance of the shroud in church history,[55] and is somewhat later than art historian W.S.A. Dale's estimate of an 11th century date based on art-historical grounds.[56] Criticisms have been raised regarding the sample taken for testing (it may have come from medieval repair fragments), although not the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself." -Wikipedia
Next time read what you quote... oh you're a disciple of CT... nevermind!
@M3PanoS (cont) As for your comment about carbon dating if this where true we wouldn't have consistent results. We'd have results that varied wildly and yet that isn't the results we're coming up with. How would you explain this if, as you put it, it is the most unreliable method for determining dates?
"all the people surrounding the tomb had more than ample time to properly falsify the Resurrection hypothesis"
That is, if there actually WERE people surrounding a tomb. There is no evidence for the existence of that tomb OR for the people that were supposedly there. Heck, there is not even evidence for the existence of the person that is suppoed to have been put inside that tomb.
@MomoTheBellyDancer The Jews, you know the ones who crucified Him, had their entire way of life riding on this guy's claims -so if you want to argue that they didn't care about what happened, go ahead. I'd love to see you argue that point. And like I told the other guy, I'm not even going to address sensationalist claims like Jesus didn't even exist -something purely secular historians don't even deny.
Just watched his rebuttal to this and it reminds me of why I have no time for this subject. All I hear when these guys speak is bald-faced assertions and blatant assumptions coming out of their holes, albeit *very* fancily tarted up to sound impressive (they've been honing this shit for 2000 years, after all). All I want is some fucking evidence. Show it - or fuck off! His byline should be "I think that bullshit speculation counts as evidence, therefore I'm a theist." Fucking asshat.
@TheLivingDinosaur I'd be saying the same thing if I didn't understand one iota of what theologians say and was clinging desperately to my philosophical bankrupt position of materialism in a cowardly attempt to reconcile the fact that despite all my hardest efforts I just can't make this God character go away. :'(
@M3PanoS Once your presumably "solvent" philosophy produces a viable fusion reactor or a cure for cancer I'll start taking it seriously. In the meantime I'll stick with the method that has a track record of actually being of some use for anything other than producing hot air. As for the God character going away, he'd be long gone by now as far as I was concerned if it wasn't for delusional fuckers who think they can conjure him into existence with sophistic word games.
@TheLivingDinosaur Oh scientism is it? You're still stuck on pitting science against religion? And I thought you were more philosophically literate than that...
Your entire foundation for espousing naturalism is circular as I let the other guy know. But heavens no, you'll never admit to that because then you'll be guilty of the same thing you diatribe others for. If you're not going to be internally consistent with your own worldview, you have no business critiquing others.
@TheLivingDinosaur Oh scientism is it? You're still stuck on pitting science against religion? And I thought you were more philosophically literate than that...
Your entire foundation for espousing naturalism is circular as I let the other guy know. But heavens no, you'll never admit to that because then you'll be guilty of the same thing you diatribe others for. If you're not going to be internally consistent with your own worldview, you have no business critiquing others.
@M3PanoS Oh, that's right. Just get up on your high horse and look down your nose at the only system that's actually proven to be practically useful. I never said that science the the only way of gaining knowledge of the world, I said it had the best track record of utility and that's the one I place most stock in. Come back in 2000 years and you and your pals will still be here doing the same circle jerk while the rest of us will be out exploring the galaxy. Now, about that fusion reactor...
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard. Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard. Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard. Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard. Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system because I'm not at odds with any system -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard. Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system since I'm not in opposition to it -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard.
Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
Yes, you *can* trust science. And you *do* - in some cases.
But you have to accept that you are being *hypocritical* when you accept one product of scientific methodology, and reject another, even though the process by which both are established is exactly the same, and the confidence in the interpretation of the data exactly the same, for the exact same reasons: confirmation of predictions from the explanatory model.
@M3PanoS The problem is that an awful lot of religion completely defies reality and science and people believe it anyway - like the Muslim story about Mohammed riding a winged horse to Jerusalem before praying in a mosque with Jesus, Moses and Adam (of Adam and Eve fame) before they give him a guided tour of heaven. Ever heard of doublethink?
@M3PanoS Good luck with defending christianity. Just a few questions - what property does the god you believe in have? How can you be sure that he has these properties? If you say he's omnipotent, how do you know? How do you know he has three different parts to him and all that bullshit?
When history, geography, theoretical physics, and anthropology produce a viable fusion reactor or a cure for cancer, I will take those feilds of science seriously.
Morals are a contract and agreement between 2 or more people about how to least trample on other's needs. They're a social construction. Societies make morals to maintain themselves. They COME from our shared physicality and facts about our nature like being vulnerable to physical harm either through direct attack to our body or to an attack to our peripheral support mechanisms (family, property,etc) and what we can reasonably expect as compromise to avoid such harm.
Hahah! You are one pathetic little troll. Your silly little antics and bare accusations can be seen a mile away. Same ol trash. LOL! It's actually quote boring to me at this point. Same crud.
SnowpatrolRulz? Is that like Alansugarrulz? Are you Aikidocrazy, or any of the other garbage than hangs about Cartesiantheist?
@CartesianTheist Why don't you come out any play, the whole gang is here, waiting to tear you apart. You can insult to hearts desire of course, and no doubt you will.
But you cannot control censorship and blocking here.
(Part 2) The only way something can be finite yet uncaused, is if it's a necessary being. God is not a necessary being, since denying God does not lead to self contradiction.
God cannot be infinite(qualitative) since nothing can exist and be qualitatively infinite, as it instantiates logical contradictions. I gave 6 or 7 arguments for why a qualitative infinite is impossible.
Therefore God does not exist. So you are dishonest as well Pano.
@Dhorpatan god, if he exists, is certainly not omnipotent no matter how you word it. You don't need a logical contraddiction to show that god is not omnipotent, you just have to take something even we humans can do: killing ourselves. God can't and thus he is not omnipotent. If he argues that god can do anything which does not conflict with his other properties (like being eternal or something) then by that definition we humans are omnipotent as well.
