William Lane Craig vs Theodore Drange (HQ) 7/11

[slipstream2238]

"objective moral values we can appeal to Genetics and intuition "? Grange doesnt seem to grasp craigs point. Craig is not saying that we cannot know/understand what is moral/good, ...but that without God there can be no basis for objective morality. Yet to see an argument that deals with this point.



[MrLittleOrno]

Unless you regard "just following orders" as an objective moral virtue Craig's assertion is without foundation. Every "objective" moral abomination Craig lists has been committed, ordered, sanctioned and/or condoned by God. Objective morality is doing right regardless of what you are told; God's morality is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.

[slipstream2238]

@MrLittleOrno Like Drange you seem unable to grasp or engage with Craigs point and instead resort to a misguided ad hom. Boring...

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

Drange showed brilliantly Craig's silly argument: Lame argues that the the constants of nature were fine-tuned to produce intelligent life (and minds), yet as a dualist he belieevs the opposite: that intelligence is not the product of matterat all, and hense not dependent on those constants! Lame owned again

[setmedic]

I'd like to finish watching this debate but I have to go make a baby omelet.

[Set4Life22]

Be vewy vewy quite, Im hunting wabbit !!

[JusJuiceIt]

@Set4Life22

yo, honestly.. i read your comment and it took me like 20 mins to get it lol.. thats funny tho, your making a joke out of dranges voice right.. ahaha

[Set4Life22]

William Lane Craig = Atheist eater

[MntrTodd]

@Set4Life22

Atheist eater? He certainly choked on this one.

[HConstantine]

Life evolved in a universe unable to sustain life? That is not a miracle. if life had arisen in a universe unable to support it, that would be a miracle and evidence for this god thing.

[natgui86]

Lastly - It's hilarious that you're calling Adam Leon a coward just because he doesn't want to deal with your ridiculous BS anymore. Was Gandhi a coward because of his peaceful/anti-violent practices? Or should I even get started on him - he was a Buddhist after all. I find it hard to swallow that you seriously think that you are 100% right in all of this. Stop repeating yourself and back your "facts" up - better yet, why don't you do some research on both sides and learn to argue intelligently.

[lawrenca333]

I thought Gandhi was a devout Hindu

[86adamleon]

My bad - they're very similar and I was upset! Thank you :)

[natgui86]

Secondly - The Theists didn't win anything, and neither did the Atheists. It will always be an ongoing debate, because there will always be people who choose each side.

[natgui86]

First of all - His name isn't Bad Melon, it's Adam Leon. The mistake you made about that already shows me how little you all actually pay attention to what somebody writes.

[Ravloma]

Wow -- the theists definitely won that exchange!

[AtheosZero]

You can say that again! the badmelon guy got torn a new asshole. LOL

[Purushadasa]

God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.

Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.

[Purushadasa]

The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.

The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific fact that God definitely exists along with His factual attributes and activities.

The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.

[Purushadasa]

Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly.

The number one tenet of official atheist dogma is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as the modern atheist does. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.

CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.

[Purushadasa]

You are under the impression that I might want to convince you of something, but I have no such desire, nor do I have any such obligation -- the vast majority of the human beings on this planet are already convinced of the scientific fact that God exists, along with his factual attributes and activities, and you are relegated to the amusing, stubborn, and sadly less-intelligent crackpot minority who fails, as the lower animal fails, to apprehend the ample evidence for God.

[Purushadasa]

Who exactly is it that you imagine I need to convince? The vast majority of human beings on this planet already accept God's existence along with His factual characteristics and activities to be a scientific fact, and the atheist, whose intellect is on the exact same level as the pig, cannot be convinced of anything that goes against his dogmatic belief system anyway.

[Purushadasa]

Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.

The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to apprehend the ample evidence for God.

I will pray for you.

[Purushadasa]

God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.

Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.

[Purushadasa]

Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.

The reason why the vast majority of human beings apprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.

You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.

[Purushadasa]

The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.

The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific fact that God definitely exists along with His factual attributes and activities.

The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.

[Purushadasa]

That would be the duty of the atheist, if he possessed an intelligent thought, but as of this date, he has failed to disprove God, failed to disprove God's factual attributes, failed to disprove God's factual activities, failed to disprove His knowledge, and failed to disprove His love.

The atheist obviously has a long, hard road ahead of him if he expects to convince anyone of his dogmatic beliefs.

[Purushadasa]

Obviously, having your lies exposed angers you. Anger management courses can do wonders these days in helping individuals such as yourself to begin living normal, productive lives.

