Atheism is the belief that the existence of a higher being cannot be proven. It does not rely on the existence of theism; this is a completely fallacious use of logic. According to your reasoning, the denouncement of the existence of unicorns relies on the existence of unicorns; thus, unicorns exist. Nay, the THEORY of the existence of unicorns exists, just as the theory of the existence of God exists, the latter which cannot be proven, giving credence to atheism.
You never introduce the laws of logic, nor attempt to explain how atheism is incongruous with such laws. You simply refer to ad hominem attacks, only perpetuating the unsubstantiated extremist views of religious zealots. Your arguments hold no merit.
Oh my god. You are out of your mind retarded. My fellow commenters below I'm sure know why. At least your small brain has found something to dedicate itself to, until you die with false hopes of living forever.
yes. but the laws of logic: A = A and A ~ non-A, are utilized, presupposed and required in all induction and deduction deduction presupposes ind. and the other way around too: Ded.: All men are mortal Socrates is man Socrates is mortal. induction produces the first premise - for no one, w/o an omniscient being revealing such, no one can know that ALL men r mortal so the iconic standard example of a ded. argument requires induction
I can see why noone makes a video response to this it would take a 10 min video, it would look like my high school English papers a little bit of content with a page full of red ink
atheism presupposes theism for it must use invariant universals and all-encompassing non-material laws in which only theism can supply the epistemic fount and ground
God lives even if you hate Him and His laws of reason
Almighty God, the Big Bang, Evolution, Reincarnation and Pendulum Dowsing are related subjects.
Listening to my selection of short videos will help you come to terms with the Holy Bible and Holy Quran and encourage atheists to reconsider the existence of Almighty God.
Then come back to us "jeerper's creepers, goofy, dumb, achey stupid, lack of pondering, wacky, and freaky: folks
Oh, good job not stating (hein's?) induction argument so it can't be refuted like every other ridiculous thing that has been swatted already
PS: Last time I checked, people who are right in a debate never needed to insult the opposition. Why? Their evidence stands up for itself. wonder what that says for you
If you're an ordinary human being, isn't it staggeringly arrogant to presume you completely comprehend the minds of people you don't even know? Would you take such presumption with those you consider friends, family, or allies?
Stalin and Mao took advantage of their countries blind faith. If they were atheists they would have said "fuck you, your not a divine being, why should i do what you say". Instead they wordshipped the dictators with blind faith just like the religious folks. As hitchens puts it ,"you shouldn't be in the dictator business if you don't take advantage of that". Plus, were all the soldiers and killers atheists? I don't think so! We need logic, we don't need religion. Don't be stupid logic=religion??
I love irony. I find it hilarious when fools call me a fool.
However I feel genuine pity for the intellecually and morally bankrupt who have been brainwashed from birth to believe blind faith and ignorance is a virtue.
Do us all a favor, emancipate yourself from the man made idea of a celestial dictatorship. Have the courage to take responsibility for your moral compass regardless of where it points.
- Atheists cannot account for the Non-Material, immutable, atemporal Laws of logic, God who is: Non-Material, immutable, atemporal does, thus atheism is self-refuting.
Well you are creating a god of the gaps, science can't account for the laws of logic, therefor god must have created them, that arguement is fail because it creates excess hypothesis without any evidence.(occams razor) There is no evidence for god, so why should we make things more complicated than they are?
theistic epistemology & claims can't be defeated by autonomous opinions and personal experience, nor by empiricism since they examine the mandatory preconditions that make human experience intelligible.
since the laws of logic are necessary to make experience intelligible, one can't examine mere experience to undermine laws of logic considering intelligible experience presupposes laws of logic. thus A can't be A & Non-A at the time/way. God alone furnishes the preconditions
Ousias: Sub par because it involves no logic or reason. And irreligious is not a-moral or a-rational (did you mean irrational?). The terms are exclusive. I know that calling someone a knucklehead is not good -- why doesn't he? I obviously live a much more moral and commending life than the poster of this video (I have since done my homework on him and found I should not have wasted my time here). And since you are his minion -- away with you as well. Good luck in fantasy land.
LOL! Perhaps Jesus ran around calling everyone a knucklehead, etc, who knows. But ignorantmilesblind fails to see how how his responses make him look like a teenage moron rather than someone who stands behind their beliefs. I feel sorry for someone as deluded as this.
I think Anthony is busy, so I'll ask the obvious question.