@Dhorpatan god, if he exists, is certainly not omnipotent no matter how you word it. You don't need a logical contraddiction to show that god is not omnipotent, you just have to take something even we humans can do: suicide. God can't and thus he is not omnipotent. If he argues that god can do anything which does not conflict with his other properties (like being eternal) then by that definition we humans are omnipotent as well.
Your channel is the only thing I have to go on. And based on it, you are a complete nobody, with no special skills, talents or knowledge to share with the world.
@Dhorpatan Just because it's the only thing you have to go on, doesn't mean the critique is merited. If the only thing I had to go on was the fact that you graduated high school would my critique of you be validated? No, since I don't know if you went to college, etc.
And stop skipping my comments in order to keep pushing this false notion that you are correct and that I'm stupid -you never addressed the square-circle question I brought up.
@M3PanoS "you never addressed the square-circle question"
I will. So if god is omnipotent but he can't do anything that is a logical contraddiction then how about something even we humans can do: suicide. Can god kill himself? No. There you go, god's omnipotence became somewhat kinda lame... a few more redefinitions of that word and superman will be more powerful than god.
Atheists and Theists alike think I'm retarded, yet I'm sitting here with 54 friend invites in my invite folder. So that many people sent a friend invite to someone who Atheists and Theists alike think is retarded?
I'm getting that from someone who, based on their channel, is a complete nobody, with no special skills, talents, or knowledge to share with the world.
@Dhorpatan Cool story bro, but are you seriously trying to build a credible base based on ad populum?
The fact that you judge me based solely on my YT channel shows just how shallow your threats really go -I mean, I'm justified to judge you based on your YT channel because you spend lots of time on it making videos and whatnot -as you can tell from mine, I do NOT. So how is that judgment even merited?
Some Christian just got SERVED!!! lmfao
Delorean702 1 week ago
subbed!!!!!!!!! If what diktarspire says is true, i dont blame the guy
ichoosenoname 2 weeks ago
RAPE
leelue7 3 weeks ago
This was like watching one of the coolest things I've watched on Youtube. You should get a pair of aviators and be sitting in a Black Dodge Charger. That would be bamf
ke73 3 weeks ago
youtube is becoming a complex place ... hmmm ... where's my sav blanc
rmjay84 3 weeks ago
I'd hate to get punched by you.
LieutenantChocobo 4 weeks ago
Hate to be the guys that messes with you. Not only would they get there ass kicked intellectually but they will literally get there ass kicked. I mean look at those arms O_O.
qvnsq101 1 month ago in playlist More videos from DarkAntics
This has been flagged as spam show
@qvnsq101 said "I mean look at those arms O_O. "
It is more hip and back strength. I am not intimidated by arms.
joestfrancois 3 weeks ago
this guys pretty buff...
xlhotlx 2 months ago
Brilliant!
Krappman 2 months ago
I like how the person who made the video that Dark Matter is responding to..TOOK DOWN THE DAMN VIDEO!
66Rakoun 2 months ago 11
@66Rakoun Not only his video, his whole youtube account aswell!
Diktarspire 2 months ago 11
Holy Shit! Oh the Humanity! Not even one break in this vid, Wow, You've left quite a bloody mess in the opposite corner, and you didn't even break a sweat. Have a Great Day.
JesusFknChrist666 2 months ago
OOOOOOO someone just got OWNED lol
a084123 3 months ago
Why the @^%&ing hell is this video in the Slaughter playlist?
WarriorOfShu 3 months ago in playlist YouTube Mix for Slaughter
I love how the account is closed now.
Upekkha4 3 months ago
you're awesome, and i cant believe how much of an idiot john mackay is.
SweetDeamNextNight 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bye Bye CT.
TheSleepingLionRoars 4 months ago
Darkmatter, you're pretty awesome! :)
KudosKudoce 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dang dude, you totally pwned that guy. He deleted his youtube account and everything. I applaud you.
The5thAstronaut 4 months ago 4
DM please tell me how you create those cartoon videos.
darkmattermarshall02 4 months ago
Comment removed
MissTrue8Wolf 4 months ago
@MissTrue8Wolf
Is that really his wife? I heard it was a fan.
SnowPatrolRulz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SnowPatrolRulz, what happened was you wanted to create an account called MrsDarkMatter2525 only to discover that there already IS a MrsDarkMatter2525 (I made sure she secured that name JUST because I knew there'd be sick fucks out there), so you thought you'd direct some attention her way. Bravo. Which of these accounts are familiar: AngelsDoNotExist, AlanSugarRulz, dooyeweerd, FranzsGurl, MrAdversusHaereses, soctratesforthewin, ThePOWERisWITHIN? CT and his sons. This is sicker than I thought.
DarkMatter2525 4 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 why is this marked as spam?
FR0STY0115 3 weeks ago
@DSkaz89
To eleborate, if you look at the 3d image of the first shroud, there is no blurriness, however, on the replica, it is blurry and not nearly as precise. Google both 3 dimensional
pictures of the shroud and you will see what I am talking about.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@DSkaz89
No, the guy failed miserabley. For one his image is not nearly as percise as the original shroud in regards to 3 dimensional information. Furthermore, he placed the blood stains onto the shroud after he painted the image (this makes it much easier). Finally, he used iron oxide to create the image, iron oxide did not create the original image on the shroud. He also hasn't allowed his replica to be scrutinized, so there are probably going to be more holes.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@DSkaz89
The image is not a blood image. The STURP
team could not figure out what created the image. That is what makes the shroud so mysterious.
However, as I said before, your claims about the image being made up of blood shows that you have done absolutely no research on the topic. You seem to be very deceitful and I do not want to talk to you anymore.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo "The image is not a blood image" "you have done no research"
I disagree
"The faint image of a crucified man has pseudonegative properties, is superficial, contains three-dimensional information and consists of a discoloration of the top cellulose fibers of the linen. The authors were able to obtain a good replica of the Shroud of Turin at a 1:1 scale that possesses all the above-mentioned features and the same visual and spectroscopic properties as the original."
-L. Garlaschelli
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@DSkaz89
You don't know what STURP is?
