They don't look like your church-going folk, because you may be racist. It's really sad honey, you're making money by spreading fear. Jesus, darling, would want neither of those. Come on.
God absolutely should give his creation 100% proof that he exists.....If you say that it takes away our free will to choose....then I say we didn't have a choice in being born in the first place so forget free will! If God will punish you because you didn't have enough proof to believe that he existed, then what kind of 'god' is he....a spoiled brat with too much power??? NO...He's got to be bigger than that~!
LOL...Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.....noone comes to the Father but through Him....and those who deny Christ as coming in the flesh are not of God but have the antichrist spirit, the same antichrist you've been WARNED about to come, but is yet not; nevertheless, his spirit has always been on earth deceiving non-believers and believers alike....LOL...as lame as tha video was, I can't help but wonder how many of you "christians" actually watch Oprah daily...LOL...God ease
Deluded fuckwits seem incapable of presenting any position which even addresses the possibility an alternative to their own dogmatic, unreasoned beliefs. Apparently such deluded zealots cant even construct a sentence that even makes sense. How can a sentient being be described as "the Truth"? The truth is a concept which applies to statements, not beings. Your belief system is not just BULLSHIT, it is NONSENSE, in that it's whole vocabulary of jargon is literally loaded with NONSENSICAL terms.
LOL...I haven't been on this thing a long time, and still I see that the world still has a way to "attempt" to state a fact of reason for why there is no "god." Nonetheless, the fool is the one who says in his heart, "There is no God." You do well to be skeptical about what you hear through the airways. However, the world doesn't know who is the lord of the air, nor do they acknowledge his deception. They only continue to deny the truth...because they can't grasp it...Christ have mercy on u.
"...the world [WTF?] ...still has a way to "attempt" to state a fact of reason for why there is no "god."" Perhaps you'd be better to use single quotes for scare quotes. But why you need to put scare quotes around 'god' is a mystery. The word is not a name unless it refers to a PARTICULAR doctrinal entity. The god I don't believe in is ANY god, so it requires no capitalization. Just like the multitude of gods YOU don't believe in. Quoting scripture to assert your dogma is circular reasoning.
Before we look at your complete lack of reasoning skills though, we need to consider the onus of evidence / proof. How laboriously tiring it is to have to keep repeating to you people (as if it wasn't self evidently obvious) that YOU are the one making the claim that a god exists so YOU are the ones required to furnish evidence. A god simply does not stand to reason in the first place. Nobody is required to furnish any so called "fact of reason for why there is no god". Nor was I attempting to.
The point's that I did raise went sailing gracefully over your delusion filled head. Not only that, but you reinforced those points by demonstrating them again. Refusing to contemplate even the possibility that your worldview is in error, is the actual point I made. By ignoring this point and presenting a barrage of petulant complaints that pretend you have the right to ASSUME your worldview is correct, you demonstrate the very point that you WILL NOT consider the possibility that you are wrong.
Regarding the quote from the Bible, not only is this a laughable folly of unreason, in that it is circular because it pretends that the bible is an infallible source of factual knowledge, but it is lamentably stupid, in that it pretends the prediction, that people might disagree is an astonishing improbable insight. It's as though you people have your probability units wired back to front.
LOL..."probability units wired back to front," huh. I suppose soon you will see, seeing that you have not begun to see anything because of your lack of knowledge of the word, the Father, the Son, or the Comforter. But I suppose once H1N1 is forced upon us all, and a one world government finally rears it's head from the mud, you'll stil believe that everything is "coincidently" happening. As I've said before...may the Father have mercy on your soul...shalom.
There's very little any thinking person can say to this because it is partly incoherent nonsense, and in part because most of what is meaningful English, is simply irrelevant. You have demonstrated thoroughly in your previous post that you lack even the basic rudiments of any reasoning skills, so it is quite arrogant of you to talk down to others about their lack of comprehension about the topics which you profess need to be understood, to reach a valid conclusion, or begin 'seeing' anything.
Before anything can be comprehended, a method of factual reasoning is required. That condition, is orders of magnitude more important than specific knowledge of any ancient manuscripts. You have three baseless assertions here, 1) That I don't 'see anything'. I see plenty, including how the religious delusion works and a barrage of flawed assumption and logical fallacies in all religious arguments. 2) That I have not gained a reasonable understanding of scripture.
Are you going to claim that my failure to become convinced, demonstrates that I don't understand the scriptures? So on one hand you continue to dispense with, reason and on the other you continue to invoke circular arguments. 3 ) Your third baseless claim, is the non sequitur that if I don't believe a supernatural creation myth, then I must believe that "everything is "coincidently" happening". (Again with the double quotes, so when somebody goes to quote you there are two sets. - So annoying).
I'd ask you where you get the idea that everything would have to be 'coincidently happening' (though 'where did you learn to construct sentences?' might be a better question) Anyhow, the reason you jump to such an unfounded conclusion, is quite close to home really. Without reasoning skills, the concept of 'cause and effect' relationships between things is undeveloped. Whenever you don't understand a necessary, natural, cause and effect relationship, explains something you just say 'Goddidit'.
That little gem of non-thinking folds back into a myriad of problems for your worldview. The god of the gaps doesn't just serve whatever isn't presently explained, for the religious person goddidit is a convenience to invoke for each personal or doctrinal failure of understanding. How anything is caused and found to be logically necessary, in natural cause and effect relationships, is something the religious mind can completely disregard. Just say the magic word 'goddidit' and all is explained.
In any case expecting a believer to knowledge the need for proper reasoning skills and rigorously test their claims with the diligent effort required to find them false if they are, well that would be just too much to ask. Believers don't want to find out if they are wrong and so they bend over backwards to excuse themselves from reason and intellectual rigor. Many claims religion makes are for just plain fact. You cant hope to reach conclusions without reason nor reason without logic.
What has happened is like a chess game, which never gets past the first move. You take the first move because the burden of proof is on you. I notice that the move you have made is illegal, so I call you out. You try to make your first move again and make another illegal move, whereupon I call you out again. That is not chess and this is not a debate.
You can not call out what you "yourself" do not understand. Your skepticism and tha calling out of me is based on some radical belief that what I believe is, well..."bullshit" for lack of better words. Thus, you have debated your take on what I have supposedly done "illegally," though I might add still has the same effect even after this long time. Do yourself a favor. Go sit in silence. Think real hard about what you are saying. Go get proof to back up what you say. Then we'll talk. :)
Pheonix. This is a waste of time. You are simply incapable of reasoning, either honestly or properly. If this were a real debate and the contenders both capable and reasonable, you would not need to be told that what we are debating is a claim put by theist. That claim is the existence of a supernatural deity. So I DON'T NEED TO FURNISH ANY 'PROOF' (you mean evidence perhaps) to back up what I say. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. You aren't even close to the ball park if you need to be told this.
You can not call out what you "yourself" do not "understand. Your skepticism and tha calling out of me is based on some radical belief that what I believe is, well..."bullshit" for lack of better words. Thus, you have debated your take on what I have supposedly done "illegally," though I might add still has the same effect even after this long time."
WRONG. I have debated 'my take' on what you have done illegally, as your starting assumptions aren't legitimate, and you use them to 'bootstrap'.
It is simply obvious to anybody who is competent at reasoning and debate, that you are not subjecting yourself or your own assumptions, to the same standards of rigor that a rationalist requires. You continue to (apparently) refuse to be drawn on these points, without which no reasonable debate can begin. The 'knowledge' you claim to posses is not admissible as evidence, until it's exposed to tests of falsifiability. IOW, you need to show it is not gained by self-deception or circular reasoning.
The 'understanding' which needs to be established before any reasonable debate can begin, is of the fundamentals in how to reason. Critical thinking itself, requires self-scrutiny. However implausible I may think your beliefs are, it is not my job to prove them implausible. You are simply not entitled, to claim your belief as 'KNOWLEDGE' and then insist that your opponent can't criticize your beliefs because he doesn't 'UNDERSTAND' them. Before anybody imposes any 'KNOWLEDGE' it needs vetting.
'Understanding' implies a body of concrete knowledge. Before it is possible for me to 'understand' the set of claims in contention, it is first necessary to assume them to be founded on objective principals of concrete knowledge. It would also be necessary to posses faculties of sufficient reasoning to avoid self-deception and fallacies of reason. You also, face the same conditions, prior to any claims of knowledge. How can we trust, that this 'knowledge' is founded on objective principals?
The way we proceed is skeptically. Admitting something as 'Knowledge' only after rigorous scrutiny and having proven to ourselves that it stands up to logical tests a priori, such as not being self-dependent (circular) but independent. We can then turn to the empirical evidence and also check how consistent the claims are with established knowledge. We test claims, by quarantining them to a hypothetical status called a hypothesis and we don't let them off the hook until they earn their trust.
For this process to function correctly, the practitioner must posses rigorous reasoning skills and they must be willing to set aside assumptions. I have not argued anywhere on this thread, that my skepticism of your beliefs is founded on my belief that what you "believe is bullshit". That is just ridiculous and infantile kindergarten debating. I have strenuously pointed out what my criticism is based on, and I have repeatedly pointed out the burden to support your claims with evidence is yours.
The assertion you have tendered, that 'I myself do not understand what I am calling out', fails on multiple levels. It is not only irrelevant and unfounded but also disingenuous. I would point out it's irrelevance and be done, but the disingenuous is a matter which needs to be put into the spotlight, as it illustrates the liability of self-deception, wishful thinking and the theists intellectual dishonesty. The irrelevance, follows from the baseless assumption that I have previously explained.
The assumption that anybody may have a rational understanding of objective, concrete knowledge, which might follow from the sources of theist belief systems, is ludicrous. The most plausible of these belief systems admit that their main tenets are articles of faith and by that I mean beliefs that are acquired without reason. The least plausible of these belief systems make absurd claims which are patently falsified by the simplest empirical observations. Faith is irrelevant. Reason is merciless.
The best approach religion has to plausibility, is to surrender objectivity, and defend superstition (without reason) as a virtue. Failing that, the theist has to contend with the perils of objectivity, empirical evidence and be held accountable to reason. The relevance of your claim, is no better than every other crackpot pseudo-science and superstition, which squawks loud objections to all criticism (instead of responding honestly), because the critic is not a purveyor of 'inside knowledge'.
The liability of this non-argument, is obvious when you apply it to other questionable beliefs, which you yourself consider far fetched or absurd. A set of beliefs can not be served up as as artifacts of factual knowledge and consumed as a cooked up dish. You must allow the observer to examine the ingredients and read the recipe and of course the utensils must be approved. Contrived excuses to avoid these conditions of fair play, are themselves a huge smoking gun. It gives away willful dishonor.