You live in an a-rational and a-moral universe, a universe without rhyme or reason. In light of this, what is the principled basis of your complaint against someone who calls others "knuckleheads"? And what is the principled basis of your complaint that his responses are sub-par? It looks like anthony is living in harmony with the world as you believe in it. Or is he?
new-day agnosticism wins the battle unless you've given up. then christianity will probably win(agnosticism is same as atheism if you go back far enough)
You, anthonymilesee, like to use the word logic a whole bunch, but you provde no logical arguments at all for your stance against atheism. Your video is nothing more than a personal attack against atheists I suppose because you just don't like them. Apparently you think that you have logic and reason on your side, but just saying the word logic over and over doesn't make it so. All you've done is create a straw man and then proceeded to tear it down.
get an air hose and blast the ear wax out of your big dopey ears and perhaps u can hear the arguments since u are an atheist we don't think u can read many of the arguments
but be of good cheer all your kooky atheism presupposes theism but u are doomed unless u repent
All you've got, apparently, are personal attacks. My ears are truly not that big and I don't think ears can actually be dopey. And since I just read your reply I guess you are wrong about my level of illiteracy. Your writing style is indicitive of about a third grade level, so no need to reply, since this will be my last post. Have a nice day.
What is "indicitive" of a third grade reading level? I'm afraid I missed something.
By the way, since we are talking about grades, something that assumes standards,and since you complained about anthony's personal attacks, something that assumes moral standards, care to tell us by what standard you as an atheist determine that it is wrong to attack other people, especially atheists who tell us they are really people after all, at least not what we have traditionally meant by "people"?
Let me help you with your logic. I am an atheist, I can't hate something I believe does not exist.I will not go to hell ,same reason. Please get a better argument.
You may not be able to hate something you believe does not exist (which only shows that because you DO hate God, then you must believe in him at some level), but you most certainly can go somewhere even if you don't believe it is a real place.
Just because you don't believe hell is real doesn't mean you can't go there and it won't be really hot.
You may not believe in hell, but reality does not conform to your thinking. reality is kind of stubborn that way.
i was, like u, a dopey irrational non-believer until I researched the evidence and found that the proof for Christianity was not only overwhelming, but it was not possibly false and i found that atheism is an alogical self-hating philosophy that stultifies itself and is only for dim-witted knuckleheads
well knucklehead, u as a dopey atheist call it nonsense due to the a posteriori fact that anti-theism lacks epistemic responsibility - so thanks for admitting this and this proves that anti-theism is irrational and self-refuting for girly-men who hate themselves as much as they hate God
You talk about atheism being a result of stupidity, yet you present no argument save to insult atheists. Your video is nothing more than sophism. Ad hominem is hardly a valid argument.
Religion is not based on the laws of logic, which owe a lot to one of the first known cases of someone being sentenced to die for being an atheist: Socrates.
Religion is based on faith and following what bronze age people who thought the world was flat said - not logic.
You charged the author of the video with presenting no argument and in the next paragraph try and refute his argument, although all you really did was give us an atheist martyr story about Socrates. I guess it takes an atheist to get how that isn't stupid.
In any case, Socrates was not an atheist. Apparently you don't believe what he said in his defense any more than his judges did. Of course I don't think Socrates, his gods or his daemon (as he called it) had a valid answer any more than u
The people also democratically elected Hitler. Are atheists and pagans over their priming things up up for big number III?
And by the way, where in the world did the notion of a "constitution" come from. Surely not atheism. Thanks for appreciating our contribution to the world, a contribution you grant "guarantee's" freedom.
But watch out. Atheism will eat away and erode the freedom you have. Constitutionalism is Christian in origin and assumes a view of the world that you reject.
Yeah, God is gonna slap me around some bad for not wanting to debate history with an idiot on Youtube. He's got a special place in hell just for those, just as it says in the bible. "Thou shalt not ignore stupid comments by scientific illiterates on thy internet". That's bound to be in there somewhere.
For a guy out of gas, you don't mind pulling over on the side of the road in order to pretend like you are still driving and going somewhere.
So, since you are still gonna hang around, let's get back to it.
Now, why would God slap you around, as you put it? Not b/c you couldn't anwer me, even though I am an idiot, as you say, and which I would assume would make your job easier, but b/c you do know the answer and just refuse to own up to it.
Among the many evidences that you do know God IS, is the fact that you make all sorts of evaluative statements and make moral judgments, all of which assume some kind of standard, even though your wv cannot account for them.
What is wrong with being a "moron", an "idiot", or any future word you may use for me? What is wrong if the whole show is meaningless, or, as Shakespeare put it, "a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing."
Now that you have refueled the gas tank, care to come up with these standards you are relying on when you evaluate my remarks as either rational or irrational and my character as either good or bad?
It isn't running. Now slowly remove the keys from the car with your left hand and toss them out the window. Then use your left hand and open the door from the outside. Get out... You have been taken through a sobriety test and have failed. Go to youtube prison and resolve to never getting behind the atheist wheel again...