Yet you go around talking about the Shroud of Turin. Well STURP was the research team which proved that no pigments, dyes (or blood) created the image. We are unsure hoew the image has been formed.
However, I no longer wish to have any conversation with you, you are either incredibley dishonest or stupid.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo "You don't know what" It was a joke directed at you contraddicting yourself. It doesn't take a jedi to google sturp perhaps you should google herp derp.
"no pigments, made the picture"
The image is not made of pigments?
When you say an image of blood is not made of blood how can you accuse me of dishonesty? Do you have no idea how ridiculous you are? Let alone the problem of hairs that defy gravity, now you tell me the shroud is not made of any coloured material known to man!!! DERP!
DSkaz89 5 months ago
regardless of anyones views, seriously, do you ever get any pussy? fuck your debate. go and get yours. theres a girl for everyone you know. many times there are many girls for one guy. watch anchorman, take will farrells humor, use it and get some.
ASleazy 5 months ago
@ASleazy "regardless of anyones views, seriously, do you ever get any pussy? fuck your debate. go and get yours. theres a girl for everyone you know. many times there are many girls for one guy. watch anchorman, take will farrells humor, use it and get some."
Ah yes -so the true motivations to be an atheist finally reveal themselves. :)
Women are the only reason why you guys are atheists, whether you admit it or not, because on everything else you guys agree with us theists. :)
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS Lol!
matrixlone 4 months ago
@DSkaz89
Blood? Last time I checked blood can be used as a pigment. ROFL
STURP, researched the shroud and could not figure out what created the image.
But a moron on a computer figured it out, it's not like a team of highly trained chemists would have realized the image on the shroud was made of blood.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo
"The image on the shroud is not made of pigments"
"blood can be used as a pigment"
HERP DERP DURRRRRRRRR STURP?
Either the image on the shroud is not made of pigments (and thus blood), or you are quoting things without even using your brain to understand them. Tough unintentionally, you're an awesome comic man XD
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@DSkaz89
Again, I cannot stress enough that the shroud was not painted. It was created in a completely different way (as i said it is 3d) and thats why some of the facial features seem to be odd. When examined under high tech instrument, one can see that the shroud image is 3d, making the image much more realistic.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo "It was created in a completely different way" certainly not by laying it on top of a man whose hair defy gravity. More likely by baking a bad image of a face on a iron platter (they should have made a statue instead, they'd at least get the basics right) smearing it with blood and then putting the linen on it.
"high tech instrument" dude an image is still an image, and as thus should not be hard to share. Do share your marvelous image that is not as flat as those on google images.
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@DSkaz89
I am not idiotic enough to paint my face!
This just shows how little research you have done on the shroud of turin. The image on the shroud is not made up of pigments and therefore could not have been painted. So, your argument does not hold.
3d means that the image is like an elevation map, where different facial features have a higher evelation than others (forming a 3d face). If you want, I will send you a few peer reveiwed articles on this.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo "pigments and therefore could not have been painted." "I'm not idiotic enough". Yes indeed, i was overestimating your intelligence. It's not painted with paint, therefore it can't have been painted? IT'S PAINTED WITH BLOOD YOU MORON, OBVIOUSLY IT WAS NOT PAINTED WITH FUCKING PAINT IDIOT, IT WAS PAINTED WITH BLOOD DO YOU FUCKING GET IT? HOW THE FUCK DOES STATING THAT ITS BLOOD AND NOT PAINT DISPROVE THAT IT WAS PAINTED???? DOES YOUR BRAIN HAVE A LOOSE SCREW OR SOMETHING???
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@MegaExelo "paint my face!" Well you should, since you're too stupid to realize that the hair of the shroud are simply... wrong. Even a kid would realize it but apparently the emperor is sure that he is wearing clothes that only the intelligent can see.
Stupid. You won't accept the fact that the image is wrong and you won't do the experiment to check it. You are dishonest, you are simply defending an absurdity you're emotionally attached to, end of the story.
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@DSkaz89
Go look up, shroud of turin, 3d information encoded. You will find several peer reveiwed articles on the topic confirming my comments.
I really don't care wether you believe that the shroud proves jesus's divinity in same way. What angers me is that you skew facts for some hidden purpose which is not even clear. Any simple google search disproves you.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo
"3d information encoded." What does "encoded information" mean? That the image is the result of something that was 3d. What was it? A face with hairs that DEFY GRAVITY or an iron stamp?? Dude, i told you: wash your face with paint (or if you have a problem with paint then wash it with BLOOD) and then put a towel on your face. When your hair will end up 6 inches away from your face you'll understand why that image is WRONG. Try it and see for yourself ;)
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@DSkaz89
Lol, google images, yeah you got me there!
The rewoven theory was proven when tests showed that the portion of the cloth cut (a corner) had a different chemical make up then the rest of the cloth. Therefore yoir argument is invalid.
How can the image of the cloth be even painted on as there are no pigments on the cloth.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo A cloth with a face on it... Well NOW I believe.
pascalyuiop 5 months ago
That was great! I especially enjoyed the end. Great job! :)
viiScorp 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
No person who has bothered to actually look into the evidence for Jesus would make the absolutely idiotic statement you just made.
I will issue you a challenge,
For every reputable (PhD) historian of Jewish antiquity who you cite that believes Jesus did not exist, I will give you three who do believe that he existed.
Bart Erhman (an agnostic who has debated several christians) has claimed that we have more evidence for Jesus's existance than almost any other person in
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@DSkaz89
What the Hell are you talking about! The shroud has 3d information stored in it, so the image on the shroud becomes even more life like when convertes from 2d to 3d. You seriously need to check your facts. Where are you getting your facts from? That is one of the biggest mysteries of the shroud. Along with the undetectable pigments used to paint the shroud.
May I suggest more neutral websites such as shroudstory.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo "becomes even more life" Go wash your face in paint then wrap a cloth around your head. You'll notice a striking problem: either jesus performed another miracle as he died, that is to have his hair defy gravity or the image is simply wrong. (That or jesus' head was as flat as a platter... one of the two).
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@DSkaz89
The radio carbon dating was taken from a portion of the cloth that was rewoven (proven and advocated by one of the scienticsts who originally dated the shroud).