Expecting somebody to be a purveyor, insider, or a partisan of a belief system, is a contemptible psychological ruse for con merchants and confidence tricksters, who require you to take them at their word for the claims they make and to put any intercessory doubt aside. If suspending skepticism is the secret to your profound spiritual wisdom, then I am not surprised it manifests no tangible evidence of merit in it's favor. How many times do I have to say it? You can't advance circular arguments.
Now beside the contemptible, disingenuous sophism, inherent in this excuse for non-accountability to reason, it is also without merit in terms of plain factuality. Just what exactly is it, that you assume, grant's you the privileged of estimating my degree of learning or intimacy with the subject matter in question? How precisely do you 'KNOW' that I am unqualified to call you out, as a consequence of my lack of understanding about theist claims. I anticipated and addressed this point already.
"You have three baseless assertions... 2) That I have not gained a reasonable understanding of scripture. Are you going to claim that my failure to become convinced, demonstrates that I do not understand the scriptures?" You didn't answer this direct question, but it follows that conviction (belief) depends upon an understanding, that in turn depends upon suspension of doubt (belief). Where do you factor in the possibility that the claims may be false?
As soon as you get down off your condescending little cloud of dogma, to visit planet earth, could you please drop by and demonstrate that you have the balls to directly face the critical points I have made? If (just for starters) there is a reason why your claims are entitled to claim immunity to circular reasoning, then would you care to explain specifically why. Don't pretend that your inside knowledge entitles you to hand waive every criticism away, without any provision for falsification.
Having explained your apparent dishonesty, implicit in the assumption of a circular argument and the plea of exclusion of from accountability to reason, you might then like to DIRECTLY address the point I have made repeatedly right from the beginning of our discourse. It is quite annoying, to hear you spout any irrelevant shit that pops into your head, as if it were valid reasoning. When instead it is a re-statement of a willfully dishonest tactic I have already nailed to your ass, it angers me.
So the next piece of advice / request is if you intend to respond, have the common decency, either to acknowledge a point and concede or justify your position. Don't be an ignorant, DISHONEST twat by ignoring the point, hoping I won't remind you, and then REPEATING THE SAME FUCKING SHIT. OK? Fuck it all man, I have stated it over and again. You are MAKING THE CLAIM in question. If you wish to advocate the existence of any god, then YOU HAVE THE ONUS OF PROOF. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Your entire last response is predicated on the unconscionable ignorance of my laboriously repeated point that the burden of proof is on the claimant. Please recall:
"Before we look at your complete lack of reasoning skills though, we need to consider the onus of evidence / proof. How laboriously tiring it is to have to keep repeating to you people (as if it wasn't self evidently obvious) that YOU are the one making the claim that a god exists so YOU are the ones required to furnish evidence."
I even stress the frustrating, tiresome, futility, of having to repeat this ridiculously obvious principal of kinder-logic so repeatedly. It's bad enough that the deist who appreciates this, is as scarce as the five legged dog, but must I actually oil it and bone your ass with it, for an acknowledgement that demonstrates respect for accountability and goodwill that the point even exists? Your last response actually ramps up the pretense, that I have a burden to account for my lack of conviction.
Your balls out ignorance of the simplest principals of reasoning, required to justify making a valid claim, is blatantly disregarded without any rhyme, reason or excuse. The requests to furnish the same are repeatedly ignored and finally you tender a contrived pretense, demanding some unexplained justification be admitted, for your unauthorized leave from reason and now this shit demanding I: "Go get proof to back up what you say. Then we'll talk. :)" NOW JUST WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
Now here's an idea: JUST GET IT THROUGH YOU DENSE FUCKING HEAD WILL YOU. FOR FUCK SAKE. IVE HAD A FUCKING GUT LOAD OF YOUR DELIBERATE IGNORANCE. I AM NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A REFUTATION OF YOUR CLAIMS. YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM, SO YOU MUST SUPPORT IT WITH VALID EVIDENCE AND REASONING THAT ESTABLISHES JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY ANYBODY (INCLUDING YOU) SHOULD BE CONVINCED. I have not even attempted to begin debating you theological arguments and the debate can't begin until you form a valid argument.
Your feeble, pathetic, gutless ignorant, dishonorable excuse, for the refusal to even begin holding your claims accountable to reason, is a shameful testimony to the lowly depths to which the abyss of disingenuous deception must be plumbed, in pursuit of vulgar insults to any esteemed, rational, open minded, artifacts of intellectual integrity that merely deserve consideration as hypothetical contenders for truth. Truth must STAND ON IT'S OWN MERIT, NOT INSULATE ITSELF FROM REASONED CRITICISM.
I had already mentioned in an earlier exchange that
"If you can never admit the possibility of falsehood, you can't even begin a debate."
Not that it received any acknowledgement. You simply barged in with an arrogant, dishonest, circuitous excuse, to desperately insulate your falsifiable claims against any criticism, including the criticism that any claim presented for debate, must proceed from assumptions that include the possibility of finding it false, should it actually turn out that way.
That is not a matter of simple courtesy or anything nearly as superficial BTW. It is a logical imperative. It should also be common sense, that If we wish to know if something is true OR NOT, we cant just leave out the OR NOT and precede to justify our beliefs by diligently scrabbling only after every morsel of shadowy evidence and self serving excuse, that might be construed as lending some credibility (however tenuous) to our preconceived, unjustified and self-supporting prejudices.
So what has your last contribution done to address this point? NOTHING AT ALL. Instead you reinforce your arrogance, by professing a lamentable implication that pretends your claims are entitled to be considered true if I can't disprove them. Furthermore if I am wrong, you seem to imply that you by extension are right. On top of this you gainsay my 'belief that what" you "believe is, well..."bullshit"" as the pivotal point and proclaim that it is based and depends on a theological understanding.
A) My opinions of your beliefs, is irrelevant to the prerequisites (such as allowing for falsifiability) of rational debate. That, along with all precepts of reason, is not negotiable or contingent. We must both use the same accounting standard. Any deviation from accepted standards, should be discussed and agreed as mutually consistent. My opinions of your beliefs depends not on your ability to satisfy these prerequisites, but how convincing your arguments are.
B) I have made little attempt to argue or justify my specific theological objections so far, as the point of order is over the conditions of any debate. Meanwhile, I have strenuously insisted that as the claimant the incumbency rests with you to present a case for justifying your beliefs. Until you do there can be no debate to speak of. The only criticism to be answered as yet, is the universal appeal to reasonable doubt, that no claim be granted uncritical acceptance as a factual conclusion.
C) Given that I have not had the pleasure of refuting any justifications you have put forward for your theological claims (because you have not as yet put any forward), it seems that you could only be spouting rhetorical plaints of prejudice, by scorning my reasonable expectations for fair-play. My discourse thus far, has concerned the general requirements, to foster a reasonable, fair debate. You may dispute these points at will, but they aren't specific to your (or any other) belief system.
Continuing in that vein, it follows that the debate specifically about 'why you or anybody else, should be convinced by the religious claims you believe and endorse', is forestalled, as the only responses you have tendered, are ad hoc plaints, for unreasonable privilege and reaffirming your arrogant certainty, by bleating self-conciliating dogma and religious jargon, as if you had established your beliefs as accepted fact. These aren't valid arguments in debate, so we're still disputing terms.
We are still at first move and waiting for a move that is within the rules. If you haven't gotten to any specific points in defense of your theological points (and you know very well you haven't), how could my beliefs about your beliefs, bare any relevance to, let alone depend upon, my understanding of your theological beliefs? Your ill-conceived plaint "You can not call out what you "yourself" do not understand." gives the lie to your misdirection of what was actually being called out.
Because I know you need to be told numerous times, I will reiterate this point. A justification for your theistic beliefs is not the same as an excuse which attempts justifying the absence of any justification. The points I have made concerning your lack of accountability, do not constitute a refutation of any legitimate theological point. They are not dependent on theology at all for validity, Therefore what you profess "I don't understand " is not an issue of relevance, even if it were true.
By contrast what YOU don't understand, IS a relevant issue of contention, as we cant profess to be engaged in legitimate debate, unless both parties are resigned to common objective standards of reason. Consider the limiting condition for eg, that you cant assume you are right on any point, by pretending that I must refute your claim and any time I am wrong you are automatically right. That is an issue of logic independent of subject matter in dispute. It DOESN'T INTERCEDE A CLAIM IN ANY WAY.
The upshot of this, is that my various complaints about your failure to grasp (apprehend or comprehend) reason, is a serious deal breaker and as a general criticism, it is not subject to, or provisional upon, any special knowledge about theology and certainly not your specific religious convictions. The point I have made over and over, that the onus proof is on the claimant, is likewise, a matter of nothing other than logic, It is impartial to your beliefs as well as mine. It's just pure logic.
So. the pretense that my complaints have been based on anything other than your evasion of accountability to valid reasoning, is itself, either a disingenuous ruse to avoid accountability, or an 'honest[?]' misconception. If you cared for the benefit of the doubt, you might do some revision on intellectual honesty and knowledge my explicit, diligently presented points, rather than ignoring them or creating further claims which arrogantly contradict them again without the slightest justification.
If you were interested in intellectual honesty, you wouldn't miss the opportunity to ferret out the most challenging issues in your belief system and be your own skeptic. If you cant present a full and honest account of your worst liabilities in critical discourse, then you should expect to be seen as an unworthy debate opponent. You conclusions would rightfully be suspected of being flaky, unrigorous and biased. If instead you can express and refute a critics best arguments, you deserve credit.
If you actually exhibit blatant disregard for valid reasoning and opt for every chance to cop out of accountability you will deserve no mercy or respect form people who vet their conclusions mercilessly. You might bare in mind that I, like most rationalists subject my own conclusions (I dont like 'beliefs'), to ruthless scrutiny and I do care passionately that my understandings are valid, rational, carefully justified (or qualified) estimates of relative plausibility.
When you carelessly contradict a fastidiously rational thinker and state with overweening confidence even hinting at totalitarian certainty, a barrage of ludicrous absurd and fallacious nonsense, fabricated with the lowliest disrespectful contempt of their intellect, hard earned understandings and intellectual honesty, you have no right to expect to even be taken seriously, let alone granted at a seat at the table of valid rational debate.
You might consider that I am just as hard on my own beliefs and than neither I (nor anybody else) should be convinced of your claims with any less critical scrutiny, nor less demand for accountability, than I do for the claims that I have provisionally accepted. I have cultivated a passionate interest in using critical thinking skills and diligently refined my reasoning capacity over the years. The condescending arrogance of your glib contradiction brings your pathetic unreason into sharp focus.