[Purushadasa]

God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.

Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.

[Purushadasa]

God has been proven for countless centuries, and atheist dogma

is a new invention, a newcomer attempting to upset a long-established scientifically factual conclusion -- therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist.

[Purushadasa]

Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly.

The number one tenet of official atheist dogma is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as the modern atheist does. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.

CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.

[Purushadasa]

Einstein was a Theist (a Jew), Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a mass-murderer of Theists (Jews).

[Purushadasa]

Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.

The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to apprehend the ample evidence for God.

I will pray for you.

[Purushadasa]

With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God, along with His factual characteristics and activities, as a scientific fact, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?

The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific fact anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.

The scientific fact stands unchallenged and universally accepted.

[Purushadasa]

God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.

Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.

[86adamleon]

Firstly, Atheism does not denote a belief system; only a lack of belief in the Theist claim.

A=without

Theism=belief in God

So, the burden of proof does not lie with the atheist, who is not making a claim, but with the theist, who IS making the claim.

Asserting that there is evidence for God, but refusing to give it, is the type of dishonesty I've come to expect from you.

You're backed into a corner, and the only tactic you have, is saying that whole world already accepts that God exists.

[Purushadasa]

The lame excuse that it's a lack of belief doesn't fly because Gnostic Theists also reject all belief in favor of knowledge, but that doesn't make them atheist.

What you have said is a crock, sadly.

[Purushadasa]

First of all, you need to prove that about the burden of proof stuff -- that is your own made-up personal belief, and you have offered no evidence for it.

Secondly, it is untrue.

Third, God's existence along with His attributes and activities is a scientific fact, long-accepted by the vast majority of human beings on the planet, and still accepted by the vast majority today.

[lawrenca333]

I don't think this is quite correct. Atheism does make a claim. It makes the positive claim that there is no God, and therefore also bears the burden of proof. Craig quoted from the encyclopedia of philosophy which defines the term, "atheist", in this way. The position where you would not shoulder a burden of proof is agnosticism, where all you have to do is show that you do not know.

A = no

Gnosis = knowledge

Therefore, "No knowledge", or," ignorant".

[86adamleon]

Atheism is neutral.

a=without

theism= belief in a god

You seem to be thinking of anti-theism,

which the belief that no gods exist.

Atheism itself is the disbelief in theistic claims, so it is only a response.

The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim, as it is for everything else;

Disbelief is the neutral position for any claim, for the same reason we are innocent until proven guilty.

I, myself, like many atheists, do not claim to have empirical knowledge on this issue.

[86adamleon]

I'd also like to clarify that professing one's ignorance, or agnosticism on some of these issues, that are supposed to be beyond the limits of our limited comprehension-- while still searching for that truth, by uncovering demonstrable evidence, and reasoned logic, to support such claims-- is probably the most honest and intellectually sound route a person can take.

Also,

Knowledge and belief are two different things.

Sorry that I rambled.

-peace.

[lawrenca333]

So you are saying that you are neutral on whether God exists? Would you agree then that God may very well exist even though you do not think there is any compelling evidence? Or do you think that God most likely does not exist?

[86adamleon]

I'm not neutral on whether God exists, or not, to be honest with you.

There are really only two choices here: if you believe in a personal theistic deity, then you are a theist; anything else, even if you're unsure, you are an atheist.

I happen to feel, that there probably isn't a God; I'm open minded on this issue, but that's not a defining characteristic of atheism.

As you've said I haven't found any compelling evidence, or arguments, that validate any of the theistic claims.

:P

[lawrenca333]

So to recap, these are your definitions of the terms:

Theism = Belief in God or gods

Atheism = Neutral

Anti-Theism = Belief that no God or gods exist.

Agnosticism = the same as Atheism or being "unsure"

I'll grant you these definitions. So since you call yourself an Atheist, you should be neutral by your own definition. However, in your past posting, you said that you are NOT neutral. So I have two additional questions:

[lawrenca333]

1) If you are NOT neutral, why do you not call youself an anti-theist?

2) What are your arguments for being an anti-theist?

Just because you find that there are no compelling arguments for Theism, does not automatically mean that Atheism or Anti-theism is true by default. In the same way, just because you do not believe or accept evidence that there is a lion in the next room, does not automatically mean there isn't one. At most you should be neutral, which you are admittedly not.

[86adamleon]

I am not neutral, because no one can be neutral. Either you believe, or you do not.

Atheism is a neutral position, in the way that babies, trees, rocks do not actively believe.