They have also found dirt at the heels of the shroud image taken from the same dirt in isreal. They have found pollen, which also goes directly back to isreal and new dating techniques have put the shroud's age to adleast the 6th century!
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo "Rewoven" Then reperform it with a middle section? No? Thought so.... I mean, isn't it just too nice? The samples are taken, after they disprove he fraud a new heory comes about that the samples were taken from rewoven cloth.... why not redo the test with a section coming from the middle of jesus' face? What if that sample too shows 12th century? Why doesn't the vatican let us do this experiment? Is it too busy protecting pedophile and genocidial preists?
-.-
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@MegaExelo " even more life like when convertes from 2d to 3d."
Do it... go google images, "shroud 3d image" do it instead of quoting a study performed by some christian apologetic. Go and look up the actual 3d image, while you do that also notice that there's a representation of jesus inside the shroud... notice anything??? Hint: the HEAD's height is not 1/10th of its width like in the "image that comes to life". Of course it's 3D, it doesn't change the fact that it's WRONG.
DSkaz89 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CartesianTheist
I just "published" a direct challenge to you on my channel. Produce the intellectual business to back up your stupid comment, or we can conclude you have made a fool of yourself again.
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
One of the problems I have with the Kalem argument is the fact that random elementary particles and their anti versions have been observed popping into and out of existence all the time with no apparent cause or reason. Where do these fit into god(s)' plan? Are THEY "god"? because they begin to exist with no cause? The only answer I can come up with is "fuck knows".
pascalyuiop 5 months ago
ahem..... EPIC WIN!!
|That is all.
bacchusreborn 5 months ago
i will never forget that it was you who made me an atheist :) Thanks again for the 100000000000th time
TheMagicSandwichist 5 months ago
I've "debated" this guy in comment sections of his own video and other than "freely choosing god" he can't give me a justifiable reason for god allowing evil. Then he has no answer to my freewill rebuttal. That if god were omniscient then it would make it impossible for humans to have free will. A god that knows what we are going to before we do it would remove freewill because it would make it proordained for it to happen. If not then god isn't omniscient and not "god".
lautz73 5 months ago
@lautz73 Don't worry you're not alone. When i explained to him the problem in his probabilistic argument for jesus he blocked me on the basis that i did not understand the argument (of course without giving any explaination).
When he starts doing his appeals to authority know that if you reply anything you're blocked on the basis that the authority is always right and if you disagree you're a troll that doesn't understand shit and deserves to burn in hell.
DSkaz89 5 months ago
It's not that I don't understand the problem at hand, for I do. Personally, I believe we must move past religion in order to prevail as a species; and, I applaud those who make the effort to do so, despite a possible negative shift in reputation. However, I'm
more of a Dawkins fan than a Sam Harris fan, if you know what I mean.
BER2ERKER 5 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur THANK YOU! I'm also very sick of the philosophical jargon; and, many times, the intellectual pretense (as Leonard Susskind would say).
BER2ERKER 5 months ago
Nicely done, as usual.
I had a loooong argument with CT on one of my videos once. I discovered he enjoys hiding behind jargon and insult, rather than argue rationally. But I eventually uncovered numerous amusing holes in his positions, to which he had no response.
I have to thank him for trying, tho, since he provided me with all sorts of unique fodder with which to take apart the KCA. I've finally had the time to make a video on the topic, which should be ready within a few days. Stay tuned!
Underlings 5 months ago
@Underlings
Hahahaha - it's the guy who can't decide if child torture is right or wrong!! We all thought you'd be banged up in some jail by now with the comments you've made on child abuse!
I saw most of that. CT pwned you on your own thread and then pwned you some more on his video on morality. Oh we can't wait to see more of your self-pwnage!! Should be a hoot!
SnowPatrolRulz 5 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz Now I know why I blocked you, you are a cheerleading troll for CT. Like most all of his gang.
HonestTechnoAtheist 5 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
Yet more irony and hypocrisy from the idiot too stupid to notice he's doing both with every post he writes!
SnowPatrolRulz 5 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz Sorry, but it's the Christian God who condones and even ORDERS child abuse. I have no problem finding it reprehensible (can you name even ONE instance where I couldn't decide if child torture is right or wrong? Or are you just lying for the hell of it?)
Huh...so your definition of MY being pwned is HIS repeatedly being caught using fallacies and HIS inability to contest ridiculous conclusions about God based on HIS own reasoning? Interesting!
Underlings 5 months ago
@Underlings
I notice you say you find it "reprehensible" but you won't go so far as to say it's wrong though.
Child torture! According to Underlings it's "worthy of rebuke"!! Just like pissing on someone's front lawn or tagging their wall. PML
Still butthurt are we? Sounds like it. ;)
SnowPatrolRulz 5 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz What do you think reprehensible means? Do you not understand subtext? Then let me spell it out for you: YES, child abuse is WRONG. Was that not made evident by my condemnation of the Bible God?
It's not whether child abuse is wrong that CT was hung up on, but whether morality is objective or subjective. He claims it's the former, though he could never provide any basis for it. I claim it's subjective and DID provide evidence for it.
Underlings 5 months ago
@Underlings
"YES, child abuse is WRONG. Was that not made evident by my condemnation of the Bible God?"
Thank you for admitting that. After all the lying you did to CT then in order to try to get out of the point he was making. Your own quotes show that you're either a pathological liar or you're so philosophically inconsistent that most 9 year olds think more coherently than you do. Subjective? That element comes out in your account of what happened in that exchange.
SnowPatrolRulz 5 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz Huh? Your memory is faulty, CT. The argument we had was whether or not child abuse is OBJECTIVELY wrong (as opposed to subjectively). That's hard to answer because it depends what you mean by objective. If you consider behavior selected to improve social cohesion and thus improve species survivability to be objective, then YES it's objectively wrong. But if you don't, then NO child abuse is not objectively wrong.
Regardless, it's wrong either way.