If you also demand that this person who the is subject of your disregard for rational thinking and contempt for accountability, must hold them-self accountable to falsifying your implicitly undeniable claims, which you feel entitled to foist as unrivaled facts and proceed to trample blindly, over the detailed and meticulous collective of exquisite and profound learnings that have been acquired by the rationalists, then what does this say? Never mind expecting a diligent regard for Occam's razor!
It difficult to express the massive degree of arrogant disregard for reason, intellectual honesty and respect for those possessing such qualities, required to postulate such lowly contemptible appeal to unrestrained prejudice and ludicrous hypocrisy. The challenge is not helped by the fact that valid reasoning can not be called into service to demonstrate the misgivings in the beliefs of a person who has not acquired any rational accumen. It's like reading the coroners report to the cadaver.
"Your skepticism and tha calling out of me is based on some radical belief that what I believe is, well..."bullshit" for lack of better words."
Just for the record "tha calling out of"[sic] you, is not based on any beliefs. In my worldview, conclusions are NEVER based on belief. What we have here is a case of you projecting the misgivings of your own non-thinking system onto me, with flagrant disregard for the standards I maintain.
If you have no standards or reasoning skills, you might just as well assume everybody else is as devoid of these things as you are. Reasonable people don't swat blindly at their opponents either. You had absolutely no grounds to make such false assertions as this and you don't even offer a passing reference to how you reached this monumental conclusion.
In my worldview, conclusions (or beliefs) may be (indeed must be) the result of reason, but not the other way around. It is a smoking gun though, that you would impart upon me without attempting to account for the maneuver, the lowly, uncritical misgivings, of your own worldview. Beliefs may precede reasons in the arenas of so called 'thought' where wishful thinking is king. But where I come from, beliefs are as inert and inconsequential as a photograph. An end result, not a catalyst for cause.
I have said enough and then some, but I hasten to reiterate the most important point to show some honorable regard for accountability to reason. That is to first understand that There is only one claim being considered here. The claim the any god exists is yours and you are required to support it. DO NOT pretend that I am obliged to refute it, as if my failure to do, so was was vindication of your claim. That isn't how it works, and the sooner you acquire some basic reasoning skills the better.
Lol...idle babbling benefits no one. I've been on earth long enough to understand earthly knowledge, that which you cling to. I don't put myself in no position as to believe I can do anything, but the Word of God speaks for itself, would you care to here what it says? :)
Well just don't do it then. Honestly your flagrant disregard for making or responding too, any coherent, poignant or intellectually interesting points is a failure you should address. If on the other hand, all you care to do is spout self serving rhetoric, you are right on the mark. Just keep those blinkers on and disregard all criticism of your beliefs, with broad hand waiving rhetoric, because you could never be wrong and no justification is required.
The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by one. For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Shalom.
Look Phoenix. You continually refuse to acknowledge the points I make over and over and over. You have FAILED to demonstrate how you KNOW any of this SHIT. Yet you keep coming back as if having the last word vindicates you. Your ignorance is astounding and you have NOT given nobody ANY reason to see how you would look different if you WERE deluded. You have refused to show accountability to falsification. You have FAILED. To completely ignore points and preach dogma, is not debate. YOU LOOSE!
What you have spouted here is incoherent babble, which apart from anything else, it demonstrates clearly YET AGAIN, that you will only assume you are right and never speak hypothetically as if your beliefs were to be questioned. DO YOU GET THAT? OR IS THAT A LITTLE DIFFICULT FOR YOUR ADDLED BRAIN TO CONCEIVE? I have told you that this is circular reasoning and you have ignored this point. You are depending on your own assumptions that your beliefs are valid. You have NOT shown otherwise.
"Warrior of God. I write concerning the truth that is the Word. No games. No gimmicks."
BULLSHIT! You haven't got a clue what TRUTH is. Your relation to the truth is equivalent to a baby and it's rapist. You assume a bunch of vulgar disgusting dogma, then precede to justify it by spouting circular rhetoric, which in itself, barely makes any sense, yet clearly ASSUMES that your beliefs are correct. 'No games'? 'No gimmicks'? WTF!? YOU TOTAL FUCKING LIAR
What you need Phoenix, is a good hot bowl of QualiaSoup:
watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
When you are ready to face the real justifications for your beliefs, the ones which don't expect others to assume they are true; when you are ready to question beliefs (specifically your own) with the humility to accept they may be false, then you can make your first move. So far you have not made a single legitimate move. The game is still at move zero. Oh and it's still your move of course.
Oh an on biblical athority watch?v=VHJx5tooHE8 and
Then There's watch?v=VHJx5tooHE8
When you get through explaining why you won't make a legal move to me, this guy would like some help with your religious delusion too: watch?v=-2bpc7LSRZc
And for the benifit of anybody who isn't a detestable little maggot who couldn't give a fuck about the nature of the truth or how to find it, here is a nice video addressing the onus of proof and circular reasoning.
watch?v=18bICTvpAWM and watch?v=iJS0cPba8iM&feature=related
IGNORANT FUCKWITS can demonstrate they admit how deluded and FUCKING IGNORANT they are by not saying anything about circular reasoning but just keep pretending that they are entitled to spew dogma as if it were proven fact.
Enoch, the seventh from Adam prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousand of His saints, to excute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lust; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage...
From Adam's seed, making Enoch Adam's great great great great great great grandson. Also he witness the fall of the angels and their corruption of the human bloodline.
Read the Word my friend. Seek you first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.
Until you do, what I speak will never make ANY since.
But remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of my Lord Jesus Christ: how they told us that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own unglodly lust. These worldly persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.
The world tells you what you know, and you speak it. Continue in this manner, for indeed, there is no comdemnation for those who believe in Jesus Christ; but to those who do not believe Him, they are condemned already.
"The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit..."
WTF? Now you claim to not be natural!!? What are you then SUPERNATURAL? Are you going to demonstrate with any evidence that you, or any thing you are privy too, is any more than part of the same realm of natural phenomena as I can experience? You spout the privilege of divine revelation, and piously claim it for your own dominion. Do you think I am going to honor that as an attempt at honesty on your part? No! Why not?
All you have to do to demonstrate the poverty of an assertion such as this, is notice how it can be tendered to support claims of ANY deity. Have you explained how we know you are any different (i.e. other than natural)? NO. Have you explained how you went from being a non-believer to a believer? NO. Then how is it that you were you permitted to receive things "of the spirit", in order that you could ever become convinced in the first palace? Or were you indoctrinated throughout childhood?
Whatever the case, in order for your beliefs to be convincing to others, you have to show that they have been arrived at rationally. I dare say the contortions you are going through to evade all accountability to rational criticism, tell us something about their value as rational concepts. This latest evasion because 'God only reveals itself to believers' (although I know you haven't stated it this frankly) is just another EXCUSE for not facing rational accountability. It's delusional as ever.
All you have done ONCE AGAIN, is presumed to know what you do and pretended non-believers don't, all based on excuses depending on circular logic. In no way does your latest claim of 'divine revelation' differ from the prejudice you perpetually reinforce, which depends on nothing but the assumptions you have demonstrated repeatedly. It cant be checked outside of your circular discourse of self reinforcing delusion. I've questioned the circular reasoning repeatedly, but you continue to ignore it.
Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you don't know where He is from, or who He is (Jesus the Messiah); yet He has opened my eyes! Now we know that God does not hear sinners, nor do sinners hear the Father; but if anyone is a worshipper of the Father, the Living God, and does His will, He hears him. Behold, He is coming as a thief in the night, you know not the hour of His coming! Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame. My hands are washed
"God does not hear sinners, nor do sinners hear the Father;"
YOU PRESUMPTUOUS IGNORANT, ARROGANT TWAT.
That's right Phoenix, just stick you fingers in your ears an go 'lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala' to show what a fucking ignorant retarded FUCKWIT you are. You ignore EVERYTHING!!! !!!EVERY-FUCKING-THING!!!! YOU LIYING, IGNORRANT, CLOSE MINDED UNREASONABLE CUNT. WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHUT YOUR IGNORANT SHIT DRIBBLING, BULLSHIT HOLE? You are a deluded fucking bullshit spewing MORON.
Deluded fuckwits seem incapable of presenting any position which even addresses the possibility an alternative to their own dogmatic, unreasoned beliefs.
Circular reasoning lalalalalalalalalalalalalala spew more ridiculous bullshit lalalalalalalalalalalalala, babble incoherently lalalalalalalalalalala claim to be righteous holly and place myself above other morally lalalalalalalal ignore all rational criticism like an arrogant RETARDED FUCKWIT lalalalalalalalala Continue circular reasoning.
@skepticoz using capitals and epithets does not help your point in debate.
you always find people using the bilble verses in out of context and derive meanings to suit thier point. most of these people on these threads are not theologians anyway.
Your BRAIN IS WASHED.You are a contemptible loathsome failure, a deluded moron and a waste of effort. You have no regard for respectable reasonable rational thinking. you don't give a flying fuck about being honest and you COMPLETELY DISRESPECT ANYBODY AND ANYTHING HONESTLY ATTEMPTING TO RECONCILE TRUTH. You don't know what truth is and you DON'T GIVE A FUCK. YOU ARE A LIAR AND A GUTLESS MAGGOT WHO IS ASHAMED OF TRUTH. YOU ARE A SHAMELESS FUCKING SELF-SERVING LIAR PHOENIX.
"I've been on earth long enough to understand earthly knowledge, that which you cling to."
Really!!? Strange how you have not demonstrated the slightest smattering of this self-proclaimed "earthly" knowledge. Would that include physics, biology, chemistry, pharmacology, medical science, genetics, mathematics? NO NO Puleeeeeeeese!! Do tell me Professor, which of the main tenets of rationally acquired, knowledge do you consider to be such unworthy "earthly" knowledge? Cosmology perhaps?
I notice you speak in many words which shows your need to be heard and understand. And it's quite obvious your "assumption" of what earthly knowledge. But I'll entertain you. Answer me this...if I know all my life medical, psychology, mathematics and so on, will that benefit me in the least in the afterlife? Lol...I doubt it seriously, but to one that is given knowledge, another wisdom, and another understanding, and another faith and so on. It's obvious you know not the Holy Spirit. :)
Still haven't responded to any specific critical points I have made. Still being an arrogant twat making dogmatic assertions. Still ignoring the points I have made from the beginning about how the game must be played. Still taking liberties with the claims you sake for truth, as if anything is true just because you say so. Recall what I said: "Deluded fuckwits seem incapable of presenting any position which even addresses the possibility an alternative to their own dogmatic, unreasoned beliefs."
"But I'll entertain you. Answer me this...if I know all my life medical, psychology, mathematics and so on, will that benefit me in the least in the afterlife?"