Anti-theism is a subset of atheism--strong atheism--but it denotes a separate belief, that I don't have.

I can be pretty sure that God doesn't exist, like I'm pretty sure about fairies, the flying spaghetti monster, and fairies, but not absolutely sure.

[lawrenca333]

You defined Atheism as being "neutral", yet you admit you are not neutral. So you are not really Atheist by your own definition. If you are not neutral, then you actually do have a positive belief in the non-existence of God, which does require positive reasons for that belief. You do not need to be saying you KNOW God does not exist to bear the burden of proof. You only need to be on either side of neutral, which you have admitted. So what are your reasons for your non-belief?

[86adamleon]

I'll repeat this only once more, with the hope that you're only misunderstanding me;

the only requirements for atheism, is not believing in theism; this includes those who actively believe there is no God.

Atheism isn't a belief, or even an independent claim; it's a response to a belief, so it is therefor neutral.

Does that make sense?

I'm sorry, sometimes it's difficult to explain these things.

In my next comment, I'll try to further elaborate on my position.

[86adamleon]

I am an atheist; but I am not neutral, the way rocks and trees are neutrally atheistic object, since I chose to be an atheist, consciously.

Again, I am not the one making the claim, as an atheist, theists are.

If I said a misfit group of magical fairies created the universe, it wouldn't be up to the skeptics to disprove my assertion.

The reason I do not believe is an entirely different conversation, one that I would readily pursue.

[lawrenca333]

It does not matter how you choose to define atheism or anti-theism. I think you have definitely shown contradiction already by saying atheism is a neutral position, but then admitting you are not neutral and still calling yourself an atheist. Either way, it doesn't matter. The point is that you ARE making the assertion that God does not exist, and that requires the burden of proof. I'll explain.

[lawrenca333]

You are right to say that it is the person who asserts pixies created the universe have the burden of proof. But in the absence of proof, that does not automatically mean that pixies do not exist. All it means is that we do not know whether they exist. If you respond by saying "pixies do not exist", or they most likely do not exist, you will have to explain why you have come to that conclusion. Saying there is lack of evidence for God is not good enough. At best you have to be neutral.

[86adamleon]

Yes, however,

there's a difference between saying that pixies do not exist, and saying that they likely do not exist;

the latter deals with probabilities,

while the former is a sure belief.

Just because you disbelief one thing, that doesn't mean that you automatically believe the opposite.

I am neutral in the way that you're taking about, but I chose to be so.

The neutral position in this instance would be disbelieving the pixies, until there is sufficient evidence is given for them.

[86adamleon]

It does matter how we define atheism and anti-theism, because then we know where the burden of proof lies.

Atheism isn't a belief.

It's a response to a belief.

Anti-theism is a belief.

Atheism itself is the neutral position of disbelief, which is the position I take.

I'm using a different type of neutrality

when I say that I'm not neutral;

I'm not a neutral atheist the way that trees are,

because I chose to disbelieve.

Does that make sense?

[Zaphenath4]

@86adamleon Atheism isn't neutral. It is the *affirmation* that God does not exist.

[86adamleon]

@Zaphenath4

The definition of Atheism varies depending on which source you go to, but really the only requirement for atheism is the lack of belief in God.

A=without

theism= belief in God.

Lack of belief does in something does not mean that you automatically believe

the opposite to be true.

Inanimate objects are atheists, simply because they do not actively believe in God.

So that type of atheism is, in fact, neutral.

I hope this was helpful.

Peace.

[othellopiano]

@86adamleon

This always makes me giggle, when people take atheism and say something like: "A=without

theism= belief in God."

Let me tell you something, I've studied ancient Greek and I can tell you where atheist originated and how it was used and understood in ancient greek.

More like:

Theism: Belief in the existence of god.

Atheism: Belief in the non-existence of god.

[86adamleon]

@othellopiano

I don't mean to diminish your high spirits,

but you never demonstrated to me, through your supposedly extensive knowledge about the ancient Greek language, how Atheism means a belief in the non-existence of God, except by simply asserting that it is so.

Does the "A" prefix mean "Not," or "Without"?

And if so, how did you determine a "With" from the

the word "Without"?

How does being WITHOUT a belief in God, automatically

mean WITH a belief that no Gods exist?

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@othellopiano It did start off that may but now it has changed to a simpler way of putting it. As without a belief in god. That is the definition of implicit atheism and explicit atheism is simply rejection of theistic claims. Besides it is impossible to disprove a being who has been moved to a place where it is impossible to disprove it and show that it does not exist.