Underlings 5 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz You claimed that as a Christian you have an OBJECTIVE basis for your morality, whereas atheists do not. But the funny thing is, Christians have a LESS objective basis for their morality, since they base it on whatever God decides is moral. So if God says raping children is moral, then it's moral, end of story. What could possibly be MORE subjective than to base your morality on the whims of one individual, rather than basing them on what improves social cohesion?
Underlings 5 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz Oh, and sadly enough, God DOES condone child abuse, according to the Bible. So whereas most atheist agree it's wrong to severely beat children, or slaughter them, or force them into sexual slavery, the Bible indicates it's just fine...as long as God says it's okay. Like in Numbers 31:17-18, Genesis 7:18-23, Exodus 32:27-29, Deuteronomy 13:6-11, Isaiah 13:15-18, Judges 11:29-40, Proverbs 23:13-14...
Underlings 5 months ago
@Underlings
But you cannot judge ANY of that behaviour by your own admission. There's something wrong with your head if you cannot spot that you're directly contradicting yourself here. You argue AGAINST objective morality [morality which supercedes the personal view] and then you use it when it suits you.
Not much of a thinker are you?
SnowPatrolRulz 4 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz But I DO judge behavior, thus proving you WRONG. I am fully aware that morality is subjective in absolute terms, but objective as far as human society is concerned. I judge behavior based on its harmful impact, treating others as I would be treated.
That's a HELL of a lot more thoughtful than simply obeying some imaginary God's orders, especially one whose own behavior is what virtually ALL of us consider evil. Your own morality is FAR more subjective than my own.
Underlings 4 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz What you view as playing both sides of the game is actually a NUANCED POSITION. Is rape always wrong? To ME, it is. Sure that's subjective, but I know the damage it can do to individuals and society, and THAT is objective. See? Nuance. And CONSISTENT nuance.
You, OTOH, would consider it evil, right? Except when God tells you to rape someone, as he does in the Bible. Then it's GOOD, right? Talk about the ultimate in subjective morality. You've abdicated thinking for yourself.
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings
Yes FOR YOU! But that's the nature of subjective morals. You can only say it's wrongness applies as far as to yourself. You cannot extend it onto anyone else [even with silly assertions such as "subjective in absolute terms, but objective as far as human society is concerned"]. And yet you still wish to exist that God has done things wrong in a sense well beyond a mere breaking of your own moral code. That you cannot see this is quite sad for you.
SnowPatrolRulz 4 months ago
@SnowPatrol I can EXPECT others to live by the morals I do, by treating others the way I want to be treated, by helping and befriending those who do, and even voting in legislative officials who share my morals. Just because YOU can't understanding how morals can be subjective in absolute terms (machine life might consider biological life to be parasitic vermin) yet objective within human society (behaviors that improve our survivability), doesn't mean I and millions like me don't understand it.
Underlings 4 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz You've declined several times now here as well as on the original thread to respond to the fact that YOUR moral code is, if anything MORE subjective than any atheist's. That's indicative that you realize you have a failed argument and are trying to avoid defending it. C'mon, show some moral courage and explain how you following God's whims in ANY WAY makes your moral code any less subjective than my own.
God breaks the moral code of ANY moral person, not just mine.
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings
So the route you're going in is to concede that you cannot state child abuse is objectively wrong and what makes your case the stronger is that NO-ONE ELSE CAN!? Really? How utterly laughable are you. Who said what is moral is subject to God's whims? Many have pointed out that it can be based on his moral nature [of which his commands reflect]. Therefore you strawman. Then you exhort me to show some "moral courage"!! Why? Why would I need to?
SnowPatrolRulz 4 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz Not at all. I said IF you regard morality as behavior that is beneficial to society as objective, then YES, child abuse is objective. But if you regard morality from outside human interests, then NO, child abuse is subjective.
God's "moral nature" is EVIL...that is, unless you consider murder, torture, theft, rape, child abuse, lying, etc. to be GOOD behavior. What possible argument is there that God is good without applying the ULTIMATE in moral subjectivity?
Underlings 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Underlings
cont.
If you could be consistent then you really ought not to be commending your own subjective standard of morals as some moral rule that I need to meet. Now it appears you believe the subjective whim theory yourself only you think people need to meet the 'Underlings whim' of morality.
Then you say there are "moral person[s]". No, not on your view there is not. There is just behaviour [isms]. You really cannot keep your subjective view subjective can you? Muddled boy.
SnowPatrolRulz 4 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz Yes, you DO have to meet many of my (and society's) moral standards and NOT follow God's. If you obey God's morality and kill your family members for joining different religions or if you buy a slave, you will be removed from society.
Ironically, it is YOU who are muddled. You use God a the moral standard, though his behavior almost certainly matches the behavior YOU YOURSELF use to identify evil.
If God ordered you to kill your family, would you do it?
Underlings 4 months ago
That was inspirational!!!
Sn00pyDeluxe 5 months ago
@aikidocrazy testable and easily falsifiable predictions....
"All religions bear traces of the fact that they arose during the intellectual immaturity of the human race — before it had learned the obligation to speak the truth. Not one of them makes it the duty of its god to be truthful and understandable in his communications."
-Nietzche
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@DSkaz89
What in the hell has a "testable and easily falsifiable prediction" got to do with what he asked? He wasn't even asking you! He said what constitutes evidence?
SnowPatrolRulz 5 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz
"He wasn't even asking you" nor was i talking to you... your point is????
"[rest of the post]"
Wikipedia -> bayesian inference.
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@DSkaz89
So Bayesian Inference along with "testable and easily falsifiable prediction" is the full extent of your theory of knowledge? Really?
SnowPatrolRulz 5 months ago
@DSkaz89 "testable and easily falsifiable predictions..."
The easily adverb shouldn't be in there, but anyways, what I have still more than answers your call for 'evidence.'
Christianity is the ONLY religion in the world that is TRULY 100% falsifiable. All you have to do to shut me up is bring me Jesus' body. :)
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS "Bring me jesus' body"
Really? If i brought you the rest of a decomposed body you'd say "omg that's jesus!"??? how would you recognize it after 2000 years? I hope that was just a sick joke... I mean look at the shroud of tourin... after many years they finally conceded to test it with carbon dating and guess what 4 blind tests all dated it to the year 1200 you'd think they'd throw it away? No they did what every christian apologetic does.... deny the evidence.