Firstly, That is not even a feeble attempt to "entertain" me. I have repeatedly stated, time and time and time again. The onus of evidence is upon you. Nobody is obliged to take your superstitious rhetoric as founded on something which in any way represents truth. Yet without any acknowledgement of this, you continue to spout dogma.
You just finish saying you will entertain me, then in the next breath, you are taunting me with a rhetorical question about knowledge and what good it will do in circumstances proposed by your unsubstantiated fairytale. The implication I see from a million miles, is that by vaguely and dismissively ridiculing "earthly" knowledge and the irrelevance of however much I might endorse it, you think that should vindicate the privilege you take, in foisting your dogmatic prejudice, as inerrant truth.
As if I should need to reiterate this once again: You Pheonix, are the one who's claims for the truth are being examined here. It is not my job to defend anything about conventionally obtained knowledge, least of all if you fail to challenge any SPECIFIC articles of that knowledge and establish rationally, how their falsification makes your claims more likely. Then you have to support the falsification, then the balance of all new assumptions with known evidence a la Occam's Razor. Don't cheat.
Your pretentious, arrogant expectation, to constantly demand unfounded and undeserved acceptance of such things as an 'afterlife' or especially a 'holly spirit' is only testifying to the willful ignorance I criticized in the first place. You drop gobbledy-spook into discourse as if it was entitled to be dignified as fact. Then you try to bounce the accountability, by implying that the "earthly" knowledge we all depend on, is worthless in an unestablished afterlife, as if this validated you.
Not only does it NOT lend credibility or support to your claims, that earthly knowledge is not useful to a person after they're dead, It also doesn't call the factuality of that knowledge into question. Let each article of claimed knowledge stand on it's own merit. How do we establish a system of evaluating this merit? If anything you claimed (more like pretended) to KNOW, was in any sense better than "EARTHLY" knowledge, then what planet were you on when you learned it and how do you KNOW it?
wait is this agents obama regardless obama is almost just as bad as McCain the big factor for me is mccain said he would go to war with Iran and we're already in 2 wars so where are the troops coming from great a draft, probably a small one but if he does go to war I'd be 18 and i really really don't want to be shot, that just sounds painful please anyone reading this don't vote for McCain i don't want to be shoot i vote my shelf but im unfortunately 17 and cant which sucks
"The woman who made this video is an atheist, therefore is a child of the devil, at least according to the word, but there is hope for her, Jesus Christ."
There is more than religion in the world. I personally believe that every religion is just each cultures own interpretation of god and how to live your life. Why? because every religion can't be right, and one right religion can't make all the others wrong. The bible is over 2000 years old and has been translated Several different times, through many different languages. To says its the same exact text as 2000 years ago is ridiculous.
JESUS IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIGHT! I can't believe that after going to church Oprah has fallen away from God and decided that there is no God. She needs to reread the Bible. God created man not man created God. The writers of the Bible were inspired by God to write what was written. I agree that she will be judged by what she is teaching.
...and you just defined your adherence to the agreement of her 'claimed judgement' which in equal turn, means that YOU too are pronouncing judgment upon her. I can only assume that you must be God (between the judging) and with all those 7's or maybe you're just crafty and they all stand for 't'?
1st of all...don't you know 13 7's is unlucky??? (not are, I do believe...no, wait, think)
2nd, you spoke your (unfounded, un-provable) truth and PROCLAIMED your obvious stance...O.K., not 'completely' obvious because between the 7's and the christ without a 't' i thought you might have been a christian...at first.
The woman who made this video is an atheist, therefore is a child of the devil, at least according to the word, but there is hope for her, Jesus Christ.
Jesus said:
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
What exactly IS a liar if not having truth first to oppose?? If the devil has 'no truth in him' then by definition, he cannot also be a 'liar'. But I guess (though you can obviously tell I have processed YOUR post), you probably won't allow the 'devil' to 'twist your words' right???
And was the murderous/liar in context that instead of listening to 'truth' it is the one who will 'speaketh a lie of his own' as you did in WANTING her to be damned and will not answer to truth/reason??
Yes, I THINK that this upside-down chin speaks the antagonistic, comedic, metaphorical truth through the reasons she describes as her take on the book. Any scripture you want to site that has no room for interpretation???
Sorry, I can't read gibberish, but I did put you wrote into a translator and when the translation was complete it said "Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah", and all I can say to that is blah.
Child? Haha, I stopped believing in Santa Claus at four, but you still believe in an imaginary being in the sky, and I'm the child? Don't make me wet myself.
imaginary huh? lets see how many prophecies have been told and come true in the bible....so many i cant count,sorry you cant find ur way to eternal life,best of luck
Ha! None on their own. You silly fundamentalists force these so-called "prophecies" to transpire. They're that sad. Do you know how many different religions' "prophecies" have been fulfilled? All of them, and why? Because their followers force to make them into a reality. It's rather simple, really.
it is pointless "reasoning" with these people. You're talking about the same people who believe that you and I were "created" by some sky god who reads ours thoughts and keeps cars from hitting us on the way to work. Lol. You're trying to reason with people who believe that a sky god's son is coming back to take them away, even though they've been saying that for the past two millenia. Why the heck is he taking so long? Lol. They're idiots, pure and simple!
More people have been killed in the name of God or otherwise named than any natural disaster. Did you read your history book? Amazing that no where else, except the bible do you find the most impossible stories. Nor has it ever been recreated. What happened to all this magic or miracles? Why can't people part the sea's or walk on water? How come Château Cheval Blanc hasn't mastered the turn water into wine thing?
I am a very good human. I give as much as I can and take only what I need.
You will soon find out that you are wrong on that...but for those christians you mention, they are simply unaware that those who go to hell choose to go, most people end up in purgatory, so don't worry, just live a good life as much as possible and when your time with God comes, just embrace his mercy. People go to hell because they refuse God's love at their judgement, so don't worry.
"Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory ... we would still be justified in preferring it over rival theories [creationism]" Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (NY Norton, 1986), 287.
yea thats what i call "rational thinking". more like ignorant,stubborn and stupid.
Starcatcher778, We atheists are not bothered when sheeple like you make more stupid excuses as to why you believe in the tooth fairy. It can be frustrating, trying to prevent some of you idiots from drinking the koolaid, but we're certainly not meeting our intellectual match in the "debate". There is no debate really. It's more like we're trying to talk sense to children.
dracco73Wouldn't it be more intelligent to just say "I really don't know what happens after we die so I have no opinion on it"? How can you intelligently debate something(for or against)you know nothing about? Why can't we say "you believe that, fine, that's you."?
No, the intelligent thing to do would be to not legislate dogma and oppress people with a religion that no one "knows" is real. If I want to buy a hooker, marry a dude, or buy a beer on sunday, I should be able to without some cult zealot telling me and everyone else they can't because some fictional being told them in a bastardize ancient text that they shouldn't. Come on!!!!
this is hilarious
TheMrucoe 9 months ago
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen..........
aguirrmar 10 months ago
I'''''''m gooooiiiiinnnnng fo fuuuuuuuuuck yoooouuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrr mooooooouuuuuuuuth!
Kindahuge 11 months ago
GOOGLE > YOU FUCKED UP BIG TIME OPRAH says John Joseph O'Brien :-)
^
GOOGLE > WHO IS THE ANGEL LOOKAGAIN OPRAH :-)
TKTRV 11 months ago
Comment removed
Cyphlix 1 year ago
Very clever with the upside-down face. Did you stand on your head for this?
k0smon 1 year ago
mickipedia love it!
bravone1 1 year ago
They don't look like your church-going folk, because you may be racist. It's really sad honey, you're making money by spreading fear. Jesus, darling, would want neither of those. Come on.
juliang63 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
___________
┫ ｜ ｜ ┣┓ copy and paste
┗┫━━ ┃ ━━┣┛ ┣┫ if you think ┃ ━━━━━ ┃ ┏┳┫┣┳┓ this fucker wasted ┗━━┳ ┛ ┃ ┃ your time !
JamesRideout123 1 year ago
Comment removed
skepticoz 2 years ago
God absolutely should give his creation 100% proof that he exists.....If you say that it takes away our free will to choose....then I say we didn't have a choice in being born in the first place so forget free will! If God will punish you because you didn't have enough proof to believe that he existed, then what kind of 'god' is he....a spoiled brat with too much power??? NO...He's got to be bigger than that~!
magnison2004 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm glad you decided to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior!
God Bless!
R0naldMcFondle 2 years ago
that's so funny indeed
intellectualman100 2 years ago
lol that is so funny!
sweetkisses021 2 years ago
LOL...Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.....noone comes to the Father but through Him....and those who deny Christ as coming in the flesh are not of God but have the antichrist spirit, the same antichrist you've been WARNED about to come, but is yet not; nevertheless, his spirit has always been on earth deceiving non-believers and believers alike....LOL...as lame as tha video was, I can't help but wonder how many of you "christians" actually watch Oprah daily...LOL...God ease
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
Yeah i second that PhoenixChampion
Well said
theshredmann 2 years ago
Deluded fuckwits seem incapable of presenting any position which even addresses the possibility an alternative to their own dogmatic, unreasoned beliefs. Apparently such deluded zealots cant even construct a sentence that even makes sense. How can a sentient being be described as "the Truth"? The truth is a concept which applies to statements, not beings. Your belief system is not just BULLSHIT, it is NONSENSE, in that it's whole vocabulary of jargon is literally loaded with NONSENSICAL terms.
skepticoz 2 years ago
LOL...I haven't been on this thing a long time, and still I see that the world still has a way to "attempt" to state a fact of reason for why there is no "god." Nonetheless, the fool is the one who says in his heart, "There is no God." You do well to be skeptical about what you hear through the airways. However, the world doesn't know who is the lord of the air, nor do they acknowledge his deception. They only continue to deny the truth...because they can't grasp it...Christ have mercy on u.