[othellopiano]

@HonestTechnoAtheist

God has not been moved to some sort of "place" where he simply remains unfalsifiable. If you want to show that God can't exist you have to go about proving that his traits are contradictory etc..

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@othellopiano Yes he has actually. How can you disprove something which is outside of space and time when it is impossible to observe anything or gather evidence and information for something which is outside of space and time.

I can show how his traits are contradictory but that will only work on a god who has traits. It will do nothing for a deist god.

[othellopiano]

@HonestTechnoAtheist

Well if we are speaking of the Christian God, whom I believe in, then surely there is enough information for one to attempt at the very least to disprove his existence.

If you mean using the scientific method, then perhaps you are correct.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@othellopiano Oh sure yeah I have made some videos about that.

[othellopiano]

@HonestTechnoAtheist

Do you have a favorite of yours you'd recommend?

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@othellopiano I have a video on the problem of suffering as well as free will.

[6thwing]

@HonestTechnoAtheist That's very easy. Use the natural opposites. Attribute not-A to B. Therefore we can learn and understand what B is, by learning and understanding what A is not. Then we can test for things that makes B work by looking solely at A.

It is why the Scriptures teach that God has made Himself evident to all people through that which he created; yet despite this people REJECT Him. So God gave them over to themselves. Yet still compels them into the Truth.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@6thwing "It is why scriptures teach that God has made Himself evident to all people through that which he has created"

If creation is evidence for god then koolaid is evidence of the koolaid man. But creation can be evidence for any god, too bad there is a natural explanation for all of existence.

"Yet despite this people REJECT Him"

I reject things that are not compatable with reality. Theism is one of them. If god wants to convince me he exists then he must prove it to me that he doe

[Purushadasa]

Who exactly is it that you imagine I need to convince? The vast majority of human beings on this planet already accept God's existence along with His factual characteristics and activities to be a scientific fact, and the atheist, whose intellect is on the exact same level as the pig, cannot be convinced of anything that goes against his dogmatic belief system anyway.

[86adamleon]

You need to convince those who do not believe, and I am one of those people, sir.

I assume that you adhere to the bible; perhaps I am wrong, but what I can only go on assumptions, and the Mr. Craig videos on your page.

Look this passage up;

1 Peter 3:15

Tell me what it says if you wish to continue this conversation, so that I can assured that you're listening to me.

[Purushadasa]

I have no interest in belief or disbelief. I am referring to the fact that the vast majority of human beings on the planet today, as well as throughout history, do accept and have accepted the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, and that scientific fact stands until the atheist offers a viable claim to the contrary, which you fail.

[Purushadasa]

I have no desire for anyone to "believe" anything -- I rely on scientific facts, and it is the atheist alone who harbors unscientific beliefs about God, specifically that His factual characteristics and factual activities are somehow nonexistent, a belief for which he has absolutely no evidence.

I have no desire or responsibility to convince anyone of anything, as God has already convinced the whole world of the scientific facts, with the single exception of the oddball atheist.

[Purushadasa]

You are the one with beliefs about God, not me, and your beliefs are unsupported by any evidence.

I have scientific facts about God, and yes, all the major religions also accept God's existence along with His factual attributes and activities as scientific fact.

You lost this debate before you got up this morning, and I won it before I got up -- the world is already convinced.

Again, who exactly is it that you imagine I need to convince of the facts? The world already knows them!

[86adamleon]

So, what does the passage say?

Did you bother to read the bible, or are just taking someone's word for it?

You know, I could pull the same crap with the Flying Spaghetti Monster that you are with your God.

Tell me why the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real. Give me the sound scientific evidence, you Apastafarian, for your insane, pig-like disbelief, or go back to suckling the evil teet of your man-like Deity in shame!!

lol

[Purushadasa]

Thank you for displaying the very height of atheistic "intelligence" and "class."

[Purushadasa]

The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.

The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific fact that God definitely exists along with His factual attributes and activities.

The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.

[86adamleon]

Even if the entire world were theists, it wouldn't make the claims anymore justified. Similar to the way everyone once thought that the Earth was a flat disk, at the center of the universe;

majority belief does not justify your claims.

I'd even argue that most of the world ISN'T christian; you're likely only taking the Western world into consideration.

[Purushadasa]

Only your western science ever taught flat-earth theory, just as it now teaches the equally foolish evolution theory.

Theistic science has known all along the actual shape of the earth.

[Purushadasa]

God already changed the face of the world by proving Himself to basically everyone (except the lower animal and the atheist, that is).