All you have going for yourself is insults. That's not very christian-like. I don't hate myself, I don't ache or hurt, and I am not red in the face. Everyone is an Atheist at one point in their life. No one is born with the knowledge of anything, including god. If god created us in his image, why is the world so corrupt? If you ask 'who do u know there is not god?' Well, there's not much point in disproving something that has no been proven. ur just rambling about pointless insults.
rrrrrrrrr me heart'ys there be only one true god, one realistic like religion, that be the flyin spaghetti monster,, may ye be touched by his noodly appendage,,,, peace and meatballs to ye all,,, shiver me timbers,
How very Christian of you Anthoneymilessee, God must be SO proud of you :) And no I'm sorry, Einstein WAS an athiest no matter how much you want to cry about it. He made that VERY clear. The fact that you can take 1 of his quotes out of context doesn't negate the several others in which he expresses the negativity of religion.
if there were no religions this world would still be turning, with you me and everyone else in it. maybe there would be just a few less wars caused by theism.
the laws of logic are universal, unchanging, and non-physical and the physical only, always changing, non-universal cosmos could not produce them nor account for them, only the God of the Bible is universal, unchanging and has universal power, reach and knowledge to ground the necessary laws of logic
2) Your doublespeak is confusing. "anti-theism cannot even supply the certain and universal conditions to account for the notion of evidence." This is nonsense. What are "certain and universal conditions"? Are you referring to immaterial processes? What is a "notion of evidence"? Where is this "plethora of evidence" that Christianity can account for universal conditions?
1) This is top-down philosophy. You claim to know the criterion of God (his ontology, etc). This is impossible; therefore one of your premises is invalid. You claim that there must be certainty. Why? At the most, and this is a stretch, you can only point to an inconsistency of atheism. But that does not logically require that theism is true. You can only suggest God as the most likely metaphysical source.
Your kidding right?? so all the stupid atheists like, lets see, Thomas A. Edison, Albert Einstein, I could go on but it would be lost on your silly narrow minded double digit IQ. You just don't know anything..
Nice. Now I can see why Hitchens calls religion the infancy of the human species. You prove his point more beautifully than any analogy I have ever witnessed.
as usual you are wrong on all counts, it's nice to see that you are consistently moronic...you have people on your side like Hovind, what a dope and pat the screwball robertson and I'm glad that tub of shit Falwell took the big dirt dive. made my day...
Einstein was not a theist. He was a pantheist at most, or a deist.
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts." - A.E.
Eistein was an atheist. He didnt believe in a same god as u think, it was all a metaphore, he meant the perfect way how our universe works, not some dude who created us and whole world.
Two atheists may share nothing in common other than their opinion about God's existence. One may be a staunch conservative the other may be a devoted liberal. There is no atheistic Bible which dictates how every atheist should behave. Nobody tells you which group to hate or rail against. There is no dogma that asks you not to question it. Being an atheist is the most open, free and liberating experience. It has certainly made me free to ponder and consider every possibility.
Exactly Navin...Two atheists may have nothing in common but their atheism, since in atheism, as you say, there is no Bible which dictates, provides dogmas, or rules by which to be railed against. You call this freedom and liberation, but other people called it hell on earth under Stalin, Mao, etc.
You can't distance yourself from these men because your atheism leaves you NOTHING, by your own admission - no standard, no norms, no laws, no basis for judgment.
Stalin and Mao put communism first, they made the state their church and with themselves at the head of that church. Communism is not atheism. I oppose communism as much as you do.
Atheism is best defended using formal logic. It is formal logic that theists must reject on many counts.
"Stalin and Mao put communism first, they made the state their church and with themselves at the head of that church. Communism is not atheism. I oppose communism as much as you do."
I can see from this post that you are not a communist-atheist, but still want to know what kind you are.
Also, you can hardly be opposed to communism as much as I am, especially since, as you said before, morality is subjective, a mere matter of opinion.
All of the supposed examples of "atheistic states" which you've given in your description, are either Communist/Socialist or some variety of something similar. All of those are ideologies, which have nothing to do with atheism, although they incorporate being atheist as a condition for belonging to their club making them more like a religion. Being an atheist just because Karl Marx asked you to is just as bad as being Christian just because your priest or pastor asked you to.
yet under atheist Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood was exterminated simply for being priests, as were the clergy of other religions 100,000's of Baptists. the claim that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his actions may be the most disingenuous from atheists & the armies of the atheistic French revolution had marched under icons of the Virgin & the common justification for China's atheistic invasion of Tibet had not been the awful priest-ridden backwardness of Budd.
"Darwin helped to further brutalize mankind through providing scientific sanction for bloodthirsty and selfish desires."
(Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, page 64) "At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist."
atheism is wonderful today in Cuba, N. Korea/China. maybe u should get a ticket to atheistic N. Korea - I'll send you a Idiots Guide to Korean Language book, if u know how to read - most atheists aren't too. if u keep up the dark work maybe you too can murder a 100 million for atheism or repent.