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
"...the world [WTF?] ...still has a way to "attempt" to state a fact of reason for why there is no "god."" Perhaps you'd be better to use single quotes for scare quotes. But why you need to put scare quotes around 'god' is a mystery. The word is not a name unless it refers to a PARTICULAR doctrinal entity. The god I don't believe in is ANY god, so it requires no capitalization. Just like the multitude of gods YOU don't believe in. Quoting scripture to assert your dogma is circular reasoning.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Before we look at your complete lack of reasoning skills though, we need to consider the onus of evidence / proof. How laboriously tiring it is to have to keep repeating to you people (as if it wasn't self evidently obvious) that YOU are the one making the claim that a god exists so YOU are the ones required to furnish evidence. A god simply does not stand to reason in the first place. Nobody is required to furnish any so called "fact of reason for why there is no god". Nor was I attempting to.
skepticoz 2 years ago
The point's that I did raise went sailing gracefully over your delusion filled head. Not only that, but you reinforced those points by demonstrating them again. Refusing to contemplate even the possibility that your worldview is in error, is the actual point I made. By ignoring this point and presenting a barrage of petulant complaints that pretend you have the right to ASSUME your worldview is correct, you demonstrate the very point that you WILL NOT consider the possibility that you are wrong.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Regarding the quote from the Bible, not only is this a laughable folly of unreason, in that it is circular because it pretends that the bible is an infallible source of factual knowledge, but it is lamentably stupid, in that it pretends the prediction, that people might disagree is an astonishing improbable insight. It's as though you people have your probability units wired back to front.
skepticoz 2 years ago
LOL..."probability units wired back to front," huh. I suppose soon you will see, seeing that you have not begun to see anything because of your lack of knowledge of the word, the Father, the Son, or the Comforter. But I suppose once H1N1 is forced upon us all, and a one world government finally rears it's head from the mud, you'll stil believe that everything is "coincidently" happening. As I've said before...may the Father have mercy on your soul...shalom.
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
There's very little any thinking person can say to this because it is partly incoherent nonsense, and in part because most of what is meaningful English, is simply irrelevant. You have demonstrated thoroughly in your previous post that you lack even the basic rudiments of any reasoning skills, so it is quite arrogant of you to talk down to others about their lack of comprehension about the topics which you profess need to be understood, to reach a valid conclusion, or begin 'seeing' anything.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Before anything can be comprehended, a method of factual reasoning is required. That condition, is orders of magnitude more important than specific knowledge of any ancient manuscripts. You have three baseless assertions here, 1) That I don't 'see anything'. I see plenty, including how the religious delusion works and a barrage of flawed assumption and logical fallacies in all religious arguments. 2) That I have not gained a reasonable understanding of scripture.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Are you going to claim that my failure to become convinced, demonstrates that I don't understand the scriptures? So on one hand you continue to dispense with, reason and on the other you continue to invoke circular arguments. 3 ) Your third baseless claim, is the non sequitur that if I don't believe a supernatural creation myth, then I must believe that "everything is "coincidently" happening". (Again with the double quotes, so when somebody goes to quote you there are two sets. - So annoying).
skepticoz 2 years ago
I'd ask you where you get the idea that everything would have to be 'coincidently happening' (though 'where did you learn to construct sentences?' might be a better question) Anyhow, the reason you jump to such an unfounded conclusion, is quite close to home really. Without reasoning skills, the concept of 'cause and effect' relationships between things is undeveloped. Whenever you don't understand a necessary, natural, cause and effect relationship, explains something you just say 'Goddidit'.
skepticoz 2 years ago
That little gem of non-thinking folds back into a myriad of problems for your worldview. The god of the gaps doesn't just serve whatever isn't presently explained, for the religious person goddidit is a convenience to invoke for each personal or doctrinal failure of understanding. How anything is caused and found to be logically necessary, in natural cause and effect relationships, is something the religious mind can completely disregard. Just say the magic word 'goddidit' and all is explained.
skepticoz 2 years ago
In any case expecting a believer to knowledge the need for proper reasoning skills and rigorously test their claims with the diligent effort required to find them false if they are, well that would be just too much to ask. Believers don't want to find out if they are wrong and so they bend over backwards to excuse themselves from reason and intellectual rigor. Many claims religion makes are for just plain fact. You cant hope to reach conclusions without reason nor reason without logic.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Comment removed
skepticoz 2 years ago
If you can never admit the possibility of falsehood, you cant even begin a debate. There has been no debate here, between you and I Phoenix.
skepticoz 2 years ago
What has happened is like a chess game, which never gets past the first move. You take the first move because the burden of proof is on you. I notice that the move you have made is illegal, so I call you out. You try to make your first move again and make another illegal move, whereupon I call you out again. That is not chess and this is not a debate.
skepticoz 2 years ago
You can not call out what you "yourself" do not understand. Your skepticism and tha calling out of me is based on some radical belief that what I believe is, well..."bullshit" for lack of better words. Thus, you have debated your take on what I have supposedly done "illegally," though I might add still has the same effect even after this long time. Do yourself a favor. Go sit in silence. Think real hard about what you are saying. Go get proof to back up what you say. Then we'll talk. :)
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
Pheonix. This is a waste of time. You are simply incapable of reasoning, either honestly or properly. If this were a real debate and the contenders both capable and reasonable, you would not need to be told that what we are debating is a claim put by theist. That claim is the existence of a supernatural deity. So I DON'T NEED TO FURNISH ANY 'PROOF' (you mean evidence perhaps) to back up what I say. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. You aren't even close to the ball park if you need to be told this.
skepticoz 2 years ago
You can not call out what you "yourself" do not "understand. Your skepticism and tha calling out of me is based on some radical belief that what I believe is, well..."bullshit" for lack of better words. Thus, you have debated your take on what I have supposedly done "illegally," though I might add still has the same effect even after this long time."
WRONG. I have debated 'my take' on what you have done illegally, as your starting assumptions aren't legitimate, and you use them to 'bootstrap'.
skepticoz 2 years ago
It is simply obvious to anybody who is competent at reasoning and debate, that you are not subjecting yourself or your own assumptions, to the same standards of rigor that a rationalist requires. You continue to (apparently) refuse to be drawn on these points, without which no reasonable debate can begin. The 'knowledge' you claim to posses is not admissible as evidence, until it's exposed to tests of falsifiability. IOW, you need to show it is not gained by self-deception or circular reasoning.
skepticoz 2 years ago
The 'understanding' which needs to be established before any reasonable debate can begin, is of the fundamentals in how to reason. Critical thinking itself, requires self-scrutiny. However implausible I may think your beliefs are, it is not my job to prove them implausible. You are simply not entitled, to claim your belief as 'KNOWLEDGE' and then insist that your opponent can't criticize your beliefs because he doesn't 'UNDERSTAND' them. Before anybody imposes any 'KNOWLEDGE' it needs vetting.
skepticoz 2 years ago
'Understanding' implies a body of concrete knowledge. Before it is possible for me to 'understand' the set of claims in contention, it is first necessary to assume them to be founded on objective principals of concrete knowledge. It would also be necessary to posses faculties of sufficient reasoning to avoid self-deception and fallacies of reason. You also, face the same conditions, prior to any claims of knowledge. How can we trust, that this 'knowledge' is founded on objective principals?
skepticoz 2 years ago
The way we proceed is skeptically. Admitting something as 'Knowledge' only after rigorous scrutiny and having proven to ourselves that it stands up to logical tests a priori, such as not being self-dependent (circular) but independent. We can then turn to the empirical evidence and also check how consistent the claims are with established knowledge. We test claims, by quarantining them to a hypothetical status called a hypothesis and we don't let them off the hook until they earn their trust.
skepticoz 2 years ago
For this process to function correctly, the practitioner must posses rigorous reasoning skills and they must be willing to set aside assumptions. I have not argued anywhere on this thread, that my skepticism of your beliefs is founded on my belief that what you "believe is bullshit". That is just ridiculous and infantile kindergarten debating. I have strenuously pointed out what my criticism is based on, and I have repeatedly pointed out the burden to support your claims with evidence is yours.
skepticoz 2 years ago
The assertion you have tendered, that 'I myself do not understand what I am calling out', fails on multiple levels. It is not only irrelevant and unfounded but also disingenuous. I would point out it's irrelevance and be done, but the disingenuous is a matter which needs to be put into the spotlight, as it illustrates the liability of self-deception, wishful thinking and the theists intellectual dishonesty. The irrelevance, follows from the baseless assumption that I have previously explained.
skepticoz 2 years ago
The assumption that anybody may have a rational understanding of objective, concrete knowledge, which might follow from the sources of theist belief systems, is ludicrous. The most plausible of these belief systems admit that their main tenets are articles of faith and by that I mean beliefs that are acquired without reason. The least plausible of these belief systems make absurd claims which are patently falsified by the simplest empirical observations. Faith is irrelevant. Reason is merciless.
skepticoz 2 years ago
The best approach religion has to plausibility, is to surrender objectivity, and defend superstition (without reason) as a virtue. Failing that, the theist has to contend with the perils of objectivity, empirical evidence and be held accountable to reason. The relevance of your claim, is no better than every other crackpot pseudo-science and superstition, which squawks loud objections to all criticism (instead of responding honestly), because the critic is not a purveyor of 'inside knowledge'.
skepticoz 2 years ago
The liability of this non-argument, is obvious when you apply it to other questionable beliefs, which you yourself consider far fetched or absurd. A set of beliefs can not be served up as as artifacts of factual knowledge and consumed as a cooked up dish. You must allow the observer to examine the ingredients and read the recipe and of course the utensils must be approved. Contrived excuses to avoid these conditions of fair play, are themselves a huge smoking gun. It gives away willful dishonor.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Expecting somebody to be a purveyor, insider, or a partisan of a belief system, is a contemptible psychological ruse for con merchants and confidence tricksters, who require you to take them at their word for the claims they make and to put any intercessory doubt aside. If suspending skepticism is the secret to your profound spiritual wisdom, then I am not surprised it manifests no tangible evidence of merit in it's favor. How many times do I have to say it? You can't advance circular arguments.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Now beside the contemptible, disingenuous sophism, inherent in this excuse for non-accountability to reason, it is also without merit in terms of plain factuality. Just what exactly is it, that you assume, grant's you the privileged of estimating my degree of learning or intimacy with the subject matter in question? How precisely do you 'KNOW' that I am unqualified to call you out, as a consequence of my lack of understanding about theist claims. I anticipated and addressed this point already.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Do you recall where I pointed out above:
"You have three baseless assertions... 2) That I have not gained a reasonable understanding of scripture. Are you going to claim that my failure to become convinced, demonstrates that I do not understand the scriptures?" You didn't answer this direct question, but it follows that conviction (belief) depends upon an understanding, that in turn depends upon suspension of doubt (belief). Where do you factor in the possibility that the claims may be false?
skepticoz 2 years ago
As soon as you get down off your condescending little cloud of dogma, to visit planet earth, could you please drop by and demonstrate that you have the balls to directly face the critical points I have made? If (just for starters) there is a reason why your claims are entitled to claim immunity to circular reasoning, then would you care to explain specifically why. Don't pretend that your inside knowledge entitles you to hand waive every criticism away, without any provision for falsification.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Having explained your apparent dishonesty, implicit in the assumption of a circular argument and the plea of exclusion of from accountability to reason, you might then like to DIRECTLY address the point I have made repeatedly right from the beginning of our discourse. It is quite annoying, to hear you spout any irrelevant shit that pops into your head, as if it were valid reasoning. When instead it is a re-statement of a willfully dishonest tactic I have already nailed to your ass, it angers me.