I am under no obligation because the claims that I'm repeating here are not my own -- they are God's, and He has already proven all of them.

The jellyfish, if it could type, may deny the proof like you, but the only basic difference is that you can type and the jellyfish cannot.

Your personal ignorance, as impotent as the jellyfish's, can't change the facts.

[Purushadasa]

God has been proven for countless centuries, and atheist dogma

is a new invention, a newcomer attempting to upset a long-established scientifically factual conclusion -- therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist.

[86adamleon]

The default position is not theism, it is atheism.

As rocks, trees, birds, baby, kittens, and water cannot be said to have an active belief in your particular deity.

You failed to provide evidence.

The burden of proof is with you.

Do you belief in Zeus, Odin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, big foot, or Fairies?

If not, then you're insisting you're the one with the burden of proof.

So prove to me that Zeus isn't real.

[Purushadasa]

The atheist is, as you have been so kind to demonstrate, on the exact same level of intelligence as rocks, trees, birds, baby [sic], kittens, and water. It takes fully matured adult human intelligence to apprehend the ample evidence for God, which the atheist clearly fails.

[86adamleon]

Yes, the atheistic claim is in fact on the same level as a rocks and trees, because it is default. So as a "fully matured adult human,"

you're the one with the burden of proof.

Can you prove to me God exists?

Give me the so-called evidence, if it is so "ample."

[Purushadasa]

Thank you for admitting that your intelligence level is the same as that of rocks and trees.

The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God that the majority of mankind accepts.

Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual existence, His characteristics, or His activities.

[Purushadasa]

I don't have to convince anyone, because the vast majority of human beings on the planet also know that Theism is in the right, and atheism is wrong.

The vast majority always has accepted Theism and rejected atheism, and the vast majority always will.

It is the atheist who must somehow, someday do some convincing, but as of this time, you fail.

[Purushadasa]

Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.

The reason why the vast majority of human beings apprehend the ample evidence for God is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.

You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.

[Purushadasa]

The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God that the majority of mankind accepts.

Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual existence, His characteristics, or His activities.

[86adamleon]

You're futile attempt to dehumanize atheists no more proves your claims that God is real, than Hitler claim that the Jews were evil.

It's a complete circular argument, covered with lies, and falsehoods.

Your paraphrased argument.

God is real because of the evidence, and

most people claim to know the unknowable,

however,

The evidence does not need to be disclosed, to anyone, at anytime,

and those who disbelieve because of this absence of evidence are evil stupid pigs.

[Purushadasa]

The above post consists of misquotes and refutations of misquotes, either through ignorance or unscrupulous intent, which means that you're employing a straw-man logical fallacy.

Therefore, there is no need for me to counter your statements, as you have already countered your own opening statements below them.

You have not correctly quoted mine or countered them, sadly.

[Purushadasa]

With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God, along with His factual characteristics and activities, as a scientific fact, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?

The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific fact anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.

The scientific fact stands unchallenged and universally accepted.

[86adamleon]

It seems that nothing I'm saying to you is registering, even in the remotest sense.

Perhaps you are too deluded to ever consider opening up that vacuum you call your mind, but I feel you've demonstrated yourself to be compulsively dishonest, more than anything.

Whatever the case, I only have one life to live, and I'm Done wasting it on you.

So, stop pestering me with your 1001 repetitious comments, and go back to the echo-chamber from whence you came!

[Purushadasa]

Run, coward -- thus you admit that your foolish beliefs have been easily proven wrong.

atheist total fail

[Purushadasa]

God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.

Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.

[Purushadasa]

The pig also can't be convinced of God's existence, but the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet are already convinced. This fact speaks not a whit to God's factual existence, but rather to the lack of intelligence on the part of the pig.

Personally, I'm very happy to be counted among those of fully human intelligence in this regard -- the Theists -- as opposed to those on par with the pig.

[Purushadasa]

You are the one with beliefs about God, not me, and your beliefs are unsupported by any evidence.

I have scientific facts about God, and yes, all the major religions also accept God's existence along with His factual attributes and activities as scientific fact.

You lost this debate before you got up this morning, and I won it before I got up -- the world is already convinced.

Again, who exactly is it that you imagine I need to convince of the facts? The world already knows them!

[Purushadasa]

There is much more evidence to support God's existence than yours, because all you have is 2 or 3 posts on Youtube, but God has the entire body of all scriptures on this planet, which clearly come from Him.