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@DSkaz89 First off, all the people surrounding the tomb had more than ample time to properly falsify the Resurrection hypothesis -not only that, but that was their OBJECTIVE. So the fact that they couldn't do it, shows that it couldn't be done.
Second off, carbon dating isn't as reliable as you make it out to be -it's actually the worst of the radioactive isotopes for determining dates since there's a plethora of underlying assumptions that are embedded into its methodology.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS
"it was their objective"what if their objective was to actually steal the body to make up the story? How do you know? Hypocrite.
"Carbon dating" Dont feed me creationist bullshit, if carbon dating is as vague as you make it out to be first of all it wouldn't be used by scientists world wide, and secondly, 4 blind tests would give 4 different dates instead of exactly the same one, unless you propose a systematic mistake in which case i would be happy to see you ridicule yourself.
DSkaz89 5 months ago 4
@DSkaz89 Yea, too bad those tests have been overcast by serious allegations of forgery and malpractice.
Here's a Wikipedia article about it: wikipedia(DOT)org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
Not to mention, every other line of evidence points to the shroud originating in Palestine around the first century AD.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS "serious allegations" Serious? So is it a COINCIDENCE that BLIND tests gave the excpected age from historical evidence? It might do you well to read that page, some are as silly as "the canvas was revowen with newer cloth in 1200 but the original is from the first century!" Yeah right...
But then again, if that is considered serious then you might as well consider serious the fact that the face drawn there is a good 2D portrait but a totally wrong 3D flat surface of a person's head.
DSkaz89 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DSkaz89 No, it's not a coincidence, the tests were illegitimate, hence why I said there were serious allegations... -_-
If you can dismiss a line of evidence by just saying, "yea right," then I can just as easily do the same thing.
Dude please, you don't know what you're talking about with the 3D claim -you're so desperate to disprove the shroud that you'll jump from sinking position to sinking position until you've finally exhausted all your options. I'm not willing to chase you though.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS What? A body not being there wouldn't prove a ressurection, it would prove the body not being there and that alone. Not to mention it hasn't even been proven that Jesus existed, so stating that possibly fictional characters with poor educations couldn't falsify a ressurection theory doesn't, in turn, prove that theory. This is the same horrid logic people use to prove God of the 'Well you can't disprove it" nonsense. You can't disprove Zues either, but I doubt you believe in him. (cont)
DarkBunnyLord 5 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord If you want to argue that Jesus didn't even exist then I'm not even going to take your position seriously anymore. If you want to make sensationalist claims in order to shock people (or maybe even yourself) into not having to examine the evidence, go ahead -but I'm not going to deal with it.
I can disprove Zeus very easily based just on his origin. So, where'd he come from?
I would say that the testing is not authentic, but that would cause an uproar around these parts...
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS Of course you wouldn't because that would mean you'd have to admit that there wasn't a single contemporary source written about Jesus nor anything he did. You don't find it a bit odd that a man was going around healing the blind, pissing off the big authorities of the times, raising the dead, walking on water, feeding the masses with single loaves of bread, etc, etc, etc and NO ONE thought "gee I should write about this guy".
The bible wasn't written until after his death, and it (cont)
DarkBunnyLord 5 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord What are you talking about there are extra-biblical accounts of the life of Jesus Christ -more than a dozen of them by secular sources. And then there are also the Gnostic Gospels which crop up a couple centuries later. Why were people writing the Gnostic Gospels if not to try and spin doctor who Jesus was to fit their own pagan beliefs? Jesus Christ is one of the most well established historical figures in history, and that statement comes from an agnostic -Bart Ehrman,
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS Name a single contemporary source. People writing about how a character in another book is real or not after the fact is not really convincing.
Take Alexander the great, a character many have questioned the existence of. He had several different sources (ie different authors in different documents written at different times) about him from authors that where alive at the same time as him (in case your confused about what a contemporary source is.)
DarkBunnyLord 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkBunnyLord What are you talking about? There are extra-biblical accounts of the life of Jesus Christ -more than a dozen of them by secular sources. And then there are also the Gnostic Gospels which crop up a couple centuries later. Why were people writing the Gnostic Gospels if not to try and spin doctor who Jesus was to fit their own pagan beliefs? Jesus Christ is one of the most well established historical figures in history, and that statement comes from an agnostic -Bart Ehrman,
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS (cont) was the only book (the new testament that spoke of him that is) that supposidly had authors that wrote about him that where even alive when he was. The next closest writing would be from Josephus who wasn't even born until 30 years after his death.
As for Zeus then please do so. He was the child of Cronus and Rea, their origins where merely that they always where and always would be.
DarkBunnyLord 5 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord And about Zeus, I wasn't taking about Zeus himself as a character, but rather the idea -where did the idea of Zeus and the gods come from...
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS From a group of ignorant people trying to explain phenomina they didn't understand, ie the same source of all Gods.
People looked into the sky and asked how the sun worked, how the stars worked, how the earth held them in place, where they cam from, etc. Not having answers for these man kind invented Gods, we like to know things, admitting ignorance to an answer makes us uncomfortable. However inventing an answer is damaging as it tells people to stop looking for the truth.
DarkBunnyLord 5 months ago
@DarkBunnyLord Alexander the Great was the king of the largest empire in history -Jesus was a homeless man who went from house to house and who was only in the public eye for about 2-3 years. So, I don't know exactly what type of 'evidence' you'd be looking for when you take that into account.
Also, you've erected a false "God of the Gaps" where you think the ancients just used God to explain what they didn't understand, but this doesn't apply to Jesus since He never made scientific claims.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS Right it's not like Jesus was claimed to have drawn the attention of kings that got him executed was it? It's not as if he was claimed to have feed thousands, ressurected the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, etc because clearly if such claims had been made he would have had many historians logging these things.
It does apply to Jesus as he's part of the bigger God story that claims the age of the earth, the way the universe works, etc. All proven false to by the way.