skepticoz 2 years ago
So the next piece of advice / request is if you intend to respond, have the common decency, either to acknowledge a point and concede or justify your position. Don't be an ignorant, DISHONEST twat by ignoring the point, hoping I won't remind you, and then REPEATING THE SAME FUCKING SHIT. OK? Fuck it all man, I have stated it over and again. You are MAKING THE CLAIM in question. If you wish to advocate the existence of any god, then YOU HAVE THE ONUS OF PROOF. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
skepticoz 2 years ago
Your entire last response is predicated on the unconscionable ignorance of my laboriously repeated point that the burden of proof is on the claimant. Please recall:
"Before we look at your complete lack of reasoning skills though, we need to consider the onus of evidence / proof. How laboriously tiring it is to have to keep repeating to you people (as if it wasn't self evidently obvious) that YOU are the one making the claim that a god exists so YOU are the ones required to furnish evidence."
skepticoz 2 years ago
I even stress the frustrating, tiresome, futility, of having to repeat this ridiculously obvious principal of kinder-logic so repeatedly. It's bad enough that the deist who appreciates this, is as scarce as the five legged dog, but must I actually oil it and bone your ass with it, for an acknowledgement that demonstrates respect for accountability and goodwill that the point even exists? Your last response actually ramps up the pretense, that I have a burden to account for my lack of conviction.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Your balls out ignorance of the simplest principals of reasoning, required to justify making a valid claim, is blatantly disregarded without any rhyme, reason or excuse. The requests to furnish the same are repeatedly ignored and finally you tender a contrived pretense, demanding some unexplained justification be admitted, for your unauthorized leave from reason and now this shit demanding I: "Go get proof to back up what you say. Then we'll talk. :)" NOW JUST WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
skepticoz 2 years ago
Now here's an idea: JUST GET IT THROUGH YOU DENSE FUCKING HEAD WILL YOU. FOR FUCK SAKE. IVE HAD A FUCKING GUT LOAD OF YOUR DELIBERATE IGNORANCE. I AM NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A REFUTATION OF YOUR CLAIMS. YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM, SO YOU MUST SUPPORT IT WITH VALID EVIDENCE AND REASONING THAT ESTABLISHES JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY ANYBODY (INCLUDING YOU) SHOULD BE CONVINCED. I have not even attempted to begin debating you theological arguments and the debate can't begin until you form a valid argument.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Your feeble, pathetic, gutless ignorant, dishonorable excuse, for the refusal to even begin holding your claims accountable to reason, is a shameful testimony to the lowly depths to which the abyss of disingenuous deception must be plumbed, in pursuit of vulgar insults to any esteemed, rational, open minded, artifacts of intellectual integrity that merely deserve consideration as hypothetical contenders for truth. Truth must STAND ON IT'S OWN MERIT, NOT INSULATE ITSELF FROM REASONED CRITICISM.
skepticoz 2 years ago
I had already mentioned in an earlier exchange that
"If you can never admit the possibility of falsehood, you can't even begin a debate."
Not that it received any acknowledgement. You simply barged in with an arrogant, dishonest, circuitous excuse, to desperately insulate your falsifiable claims against any criticism, including the criticism that any claim presented for debate, must proceed from assumptions that include the possibility of finding it false, should it actually turn out that way.
skepticoz 2 years ago
That is not a matter of simple courtesy or anything nearly as superficial BTW. It is a logical imperative. It should also be common sense, that If we wish to know if something is true OR NOT, we cant just leave out the OR NOT and precede to justify our beliefs by diligently scrabbling only after every morsel of shadowy evidence and self serving excuse, that might be construed as lending some credibility (however tenuous) to our preconceived, unjustified and self-supporting prejudices.
skepticoz 2 years ago
So what has your last contribution done to address this point? NOTHING AT ALL. Instead you reinforce your arrogance, by professing a lamentable implication that pretends your claims are entitled to be considered true if I can't disprove them. Furthermore if I am wrong, you seem to imply that you by extension are right. On top of this you gainsay my 'belief that what" you "believe is, well..."bullshit"" as the pivotal point and proclaim that it is based and depends on a theological understanding.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Lets get a few things straight:
A) My opinions of your beliefs, is irrelevant to the prerequisites (such as allowing for falsifiability) of rational debate. That, along with all precepts of reason, is not negotiable or contingent. We must both use the same accounting standard. Any deviation from accepted standards, should be discussed and agreed as mutually consistent. My opinions of your beliefs depends not on your ability to satisfy these prerequisites, but how convincing your arguments are.
skepticoz 2 years ago
B) I have made little attempt to argue or justify my specific theological objections so far, as the point of order is over the conditions of any debate. Meanwhile, I have strenuously insisted that as the claimant the incumbency rests with you to present a case for justifying your beliefs. Until you do there can be no debate to speak of. The only criticism to be answered as yet, is the universal appeal to reasonable doubt, that no claim be granted uncritical acceptance as a factual conclusion.
skepticoz 2 years ago
C) Given that I have not had the pleasure of refuting any justifications you have put forward for your theological claims (because you have not as yet put any forward), it seems that you could only be spouting rhetorical plaints of prejudice, by scorning my reasonable expectations for fair-play. My discourse thus far, has concerned the general requirements, to foster a reasonable, fair debate. You may dispute these points at will, but they aren't specific to your (or any other) belief system.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Continuing in that vein, it follows that the debate specifically about 'why you or anybody else, should be convinced by the religious claims you believe and endorse', is forestalled, as the only responses you have tendered, are ad hoc plaints, for unreasonable privilege and reaffirming your arrogant certainty, by bleating self-conciliating dogma and religious jargon, as if you had established your beliefs as accepted fact. These aren't valid arguments in debate, so we're still disputing terms.
skepticoz 2 years ago
We are still at first move and waiting for a move that is within the rules. If you haven't gotten to any specific points in defense of your theological points (and you know very well you haven't), how could my beliefs about your beliefs, bare any relevance to, let alone depend upon, my understanding of your theological beliefs? Your ill-conceived plaint "You can not call out what you "yourself" do not understand." gives the lie to your misdirection of what was actually being called out.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Because I know you need to be told numerous times, I will reiterate this point. A justification for your theistic beliefs is not the same as an excuse which attempts justifying the absence of any justification. The points I have made concerning your lack of accountability, do not constitute a refutation of any legitimate theological point. They are not dependent on theology at all for validity, Therefore what you profess "I don't understand " is not an issue of relevance, even if it were true.
skepticoz 2 years ago
By contrast what YOU don't understand, IS a relevant issue of contention, as we cant profess to be engaged in legitimate debate, unless both parties are resigned to common objective standards of reason. Consider the limiting condition for eg, that you cant assume you are right on any point, by pretending that I must refute your claim and any time I am wrong you are automatically right. That is an issue of logic independent of subject matter in dispute. It DOESN'T INTERCEDE A CLAIM IN ANY WAY.
skepticoz 2 years ago
The upshot of this, is that my various complaints about your failure to grasp (apprehend or comprehend) reason, is a serious deal breaker and as a general criticism, it is not subject to, or provisional upon, any special knowledge about theology and certainly not your specific religious convictions. The point I have made over and over, that the onus proof is on the claimant, is likewise, a matter of nothing other than logic, It is impartial to your beliefs as well as mine. It's just pure logic.
skepticoz 2 years ago
So. the pretense that my complaints have been based on anything other than your evasion of accountability to valid reasoning, is itself, either a disingenuous ruse to avoid accountability, or an 'honest[?]' misconception. If you cared for the benefit of the doubt, you might do some revision on intellectual honesty and knowledge my explicit, diligently presented points, rather than ignoring them or creating further claims which arrogantly contradict them again without the slightest justification.
skepticoz 2 years ago
If you were interested in intellectual honesty, you wouldn't miss the opportunity to ferret out the most challenging issues in your belief system and be your own skeptic. If you cant present a full and honest account of your worst liabilities in critical discourse, then you should expect to be seen as an unworthy debate opponent. You conclusions would rightfully be suspected of being flaky, unrigorous and biased. If instead you can express and refute a critics best arguments, you deserve credit.
skepticoz 2 years ago
If you actually exhibit blatant disregard for valid reasoning and opt for every chance to cop out of accountability you will deserve no mercy or respect form people who vet their conclusions mercilessly. You might bare in mind that I, like most rationalists subject my own conclusions (I dont like 'beliefs'), to ruthless scrutiny and I do care passionately that my understandings are valid, rational, carefully justified (or qualified) estimates of relative plausibility.
skepticoz 2 years ago
When you carelessly contradict a fastidiously rational thinker and state with overweening confidence even hinting at totalitarian certainty, a barrage of ludicrous absurd and fallacious nonsense, fabricated with the lowliest disrespectful contempt of their intellect, hard earned understandings and intellectual honesty, you have no right to expect to even be taken seriously, let alone granted at a seat at the table of valid rational debate.
skepticoz 2 years ago
You might consider that I am just as hard on my own beliefs and than neither I (nor anybody else) should be convinced of your claims with any less critical scrutiny, nor less demand for accountability, than I do for the claims that I have provisionally accepted. I have cultivated a passionate interest in using critical thinking skills and diligently refined my reasoning capacity over the years. The condescending arrogance of your glib contradiction brings your pathetic unreason into sharp focus.
skepticoz 2 years ago
If you also demand that this person who the is subject of your disregard for rational thinking and contempt for accountability, must hold them-self accountable to falsifying your implicitly undeniable claims, which you feel entitled to foist as unrivaled facts and proceed to trample blindly, over the detailed and meticulous collective of exquisite and profound learnings that have been acquired by the rationalists, then what does this say? Never mind expecting a diligent regard for Occam's razor!
skepticoz 2 years ago
It difficult to express the massive degree of arrogant disregard for reason, intellectual honesty and respect for those possessing such qualities, required to postulate such lowly contemptible appeal to unrestrained prejudice and ludicrous hypocrisy. The challenge is not helped by the fact that valid reasoning can not be called into service to demonstrate the misgivings in the beliefs of a person who has not acquired any rational accumen. It's like reading the coroners report to the cadaver.
skepticoz 2 years ago
"Your skepticism and tha calling out of me is based on some radical belief that what I believe is, well..."bullshit" for lack of better words."