[Purushadasa]

Coward, your hasty retreat is a clear admission that your foolish beliefs have been easily proven wrong.

atheist total fail

[Purushadasa]

The pig also can't be convinced of God's existence, but the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet are already convinced. This fact speaks not a whit to God's factual existence, but rather to the lack of intelligence on the part of the pig.

Personally, I'm very happy to be counted among those of fully human intelligence in this regard -- the Theists -- as opposed to those on par with the pig.

[Purushadasa]

I love the way the believer in atheist dogma makes it so easy for Theists; he basically shoots himself in the foot all the time, employing faulty logic, faulty science, and basically displaying an amazing inability to perceive himself and his own constant obsession with God.

[Purushadasa]

All of God's scriptures prohibit violence and killing, and disobedience to God's scriptures is atheistic. Therefore, all violence and killing are atheistic activities, and real Theists are always in accordance with God's injunctions to be peaceful.

This obviously includes one of the injunctions that He has taken care to make extremely well-known all over the world, "Thou shalt not kill."

[Purushadasa]

Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly.

The number one tenet of official atheist dogma is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as the modern atheist does. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.

CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.

[Purushadasa]

Einstein was a Theist (a Jew), Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a mass-murderer of Theists (Jews).

[Purushadasa]

God has already proven Himself to the world. The whole world already accepts the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, with the singular exception of the crackpot atheist, who is in the extreme miniscule minority in this regard.

Before being taken seriously, the crackpot atheist must necessarily come up with at least one viable argument in favor of his bizarre dogmatic belief that God somehow doesn't exist, but so far, he fails.

[86adamleon]

Congratulations!

Of all the people I've ever debated this issue with, you've really taken the cake for being the most dishonest, and the least interested in actually listening to what I have to say.

First, you made yourself look like a fool by saying my quotes from Hitler were merely conjured; I highly recommend you study this topic more in depth; but I doubt you will take this advice.

[Purushadasa]

With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God, along with His factual characteristics and activities, as a scientific fact, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?

The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific fact anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.

The scientific fact stands unchallenged and universally accepted.

[86adamleon]

Moreover, I am appalled by you're scientific posturings. When I asked for evidence of God, you instead thought it impertinent to call me names, and insist that everybody smart on the playground worships God.

So I'll ask once more; with the hope that you'll answer, and maybe prove me wrong.

What is the logically sound evidence for your distinct notion of God?

Why should I believe?

[Purushadasa]

I have no interest in belief or disbelief. I am referring to the fact that the vast majority of human beings on the planet today, as well as throughout history, do accept and have accepted the scientific fact that God exists along with His factual attributes and activities, and that scientific fact stands until the atheist offers a viable claim to the contrary, which you fail.

[Purushadasa]

I have no desire for anyone to "believe" anything -- I rely on scientific facts, and it is the atheist alone who harbors unscientific beliefs about God, specifically that His factual characteristics and factual activities are somehow nonexistent, a belief for which he has absolutely no evidence.

I have no desire or responsibility to convince anyone of anything, as God has already convinced the whole world of the scientific facts, with the single exception of the oddball atheist.

[Purushadasa]

You are the one with beliefs about God, not me, and your beliefs are unsupported by any evidence.

I have scientific facts about God, and yes, all the major religions also accept God's existence along with His factual attributes and activities as scientific fact.

You lost this debate before you got up this morning, and I won it before I got up -- the world is already convinced.

Again, who exactly is it that you imagine I need to convince of the facts? The world already knows them!

[Purushadasa]

You are under the impression that I might want to convince you of something, but I have no such desire, nor do I have any such obligation -- the vast majority of the human beings on this planet are already convinced of the scientific fact that God exists, along with his factual attributes and activities, and you are relegated to the amusing, stubborn, and sadly less-intelligent crackpot minority who fails, as the lower animal fails, to apprehend the ample evidence for God.

[Purushadasa]

Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.

The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to apprehend the ample evidence for God.

I will pray for you.

[86adamleon]

Lastly, I say this as an act of kindness;

Do not pray for me; for it is in my firm BELIEF that if there was in fact a God, he would be far too ashamed and angry to listen to your prayers; take the time in which you would pray for me, and do a little introspection, and maybe a little research on these topics, so that you come with better arguments, at least.

[Purushadasa]

Thank you for admitting that all of your nonsense is nothing but your own personal belief, unsupported by as much as a single shred of evidence.

atheist total fail

[Purushadasa]

"We're working on it."

I hear this so much from believers in atheist dogma.