DarkBunnyLord 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkBunnyLord Yea, so you have the Bible testifying to those things that Jesus did. If there were any MORE sources that attested to Jesus' divinity, let me assure you, that they'd also be in the Bible and you'd also be contesting those. See the problem isn't really the source but rather the prejudice your ascribe to all the documents that fall under the Bible heading.
And I have no idea where you got the notion that the Bible is wrong about how old the earth is or how the universe works...
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS @M3PanoS I suggest you watch this video.: watch?v=hDC_NcihiV8&list=FLi0Jppxqdn28ON3tVwiAk7w&index=18 It's a theory proposed by Douglas Adams for the emergence of belief in god(s). I found it very interesting and you might too.
pascalyuiop 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pascalyuiop I suggest you watch this video: watch?v=hcgr2Ocn5sk
It's about Albert Camus and Nihilism. I found it very interesting and you might too. I think you'll find 2:45 onwards especially invigorating.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS " This 13th to 14th century dating matches the first appearance of the shroud in church history,[55] and is somewhat later than art historian W.S.A. Dale's estimate of an 11th century date based on art-historical grounds.[56] Criticisms have been raised regarding the sample taken for testing (it may have come from medieval repair fragments), although not the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself." -Wikipedia
Next time read what you quote... oh you're a disciple of CT... nevermind!
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@M3PanoS (cont) As for your comment about carbon dating if this where true we wouldn't have consistent results. We'd have results that varied wildly and yet that isn't the results we're coming up with. How would you explain this if, as you put it, it is the most unreliable method for determining dates?
DarkBunnyLord 5 months ago
@M3PanoS
"all the people surrounding the tomb had more than ample time to properly falsify the Resurrection hypothesis"
That is, if there actually WERE people surrounding a tomb. There is no evidence for the existence of that tomb OR for the people that were supposedly there. Heck, there is not even evidence for the existence of the person that is suppoed to have been put inside that tomb.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer The Jews, you know the ones who crucified Him, had their entire way of life riding on this guy's claims -so if you want to argue that they didn't care about what happened, go ahead. I'd love to see you argue that point. And like I told the other guy, I'm not even going to address sensationalist claims like Jesus didn't even exist -something purely secular historians don't even deny.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS
"The Jews, you know the ones who crucified Him"
According to the story it was the Romans who did that.
"had their entire way of life riding on this guy's claims"
You're confusing them with the Christians. Either way, it doesn't prove anything.
"something purely secular historians don't even deny. "
Historians agree that the evidence for his existence is extremely flimsy, at best.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer Yea, the Romans were the direct cause under influence of the Jews. Stop playing stupid.
There were no Christians at that time... -_-
Haha, you wish.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
Just watched his rebuttal to this and it reminds me of why I have no time for this subject. All I hear when these guys speak is bald-faced assertions and blatant assumptions coming out of their holes, albeit *very* fancily tarted up to sound impressive (they've been honing this shit for 2000 years, after all). All I want is some fucking evidence. Show it - or fuck off! His byline should be "I think that bullshit speculation counts as evidence, therefore I'm a theist." Fucking asshat.
TheLivingDinosaur 5 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur evidence? From a theist??? :P
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@DSkaz89 I didn't say I was hopeful. ;-)
TheLivingDinosaur 5 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur I'd be saying the same thing if I didn't understand one iota of what theologians say and was clinging desperately to my philosophical bankrupt position of materialism in a cowardly attempt to reconcile the fact that despite all my hardest efforts I just can't make this God character go away. :'(
M3PanoS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS Once your presumably "solvent" philosophy produces a viable fusion reactor or a cure for cancer I'll start taking it seriously. In the meantime I'll stick with the method that has a track record of actually being of some use for anything other than producing hot air. As for the God character going away, he'd be long gone by now as far as I was concerned if it wasn't for delusional fuckers who think they can conjure him into existence with sophistic word games.
TheLivingDinosaur 5 months ago 14
@TheLivingDinosaur i always love your responses, you sir are my hero.
Mario6732 5 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur Oh scientism is it? You're still stuck on pitting science against religion? And I thought you were more philosophically literate than that...
Your entire foundation for espousing naturalism is circular as I let the other guy know. But heavens no, you'll never admit to that because then you'll be guilty of the same thing you diatribe others for. If you're not going to be internally consistent with your own worldview, you have no business critiquing others.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur Oh scientism is it? You're still stuck on pitting science against religion? And I thought you were more philosophically literate than that...
Your entire foundation for espousing naturalism is circular as I let the other guy know. But heavens no, you'll never admit to that because then you'll be guilty of the same thing you diatribe others for. If you're not going to be internally consistent with your own worldview, you have no business critiquing others.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS Oh, that's right. Just get up on your high horse and look down your nose at the only system that's actually proven to be practically useful. I never said that science the the only way of gaining knowledge of the world, I said it had the best track record of utility and that's the one I place most stock in. Come back in 2000 years and you and your pals will still be here doing the same circle jerk while the rest of us will be out exploring the galaxy. Now, about that fusion reactor...
TheLivingDinosaur 5 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard. Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
M3PanoS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard. Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard. Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
M3PanoS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard. Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system because I'm not at odds with any system -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard. Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur I'm not looking down on any system since I'm not in opposition to it -religion and science are not contradictory and your attempt to pit me against science is failing pretty hard.
Cool, put your stock in science -no one told you not to. However, you are trying to propagate the idea that religious people can't do the same which is a completely fallacious position. So I must ask: Who's on the high horse again?
Why do you get to explore the galaxy? No fair... :'(
M3PanoS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« religion and science are not contradictory »
I beg to differ. They are *fundamentally* opposed. One *demands* faith, the other does everything in its power to do *away* with the need for faith.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« religious people can't do the same »
Yes, you *can* trust science. And you *do* - in some cases.