Just for the record "tha calling out of"[sic] you, is not based on any beliefs. In my worldview, conclusions are NEVER based on belief. What we have here is a case of you projecting the misgivings of your own non-thinking system onto me, with flagrant disregard for the standards I maintain.
skepticoz 2 years ago
If you have no standards or reasoning skills, you might just as well assume everybody else is as devoid of these things as you are. Reasonable people don't swat blindly at their opponents either. You had absolutely no grounds to make such false assertions as this and you don't even offer a passing reference to how you reached this monumental conclusion.
skepticoz 2 years ago
In my worldview, conclusions (or beliefs) may be (indeed must be) the result of reason, but not the other way around. It is a smoking gun though, that you would impart upon me without attempting to account for the maneuver, the lowly, uncritical misgivings, of your own worldview. Beliefs may precede reasons in the arenas of so called 'thought' where wishful thinking is king. But where I come from, beliefs are as inert and inconsequential as a photograph. An end result, not a catalyst for cause.
skepticoz 2 years ago
I have said enough and then some, but I hasten to reiterate the most important point to show some honorable regard for accountability to reason. That is to first understand that There is only one claim being considered here. The claim the any god exists is yours and you are required to support it. DO NOT pretend that I am obliged to refute it, as if my failure to do, so was was vindication of your claim. That isn't how it works, and the sooner you acquire some basic reasoning skills the better.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Lol...idle babbling benefits no one. I've been on earth long enough to understand earthly knowledge, that which you cling to. I don't put myself in no position as to believe I can do anything, but the Word of God speaks for itself, would you care to here what it says? :)
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
"Lol...idle babbling benefits no one."
Well just don't do it then. Honestly your flagrant disregard for making or responding too, any coherent, poignant or intellectually interesting points is a failure you should address. If on the other hand, all you care to do is spout self serving rhetoric, you are right on the mark. Just keep those blinkers on and disregard all criticism of your beliefs, with broad hand waiving rhetoric, because you could never be wrong and no justification is required.
skepticoz 2 years ago
The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by one. For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Shalom.
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
Look Phoenix. You continually refuse to acknowledge the points I make over and over and over. You have FAILED to demonstrate how you KNOW any of this SHIT. Yet you keep coming back as if having the last word vindicates you. Your ignorance is astounding and you have NOT given nobody ANY reason to see how you would look different if you WERE deluded. You have refused to show accountability to falsification. You have FAILED. To completely ignore points and preach dogma, is not debate. YOU LOOSE!
skepticoz 2 years ago
What you have spouted here is incoherent babble, which apart from anything else, it demonstrates clearly YET AGAIN, that you will only assume you are right and never speak hypothetically as if your beliefs were to be questioned. DO YOU GET THAT? OR IS THAT A LITTLE DIFFICULT FOR YOUR ADDLED BRAIN TO CONCEIVE? I have told you that this is circular reasoning and you have ignored this point. You are depending on your own assumptions that your beliefs are valid. You have NOT shown otherwise.
skepticoz 2 years ago
And this is from you channel profile:
"Warrior of God. I write concerning the truth that is the Word. No games. No gimmicks."
BULLSHIT! You haven't got a clue what TRUTH is. Your relation to the truth is equivalent to a baby and it's rapist. You assume a bunch of vulgar disgusting dogma, then precede to justify it by spouting circular rhetoric, which in itself, barely makes any sense, yet clearly ASSUMES that your beliefs are correct. 'No games'? 'No gimmicks'? WTF!? YOU TOTAL FUCKING LIAR
skepticoz 2 years ago
What you need Phoenix, is a good hot bowl of QualiaSoup:
watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
When you are ready to face the real justifications for your beliefs, the ones which don't expect others to assume they are true; when you are ready to question beliefs (specifically your own) with the humility to accept they may be false, then you can make your first move. So far you have not made a single legitimate move. The game is still at move zero. Oh and it's still your move of course.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Oh and I forgot this one too: watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI
skepticoz 2 years ago
Oh an on biblical athority watch?v=VHJx5tooHE8 and
Then There's watch?v=VHJx5tooHE8
When you get through explaining why you won't make a legal move to me, this guy would like some help with your religious delusion too: watch?v=-2bpc7LSRZc
skepticoz 2 years ago
And for the benifit of anybody who isn't a detestable little maggot who couldn't give a fuck about the nature of the truth or how to find it, here is a nice video addressing the onus of proof and circular reasoning.
watch?v=18bICTvpAWM and watch?v=iJS0cPba8iM&feature=related
IGNORANT FUCKWITS can demonstrate they admit how deluded and FUCKING IGNORANT they are by not saying anything about circular reasoning but just keep pretending that they are entitled to spew dogma as if it were proven fact.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Enoch, the seventh from Adam prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousand of His saints, to excute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lust; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage...
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
Who was "Enoch, the seventh from Adam"?
skepticoz 2 years ago
From Adam's seed, making Enoch Adam's great great great great great great grandson. Also he witness the fall of the angels and their corruption of the human bloodline.
Read the Word my friend. Seek you first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.
Until you do, what I speak will never make ANY since.
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
I'm afraid I have read it, and it still doesn't make any sense.
TimCubUAkbar 2 years ago
But remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of my Lord Jesus Christ: how they told us that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own unglodly lust. These worldly persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.
The world tells you what you know, and you speak it. Continue in this manner, for indeed, there is no comdemnation for those who believe in Jesus Christ; but to those who do not believe Him, they are condemned already.
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
"The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit..."
WTF? Now you claim to not be natural!!? What are you then SUPERNATURAL? Are you going to demonstrate with any evidence that you, or any thing you are privy too, is any more than part of the same realm of natural phenomena as I can experience? You spout the privilege of divine revelation, and piously claim it for your own dominion. Do you think I am going to honor that as an attempt at honesty on your part? No! Why not?
skepticoz 2 years ago
All you have to do to demonstrate the poverty of an assertion such as this, is notice how it can be tendered to support claims of ANY deity. Have you explained how we know you are any different (i.e. other than natural)? NO. Have you explained how you went from being a non-believer to a believer? NO. Then how is it that you were you permitted to receive things "of the spirit", in order that you could ever become convinced in the first palace? Or were you indoctrinated throughout childhood?
skepticoz 2 years ago
Whatever the case, in order for your beliefs to be convincing to others, you have to show that they have been arrived at rationally. I dare say the contortions you are going through to evade all accountability to rational criticism, tell us something about their value as rational concepts. This latest evasion because 'God only reveals itself to believers' (although I know you haven't stated it this frankly) is just another EXCUSE for not facing rational accountability. It's delusional as ever.
skepticoz 2 years ago
All you have done ONCE AGAIN, is presumed to know what you do and pretended non-believers don't, all based on excuses depending on circular logic. In no way does your latest claim of 'divine revelation' differ from the prejudice you perpetually reinforce, which depends on nothing but the assumptions you have demonstrated repeatedly. It cant be checked outside of your circular discourse of self reinforcing delusion. I've questioned the circular reasoning repeatedly, but you continue to ignore it.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you don't know where He is from, or who He is (Jesus the Messiah); yet He has opened my eyes! Now we know that God does not hear sinners, nor do sinners hear the Father; but if anyone is a worshipper of the Father, the Living God, and does His will, He hears him. Behold, He is coming as a thief in the night, you know not the hour of His coming! Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame. My hands are washed
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
Comment removed
skepticoz 2 years ago
"God does not hear sinners, nor do sinners hear the Father;"
YOU PRESUMPTUOUS IGNORANT, ARROGANT TWAT.
That's right Phoenix, just stick you fingers in your ears an go 'lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala' to show what a fucking ignorant retarded FUCKWIT you are. You ignore EVERYTHING!!! !!!EVERY-FUCKING-THING!!!! YOU LIYING, IGNORRANT, CLOSE MINDED UNREASONABLE CUNT. WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHUT YOUR IGNORANT SHIT DRIBBLING, BULLSHIT HOLE? You are a deluded fucking bullshit spewing MORON.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Deluded fuckwits seem incapable of presenting any position which even addresses the possibility an alternative to their own dogmatic, unreasoned beliefs.
Circular reasoning lalalalalalalalalalalalalala spew more ridiculous bullshit lalalalalalalalalalalalala, babble incoherently lalalalalalalalalalala claim to be righteous holly and place myself above other morally lalalalalalalal ignore all rational criticism like an arrogant RETARDED FUCKWIT lalalalalalalalala Continue circular reasoning.
skepticoz 2 years ago
@skepticoz using capitals and epithets does not help your point in debate.
you always find people using the bilble verses in out of context and derive meanings to suit thier point. most of these people on these threads are not theologians anyway.
FrankCastlez 1 year ago
"My hands are washed"
Your BRAIN IS WASHED.You are a contemptible loathsome failure, a deluded moron and a waste of effort. You have no regard for respectable reasonable rational thinking. you don't give a flying fuck about being honest and you COMPLETELY DISRESPECT ANYBODY AND ANYTHING HONESTLY ATTEMPTING TO RECONCILE TRUTH. You don't know what truth is and you DON'T GIVE A FUCK. YOU ARE A LIAR AND A GUTLESS MAGGOT WHO IS ASHAMED OF TRUTH. YOU ARE A SHAMELESS FUCKING SELF-SERVING LIAR PHOENIX.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Comment removed
skepticoz 2 years ago
"I've been on earth long enough to understand earthly knowledge, that which you cling to."
Really!!? Strange how you have not demonstrated the slightest smattering of this self-proclaimed "earthly" knowledge. Would that include physics, biology, chemistry, pharmacology, medical science, genetics, mathematics? NO NO Puleeeeeeeese!! Do tell me Professor, which of the main tenets of rationally acquired, knowledge do you consider to be such unworthy "earthly" knowledge? Cosmology perhaps?
skepticoz 2 years ago
I notice you speak in many words which shows your need to be heard and understand. And it's quite obvious your "assumption" of what earthly knowledge. But I'll entertain you. Answer me this...if I know all my life medical, psychology, mathematics and so on, will that benefit me in the least in the afterlife? Lol...I doubt it seriously, but to one that is given knowledge, another wisdom, and another understanding, and another faith and so on. It's obvious you know not the Holy Spirit. :)
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
Still haven't responded to any specific critical points I have made. Still being an arrogant twat making dogmatic assertions. Still ignoring the points I have made from the beginning about how the game must be played. Still taking liberties with the claims you sake for truth, as if anything is true just because you say so. Recall what I said: "Deluded fuckwits seem incapable of presenting any position which even addresses the possibility an alternative to their own dogmatic, unreasoned beliefs."
skepticoz 2 years ago
"But I'll entertain you. Answer me this...if I know all my life medical, psychology, mathematics and so on, will that benefit me in the least in the afterlife?"