Unfortunately, that is no argument, and it actually loses them the debate as soon as they say it.

If you go to a restaurant, order a meal, and then the waiter just brings you the check and no food, will you pay it?

If the waiter then says, "we're working on it," will that make a difference? It is am utterly unacceptable argument.

If you give your landlord that insane line instead of the rent, you will be evicted.

[Purushadasa]

"We're working on it" is the motto of the incompetent, and is unacceptable in every sphere of life, including science, debate, and cosmology.

God already *has it,* and has no need to *work on* it, and so, as a neutral third party, instead of going with the incompetent party that is supposedly "working on it," I have no other logical choice than to throw my lot in with God's party instead.

[86adamleon]

"We're working on it," is the best, most honest answer any good scientist, person, or debater can give; unless you have some evidence you'd like to produce for you're assertions to the contrary.

Rather than burying their heads in the sand by saying "God did it," they're actually looking for the answers to the big questions.

Also, You CANNOT be a neutral party in this.

Either you are a theist, that believes in God; if you were anything else, then you're an atheist, that has no belief in God.

[Purushadasa]

Thank you for admitting that you are not neutral in this issue. That explains your irrational and ignorant bias.

Fortunately, I AM a neutral third party, and I am 100% unbiased. That is why the conclusions that I am stating are scientific, whereas yours are emotional, unintelligent hogwash.

Your statement that it's supposedly impossible to be neutral is itself biased, in addition to being incorrect, and it is also a self-refuting argument, sadly.

atheist total fail

[86adamleon]

I was stating that merely there is NO neutrality: you are either an theist or an atheist. It's not a base; either you believe, or you do not.

My atheism stems from the fact that I do not believe in the theistic claims, because they do not meet their burden of proof.

Which brings me to my next point; what evidence do you have of God?

btw

I'm not at all emotional about this; I know it's difficult to tell with text, but I couldn't be more apathetic about your imaginary sky Daddy.

[Purushadasa]

You are just assuming the fantasy about God's supposed nonexistence -- thanks for admitting that!

I am much more sound than you are mentally, that is for sure -- I don't make assumptions about anything. I don't produce any conclusions, positive or negative, unless I obtain access to observational data first.

You do produce premature conclusions (about God) without such access, sadly, and that is a symptom of your insanity as well as your lack of scientific qualifications.

[86adamleon]

You said that bad christianity is the equivalent to atheism, and I really just wanted to point this fact out, to demonstrate how mind-numbingly wrong you are, at every possible resolution.

I do not accept the empty claims made about God, therefor, I am not a christian.

A 'bad' Christian, believes in Jesus, but does things, like you, which are contrary to his teachings.

"But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." -Jesus, the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5 verse 22

[Purushadasa]

The above post consists of misquotes and refutations of misquotes, either through ignorance or unscrupulous intent, which means that you're employing a straw-man logical fallacy.

Therefore, there is no need for me to counter your statements, as you have already countered your own opening statements below them.

You have not correctly quoted mine or countered them, sadly.

[Purushadasa]

Your entire post above is merely an exposition of your unsupported personal beliefs, without a shred of backing by any type of evidence for any of them.

Do you have any evidence to support your dogmatic beliefs, or did you just make them all up?

[86adamleon]

wow, are you even reading my posts?

it took you less than a minute to reply.

I doubt you even gave what I said any thought at all, and the fact that you have access to Google, where you check my quotes, discourages me greatly.

Saying that the majority believes in Him does not make the claims anymore true.

So, I'll ask one last time, with the hope that all of this has not been a wasted effort;

What is your evidence for God?

[Purushadasa]

Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.

The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to apprehend the ample evidence for God.

I will pray for you.

[86adamleon]

First you say that, "Atheism is a filthy and unscientific mental delusion with no backing by any evidence whatsoever."

Then you go on to say that you're neutral, and that I'm emotional, and unintelligent.

Notice the inconsistency?

It seems to me like you're only pretending to be 'neutral,' while childishly bashing something, which you ostensibly have no understanding about.

I refuse to waste my time with blatant liars, so this will likely be my last correspondence with you.

-Good day, sir.

[Purushadasa]

There is no inconsistency. A neutral party may easily decry the qualities of stool while remaining perfectly neutral -- that is what I have done.

My neutrality frightens you, as does my cool-headed adherence to scientific method and my admission that the Theists are qualified in this issue and you are not. However, your fear does not show any lack of neutrality on my part -- it only shows your weakness of heart.

Run, coward -- thus you admit the defeat of your atheistic belief system.