But you have to accept that you are being *hypocritical* when you accept one product of scientific methodology, and reject another, even though the process by which both are established is exactly the same, and the confidence in the interpretation of the data exactly the same, for the exact same reasons: confirmation of predictions from the explanatory model.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@M3PanoS The problem is that an awful lot of religion completely defies reality and science and people believe it anyway - like the Muslim story about Mohammed riding a winged horse to Jerusalem before praying in a mosque with Jesus, Moses and Adam (of Adam and Eve fame) before they give him a guided tour of heaven. Ever heard of doublethink?
pascalyuiop 5 months ago
@pascalyuiop Yea, I'm not here to defend religion though -I'm here to defend Christianity.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS Good luck with defending christianity. Just a few questions - what property does the god you believe in have? How can you be sure that he has these properties? If you say he's omnipotent, how do you know? How do you know he has three different parts to him and all that bullshit?
pascalyuiop 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« the rest of us will be out exploring the galaxy »
... Christians would make great stormtroopers...
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur Philosophy is very important. Just not in the same way science is.
afluffymango 5 months ago
@afluffymango Philosophy is to science and porn is to sex; it's cheaper, easier, and some people seem to prefer it.
pascalyuiop 5 months ago
@TheLivingDinosaur
When history, geography, theoretical physics, and anthropology produce a viable fusion reactor or a cure for cancer, I will take those feilds of science seriously.
You sound a bit stupid.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
Morals are a contract and agreement between 2 or more people about how to least trample on other's needs. They're a social construction. Societies make morals to maintain themselves. They COME from our shared physicality and facts about our nature like being vulnerable to physical harm either through direct attack to our body or to an attack to our peripheral support mechanisms (family, property,etc) and what we can reasonably expect as compromise to avoid such harm.
ExtantFrodo2 5 months ago
what was the awesome song at the end ? - btw awesome arguments
dragonsword343 5 months ago
Correction:
that; not than
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist Never said I was scared, but that he can get scary. Learn to read if you're going to "debate."
Not to mention that I hope your monicker is intentionally contradictory(as mine is), because it makes no sense.
TheExtremistModerate 5 months ago
1:43 - "exasterbate"??? Listen - that's what he just said.
Is that a cross between masturbate and exacerbate? Is DarkMatter trying to tell us something about how he jerks off?
SnowPatrolRulz 5 months ago
@SnowPatrolRulz
Hahah! You are one pathetic little troll. Your silly little antics and bare accusations can be seen a mile away. Same ol trash. LOL! It's actually quote boring to me at this point. Same crud.
SnowpatrolRulz? Is that like Alansugarrulz? Are you Aikidocrazy, or any of the other garbage than hangs about Cartesiantheist?
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
@Dhorpatan
Look it's that guy who blocks anyone who doesn't agree with him!!! How many thousands of people is that now? The only garbage on YT is you.
SnowPatrolRulz 5 months ago
@Pano
False epistemology? LOL! Do you know what you are even blabbering about?
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CartesianTheist Why don't you come out any play, the whole gang is here, waiting to tear you apart. You can insult to hearts desire of course, and no doubt you will.
But you cannot control censorship and blocking here.
HonestTechnoAtheist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Continued @M3PanoS
(Part 2) The only way something can be finite yet uncaused, is if it's a necessary being. God is not a necessary being, since denying God does not lead to self contradiction.
God cannot be infinite(qualitative) since nothing can exist and be qualitatively infinite, as it instantiates logical contradictions. I gave 6 or 7 arguments for why a qualitative infinite is impossible.
Therefore God does not exist. So you are dishonest as well Pano.
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
Pano was actually stupid enough to claim that the Omnipotence paradox, is a quantitative paradox.
That is sheer, undeniable stupid right there. Since Omnipotence is a QUALITY.
You need to kiss some serious rocks Pano. You understand me?
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
@Dhorpatan god, if he exists, is certainly not omnipotent no matter how you word it. You don't need a logical contraddiction to show that god is not omnipotent, you just have to take something even we humans can do: killing ourselves. God can't and thus he is not omnipotent. If he argues that god can do anything which does not conflict with his other properties (like being eternal or something) then by that definition we humans are omnipotent as well.
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@Dhorpatan god, if he exists, is certainly not omnipotent no matter how you word it. You don't need a logical contraddiction to show that god is not omnipotent, you just have to take something even we humans can do: suicide. God can't and thus he is not omnipotent. If he argues that god can do anything which does not conflict with his other properties (like being eternal) then by that definition we humans are omnipotent as well.
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@M3PanoS
Your channel is the only thing I have to go on. And based on it, you are a complete nobody, with no special skills, talents or knowledge to share with the world.
Kiss rocks.
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
@Dhorpatan Just because it's the only thing you have to go on, doesn't mean the critique is merited. If the only thing I had to go on was the fact that you graduated high school would my critique of you be validated? No, since I don't know if you went to college, etc.
And stop skipping my comments in order to keep pushing this false notion that you are correct and that I'm stupid -you never addressed the square-circle question I brought up.
M3PanoS 5 months ago
@M3PanoS
That's why I said, BASED ON YOUR CHANNEL, stupid. And it's merited. It's clearly merited.
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS "you never addressed the square-circle question"
I will. So if god is omnipotent but he can't do anything that is a logical contraddiction then how about something even we humans can do: suicide. Can god kill himself? No. There you go, god's omnipotence became somewhat kinda lame... a few more redefinitions of that word and superman will be more powerful than god.
DSkaz89 5 months ago
Correction:
Rocks; not ricks;
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
@M3PanoS
Also, I think you're retarded and a serious jerk. Does that mean anything to you Pano?
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
@M3PanoS
Atheists and Theists alike think I'm retarded, yet I'm sitting here with 54 friend invites in my invite folder. So that many people sent a friend invite to someone who Atheists and Theists alike think is retarded?
I'm getting that from someone who, based on their channel, is a complete nobody, with no special skills, talents, or knowledge to share with the world.
Dude, kiss good ricks Pano. LOL!
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
@Dhorpatan Cool story bro, but are you seriously trying to build a credible base based on ad populum?
The fact that you judge me based solely on my YT channel shows just how shallow your threats really go -I mean, I'm justified to judge you based on your YT channel because you spend lots of time on it making videos and whatnot -as you can tell from mine, I do NOT. So how is that judgment even merited?
"Kiss good r[o]cks?" What?
M3PanoS 5 months ago