I find this whole Atheist vs. Christian thing to be pretty interesting. It seems to have taken on a political character. Everyone has their point of view... then everyone proceeds to talk without taking any time to listen to the other side. Fools talk, cowards are silent, the wise listen.
I agree he has a competitive nature and it muddles his message. I think his biggest weakness is that he doesn't really make great arguments. His claim to fame question (What proof and evidence can you provide that shows atheism is accurate and correct?) doesn't even make sense to me. What do I know? The only explanation I can think of, is that if he asked, "Can you prove that god doesn't exist?", he wouldn't have gotten all the angry atheist responses and that is what he wanted.
@ultim4t32 His question makes no sense.A better question for shock to have asked is why is'' No God '' the default position.His question makes no sense if you go by the strict definition of the term ''atheist''.
He was polite to me once, and then he casually blocked me when I pointed out that he wasn't really in a position to judge someone. To be fair, I suppose we was never rude to me directly.
Shock, polite? We're talking about the guy who relished the idea of beating up a homosexual and calls atheists followers of satan?
Put it this way, I'm sure there are KKK members who are perfectly polite to young white women, just as Shock is a nice polite guy to you. Doesn't make either of them decent people.
@LynxChan Re: KKK I am glad you drew that analogy because i was talking from my own experiance of Shock.
I am theist and so i would expect he would be civil to me.Saying that i would be reluctant to automatically agree with the sentiments of those that disagree with his world view for the same reasons.
Shockofgod is a fool. He has no redeeming qualities. He's neither nice nor polite. He's a ranting, unstable parasite.
You yourself, in this video, describe him turning partway through a debate from a polite, likeable guy to a ranting maniac. I'd suggest to you that he's not losing his temper, but showing his true nature.
Once you try to leave a comment on shocks video... This veiwer has blocked you from leaving comments. Shock of god does not take critisism of any kind.
People waste too much time on ShockofGod. He should be treated as the joke someone might tell before a serious speech. When it's time to discuss the speech you don't dwell on the joke. You laugh at the joke and then move on to other business. Same for Ted Haggard, Ray Comfort, and other creationists.. They're amusing, but if you want to discuss religion you choose someone who has something worthwhile to say.
@pestmanpat "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism" by Edward Feser isn't bad, although I found it unconvincing. At least it's not a circus clown performance like some creationists put on.
@pestmanpat I'm not familiar with John Lennox's argument. I can't recommend any speakers. I watch a great many YouTube videos and don't really recall exactly who said what. I generally avoid the longer stuff since I don't want to spend many hours listening to argument for or against the existences of gods.
I find this whole Atheist vs. Christian thing to be pretty interesting. It seems to have taken on a political character. Everyone has their point of view... then everyone proceeds to talk without taking any time to listen to the other side. Fools talk, cowards are silent, the wise listen.
ultim4t32 3 weeks ago
@ultim4t32 I couldn't agree more.
pestmanpat 3 weeks ago
I agree he has a competitive nature and it muddles his message. I think his biggest weakness is that he doesn't really make great arguments. His claim to fame question (What proof and evidence can you provide that shows atheism is accurate and correct?) doesn't even make sense to me. What do I know? The only explanation I can think of, is that if he asked, "Can you prove that god doesn't exist?", he wouldn't have gotten all the angry atheist responses and that is what he wanted.
ultim4t32 3 weeks ago
@ultim4t32 His question makes no sense.A better question for shock to have asked is why is'' No God '' the default position.His question makes no sense if you go by the strict definition of the term ''atheist''.
pestmanpat 3 weeks ago
i blocked him, he blocked me.
spyfreakm16 2 months ago
He was polite to me once, and then he casually blocked me when I pointed out that he wasn't really in a position to judge someone. To be fair, I suppose we was never rude to me directly.
TadRaunch 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
Why is Christopher Hitchens speaking with an Australian accent?
TheDcac 3 months ago
Shock, polite? We're talking about the guy who relished the idea of beating up a homosexual and calls atheists followers of satan?
Put it this way, I'm sure there are KKK members who are perfectly polite to young white women, just as Shock is a nice polite guy to you. Doesn't make either of them decent people.
LynxChan 4 months ago
@LynxChan Re: KKK I am glad you drew that analogy because i was talking from my own experiance of Shock.
I am theist and so i would expect he would be civil to me.Saying that i would be reluctant to automatically agree with the sentiments of those that disagree with his world view for the same reasons.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
Shockofgod is a fool. He has no redeeming qualities. He's neither nice nor polite. He's a ranting, unstable parasite.
You yourself, in this video, describe him turning partway through a debate from a polite, likeable guy to a ranting maniac. I'd suggest to you that he's not losing his temper, but showing his true nature.
He's not worthy of anything but contempt.
hairyreasoner 4 months ago
@hairyreasoner I was speaking of my own experience with Shock.No doubt you have a different perspective.
As usual you always tell it like you see it.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
Once you try to leave a comment on shocks video... This veiwer has blocked you from leaving comments. Shock of god does not take critisism of any kind.
ebilly99 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People waste too much time on ShockofGod. He should be treated as the joke someone might tell before a serious speech. When it's time to discuss the speech you don't dwell on the joke. You laugh at the joke and then move on to other business. Same for Ted Haggard, Ray Comfort, and other creationists.. They're amusing, but if you want to discuss religion you choose someone who has something worthwhile to say.
Chuck1863 4 months ago
@Chuck1863 Who would you suggest as a valid defender of theism.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@pestmanpat "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism" by Edward Feser isn't bad, although I found it unconvincing. At least it's not a circus clown performance like some creationists put on.
"
Chuck1863 4 months ago
@Chuck1863 What do you think of mathematician John Lennox.or can you think of any other public speakers you respect.
pestmanpat 4 months ago
@pestmanpat I'm not familiar with John Lennox's argument. I can't recommend any speakers. I watch a great many YouTube videos and don't really recall exactly who said what. I generally avoid the longer stuff since I don't want to spend many hours listening to argument for or against the existences of gods.
Chuck1863 4 months ago
@Chuck1863 I urge you to take a look at some of lennoxes stuff.Cut and paste this.
John Lennox - Richard Dawkins doesn't understand faith.
pestmanpat 4 months ago