[86adamleon]

There is no atheist dogma, other than the rejection in the theist claims.

The waiter argument is flawed.

A theistic waiter, instead of saying "We're working on it," would say that "God has it."

The assertions that God created the universe is merely filling in the gaps of science with an emotional bias, and is totally indistinguishable from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Zeus, or Odin, which makes it an invalid argument.

[Purushadasa]

God is the cook, and the Theistic waiter says, "Yes, God has perfected it, and I am bringing it to you right now. Here it is -- enjoy."

The atheistic waiter says, " There's no cook, but we're working on it, while you pay us to go hungry and wish that we had something to offer. Unfortunately, we have nothing."

Atheism is a filthy and unscientific mental delusion with no backing by any evidence whatsoever.

[86adamleon]

The whole cook/waiter argument is so silly. It makes me laugh.

It's hilarious to me how much you're demonizing atheism; most Buddhist are atheists, and so are many reputable scientists.

The point of the matter is that theists claim to know something that they cannot, while people like me take issue with that.

I don't need to give you evidence for my atheism, you need to give me evidence for your theism. The default position for any assertion is disbelief, until proven otherwise.

[Purushadasa]

Small things amuse small minds.

You posit the self-refuting argument that the Theists cannot know some unnamed thing. It is self-refuting because if that unnamed thing supposedly cannot be known, then you cannot possibly know anything about it either, such as its supposed unknowability -- your foolish argument falls in on itself.

[Purushadasa]

First of all, you need to prove that bit about the default position stuff -- that is your own made-up personal belief, and you have offered no evidence for it.

Secondly, it is untrue.

Third, God's existence along with His attributes and activities is a scientific fact, long-accepted by the vast majority of human beings on the planet, and still accepted by the vast majority today.

[Purushadasa]

Your entire post above is merely an exposition of your unsupported personal beliefs, without a shred of backing by any type of evidence for any of them.

Do you have any evidence to support your dogmatic beliefs, or did you just make them all up?

[Purushadasa]

Your admission of personal ignorance is awe-inspiring, but your attempt to extrapolate your own personal ignorance onto all other beings in existence is extremely presumptuous in addition to being wholly unscientific and illogical.

How have you supposedly taken the statistics that "nobody" can possibly know God? Have you scrutinizingly studied every living entity that ever existed? Certainly not, and so you can make no claims about their knowledge, positive or negative.

[theonlyway2truth]

truth had a great victory that day for our lord Jesus!

[Blackwater578]

so you would prefer a junk theory over not knowing.

[taotaotatti]

How is asserting that "Something is simply a brute fact and that explains that" any better than asserting that "The Bang demands a Banger" and "Tweeking demands a Tweeker".

[Purushadasa]

Because the first statement is merely an asserted personal belief with no attempt made at supporting it with any logic or evidence, and the second two are logically sound, solid arguments backed by logically sound, solid evidence.

Without any support by logical evidence, the first statement falls to pieces if anyone simply says "No, it is not a brute fact, and it does not explain anything."

Thanks for asking!

[emopeacekid]

So did the Nazi's have a different moral genetic structure? If so then why are their genetics wrong and our and right?

[Purushadasa]

Everyone has a different genetic structure, but that is beside the point -- morality is wholly unrelated to genetics.

Believers in atheist dogma make the conscious decision to disobey God's commandments, such as "Thou shalt not kill," and this disobedience is how movements like Nazism are born.

[86adamleon]

Wow.

There you go again, spreading your perverted nonsense.

Tell me, what Dogma's do Atheists have?

I'd also like to recommend that you read up on your history, before spreading your libelous lies.

Hitler was a christian creationist, who was never ex-communicated from the Catholic Church. Look it up.

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

-Hitler

[Purushadasa]

Nah, his philosophy of eugenics was right in line with Darwin's kooky ideas, and his actions were clearly against all the scriptural injunctions that God has revealed, such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Going against God's scriptural injunctions is obviously an atheistic activity. Hitler hated God, hated Jews, and hated Catholics. He is clearly the epitomic believer in atheist dogma.

[86adamleon]

Did you even bother to read the quote I gave you in my last comment?

Hitler may have been a "bad Christian," but he was a Christian nonetheless, who completely rejected Darwin's theory.

"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."- Hitler

[Purushadasa]

You made up the supposed "quote." It's your words alone.

"Bad Christian" is not Christian -- it is atheist. Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly.

The number one tenet of official atheist dogma is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as you do above.

CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a hater of God's devotees, and a ruthless killer and liar.