Firstly, That is not even a feeble attempt to "entertain" me. I have repeatedly stated, time and time and time again. The onus of evidence is upon you. Nobody is obliged to take your superstitious rhetoric as founded on something which in any way represents truth. Yet without any acknowledgement of this, you continue to spout dogma.
skepticoz 2 years ago
You just finish saying you will entertain me, then in the next breath, you are taunting me with a rhetorical question about knowledge and what good it will do in circumstances proposed by your unsubstantiated fairytale. The implication I see from a million miles, is that by vaguely and dismissively ridiculing "earthly" knowledge and the irrelevance of however much I might endorse it, you think that should vindicate the privilege you take, in foisting your dogmatic prejudice, as inerrant truth.
skepticoz 2 years ago
As if I should need to reiterate this once again: You Pheonix, are the one who's claims for the truth are being examined here. It is not my job to defend anything about conventionally obtained knowledge, least of all if you fail to challenge any SPECIFIC articles of that knowledge and establish rationally, how their falsification makes your claims more likely. Then you have to support the falsification, then the balance of all new assumptions with known evidence a la Occam's Razor. Don't cheat.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Your pretentious, arrogant expectation, to constantly demand unfounded and undeserved acceptance of such things as an 'afterlife' or especially a 'holly spirit' is only testifying to the willful ignorance I criticized in the first place. You drop gobbledy-spook into discourse as if it was entitled to be dignified as fact. Then you try to bounce the accountability, by implying that the "earthly" knowledge we all depend on, is worthless in an unestablished afterlife, as if this validated you.
skepticoz 2 years ago
Not only does it NOT lend credibility or support to your claims, that earthly knowledge is not useful to a person after they're dead, It also doesn't call the factuality of that knowledge into question. Let each article of claimed knowledge stand on it's own merit. How do we establish a system of evaluating this merit? If anything you claimed (more like pretended) to KNOW, was in any sense better than "EARTHLY" knowledge, then what planet were you on when you learned it and how do you KNOW it?
skepticoz 2 years ago
shutup
liber8me 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, this twit has toooo much time on her hands. Idle hands?? A bit venomous, No? Or is she just mad cuz she didn't get a free book???
jscmoto34 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fucking niggers, bent on killing the planet.
default99telecom 3 years ago
That blimp is talking to me...holy crap
TukenNuken 3 years ago
good video.
travitheMuffinMan 3 years ago
wait is this agents obama regardless obama is almost just as bad as McCain the big factor for me is mccain said he would go to war with Iran and we're already in 2 wars so where are the troops coming from great a draft, probably a small one but if he does go to war I'd be 18 and i really really don't want to be shot, that just sounds painful please anyone reading this don't vote for McCain i don't want to be shoot i vote my shelf but im unfortunately 17 and cant which sucks
nakedshoes 3 years ago
this is fucking psychotic.
JazzPaulJones 3 years ago
BRAINWASHED BULLSHIT
Blacklabel369 3 years ago
"The woman who made this video is an atheist, therefore is a child of the devil, at least according to the word, but there is hope for her, Jesus Christ."
Question whether the devil is YOU, Chris7's.
b4skin 3 years ago
Nice job, right on the chin!
b4skin 3 years ago
There is more than religion in the world. I personally believe that every religion is just each cultures own interpretation of god and how to live your life. Why? because every religion can't be right, and one right religion can't make all the others wrong. The bible is over 2000 years old and has been translated Several different times, through many different languages. To says its the same exact text as 2000 years ago is ridiculous.
Ariakionai 3 years ago
JESUS IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIGHT! I can't believe that after going to church Oprah has fallen away from God and decided that there is no God. She needs to reread the Bible. God created man not man created God. The writers of the Bible were inspired by God to write what was written. I agree that she will be judged by what she is teaching.
kathyharper7 3 years ago
my head physically hurts after reading what you just wrote. you are insanely stupid. your IQ must be below average.
dubz06jnr 3 years ago
you pronounced your own judgment.
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
...and you just defined your adherence to the agreement of her 'claimed judgement' which in equal turn, means that YOU too are pronouncing judgment upon her. I can only assume that you must be God (between the judging) and with all those 7's or maybe you're just crafty and they all stand for 't'?
b4skin 3 years ago
No, I just spoke the truth and announced the obvious.
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
1st of all...don't you know 13 7's is unlucky??? (not are, I do believe...no, wait, think)
2nd, you spoke your (unfounded, un-provable) truth and PROCLAIMED your obvious stance...O.K., not 'completely' obvious because between the 7's and the christ without a 't' i thought you might have been a christian...at first.
b4skin 3 years ago
The woman who made this video is an atheist, therefore is a child of the devil, at least according to the word, but there is hope for her, Jesus Christ.
Jesus said:
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Jesus didn't hold back. why should I.
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
What exactly IS a liar if not having truth first to oppose?? If the devil has 'no truth in him' then by definition, he cannot also be a 'liar'. But I guess (though you can obviously tell I have processed YOUR post), you probably won't allow the 'devil' to 'twist your words' right???
And was the murderous/liar in context that instead of listening to 'truth' it is the one who will 'speaketh a lie of his own' as you did in WANTING her to be damned and will not answer to truth/reason??
b4skin 3 years ago
What are you talking about, are you contending with that scripture or with what I said? And are you saying this woman speaks truth/reason?
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
Chris7's: Ummmmmmm...both...and...both, so I guess YES! Yer fun!
b4skin 3 years ago
Answer the question, do you believe that this woman who makes these video speaks truth/reason?
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
Yes, I THINK that this upside-down chin speaks the antagonistic, comedic, metaphorical truth through the reasons she describes as her take on the book. Any scripture you want to site that has no room for interpretation???
b4skin 3 years ago
I think the chin does speak some truth.. Im not talking about the chin, I am talking about the woman who hosts the youtube account "mickipedia"
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
Sorry, I can't read gibberish, but I did put you wrote into a translator and when the translation was complete it said "Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah", and all I can say to that is blah.
Marllon 3 years ago
that's because you are still in Kindergarten.
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
Actually, it's because I speak English and live in the real world.
Marllon 3 years ago
lol, Okay??? I had this discussion a long time ago, and do not have time to go through it with a child.
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
Child? Haha, I stopped believing in Santa Claus at four, but you still believe in an imaginary being in the sky, and I'm the child? Don't make me wet myself.
Marllon 3 years ago 2
imaginary huh? lets see how many prophecies have been told and come true in the bible....so many i cant count,sorry you cant find ur way to eternal life,best of luck
SuperFuriousgeorge 2 years ago
Ha! None on their own. You silly fundamentalists force these so-called "prophecies" to transpire. They're that sad. Do you know how many different religions' "prophecies" have been fulfilled? All of them, and why? Because their followers force to make them into a reality. It's rather simple, really.
Marllon 2 years ago 3
Marllon,
it is pointless "reasoning" with these people. You're talking about the same people who believe that you and I were "created" by some sky god who reads ours thoughts and keeps cars from hitting us on the way to work. Lol. You're trying to reason with people who believe that a sky god's son is coming back to take them away, even though they've been saying that for the past two millenia. Why the heck is he taking so long? Lol. They're idiots, pure and simple!
cosmicviewer477 2 years ago 2
lol eternal life
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
I liked the video but what the hell were you talking from? It looked like a deformity with lips. lol
kashbme 3 years ago
heheh.
Funny video.
TheLastKing4 3 years ago
hehehhe such a sweet and cute way to recieve the truth thank you
pologroundsnyc 3 years ago
hehe this was funny and i so agree with chu
Nyugome16 3 years ago
More people have been killed in the name of God or otherwise named than any natural disaster. Did you read your history book? Amazing that no where else, except the bible do you find the most impossible stories. Nor has it ever been recreated. What happened to all this magic or miracles? Why can't people part the sea's or walk on water? How come Château Cheval Blanc hasn't mastered the turn water into wine thing?
I am a very good human. I give as much as I can and take only what I need.
Charold 3 years ago 4
Wrong Stalin and others killed 100 million they were not of God...
freecounselingonline 3 years ago
True, Stalin's reign or mao's or Hitler's for that matter was just few years.
Religion is raging on and killing for at least 2000!! years....
Infidelamsterdam 3 years ago
YUP religon is also a big fraud to enslave and scare people.
IN GOD I DISTRUST,and i have a more happy life then christians who live in fear terrified that they will be sent to hell for eternity.
mikesoffel 3 years ago
You will soon find out that you are wrong on that...but for those christians you mention, they are simply unaware that those who go to hell choose to go, most people end up in purgatory, so don't worry, just live a good life as much as possible and when your time with God comes, just embrace his mercy. People go to hell because they refuse God's love at their judgement, so don't worry.
fatface111 3 years ago
The reason those Christians are scared is because the Biblical moral code is so ridiculous and unjustified that it's absurdly hard to be 'moral.'
guugolpl0x 3 years ago
Can i kiss u?
boxioru 3 years ago 2
there i added a video to you miss bible,
BoerBoetie 3 years ago
lame
PropertyClub 3 years ago
ever heard of accutane?
mike54721 3 years ago
"Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory ... we would still be justified in preferring it over rival theories [creationism]" Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (NY Norton, 1986), 287.
yea thats what i call "rational thinking". more like ignorant,stubborn and stupid.
And thats the basis of atheism.
slim2jz 3 years ago
fundamentalists are hilarious
heylelshalem 3 years ago
tard!
smilz105 3 years ago
Carrington Steele? Christian author??? Google Lexington Steele ... I think that's her husband..
guapobear 3 years ago
Sweetheart this is judgment at its finest!
technonana 3 years ago
not nice to talk with your hand over your mouth.
christophorM 3 years ago
LEXINGTON STEELE is her brother... GOOGLE his name!!!! ehehe
guapobear 3 years ago
Lol
Joo823 3 years ago
Starcatcher778, We atheists are not bothered when sheeple like you make more stupid excuses as to why you believe in the tooth fairy. It can be frustrating, trying to prevent some of you idiots from drinking the koolaid, but we're certainly not meeting our intellectual match in the "debate". There is no debate really. It's more like we're trying to talk sense to children.
dracco73 3 years ago 2
Thumbs upped! Epic win!
discord20 3 years ago
dracco73Wouldn't it be more intelligent to just say "I really don't know what happens after we die so I have no opinion on it"? How can you intelligently debate something(for or against)you know nothing about? Why can't we say "you believe that, fine, that's you."?
southernliberal 3 years ago
No, the intelligent thing to do would be to not legislate dogma and oppress people with a religion that no one "knows" is real. If I want to buy a hooker, marry a dude, or buy a beer on sunday, I should be able to without some cult zealot telling me and everyone else they can't because some fictional being told them in a bastardize ancient text that they shouldn't. Come on!!!!
dracco73 3 years ago