"Without a god, it's natural and, while often brutal, just makes sense"
For God to have created the laws of logic would mean that God would have had to exist before them. To say God existed before there was logic is meaningless, because existence itself derives its meaning from logic. The law of non-contradiction would have to have existed if God has to be God. If it did not then the word "God" holds no meaning, since "God" could just as well be "not God". He could also exist and not exist at the same time. Chew on that Mr. Anti-atheist.
The laws of logic are an immutable aspect of God's ontology. thus your twist on Eurythro Dilemma doesn't apply. God cannot do and approve of that which breaks the laws of logic.
The laws of logic are non-physical, universal, transcendent & invariant, thus, God, who is non-physical, universal, transcendent & invariant, supplies the needed preconditions for the the laws of logic.
the material cosmos can only account for particulars that are always in flux and changing; only an unchanging, non-material God cannot account for the unchanging non-material laws of logic that are required to assert anything.
1 day a zoo keeper noticed that the an ape was reading Darwin's Origin of Species and the Bible. The zoo keeper was surprised, he asked the ape, "why are u reading both of these books?"
Well said the ape, I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my Keeper's brother.
All the put downs from the anti-theists require God for even those must use the laws of logic for which God, who is non-physical, universal, changeless, is the universally necessary condition for the non-physical, univ. changeless laws of logic.
As far as Morality, there is a distinction in my world view between morality and moral LAW.
Everyone has some type of morality, but moral Law can only come from & be accounted for by one with exhaustive power, authority and knowledge, this all autonomous humans lack.
Moral Law is required for communication, yet atheism cannot supply the mandatory pre-necessities for it. It undermines the notion of moral Law.
Your atheist friends cannot account for logic, the principle of induction, morality, personal identity, etc. In short, they can't supply a worldview in which their high marks or anything else make any sense, not without secretly relying on and borrowing from Christian principles.
Nonsense. Induction is quite explained by my videos, so is morality and personal identity. You wish it was the case otherwise.
Many "yt atheists" don't know what they are talking about, yes. They are not even atheists most of the time. So you build strawmen around them if you like, it doesn't matter to atheists or atheism.
I don't claim to be either Hume or Russell or Carlin. Russell said he could not be an atheist because it required knowing there is no God, which makes Russell wrong. Atheism is the belief there is no God, not the knowledge there is no God. Atheism necessarily includes the admission there may be a God.
"Many 'yt atheists' don't know what they are talking about, yes. They are not even atheists most of the time. So you build strawmen around them if you like, it doesn't matter to atheists or atheism."
I have been telling people for ages that atheists have their own little denominations. In light of your confession above, what denom of atheist are you?
Without God one cannot even provide the essential
a priori conditions for a rational viewpoint. Anti-theism uses of the laws of logic, this affirms God and refutes your own anti-theism. One must employ the Laws of L, only God provides the pre-essentials for the L. of Logic; God must exist & your denial presupposes God exists. God back to your - Rem. Rorty - he died this year & now he's a professing theist.
Most of these anti-theists have denied that the Laws of logic r laws, all the while necessarily employing them in their assertions as Laws Atheism must employ the laws of logic -only God provides the necessary preconditions of universality, invariance, transcendence for the Laws of logic. Atheism presupposes God. God must exist, this is certain. Atheists love abortion, homo behavior, & Barney. Barney won't help u at the judgment seat, thus repent.
the posts in the vid site - turn you vol. down - we have the technology - Your sweeping objections undermine your own worldview. your anti-theism must use the Law of logic in your arguments & depends of its whole virtue rest on the very principals that allows for your kooky claims, so that whatever claim u r making u r taking for granted the very things which must be proved.
i've read hume for years, and kant standing on his shoulders destroyed the Cosm. and Tel. arguments in a more exhaustive and undeniable manner (if one stands on an autonomous a priori worldview), so i don't rely on the classical arguments nor evidentialism, but on the logical necessity of theism.
Tortured analogies and name-calling are all you have to offer. Though you mention logic, you offer none. There are no substantiated arguments in your video.
u pretty much nailed it - but there is a small shell of an argument at the very end of the vid - all my vids are mostly argument free - but there are many arguments laid out in the comment section of N. Rhymes #1.
i have known many atheists and i have helped many become Christians - some are now ministers and public debaters - and I have refuted 100's of anti-theists on you tube.
Madhatter...Are you suggesting that God can't make 2 + 2 equal 5? Does that mean that it ALWAYS equals four? Careful, you may not like where this is going....
The Laws of logic have the properties of Universality, Immutability, Immateriality & All rational thought requires the Laws of Logic, if the laws of logic have the properties U, I, & I and God also has those properties and the physical cosmos lacks them:
Conclusion:
God can account for the Laws of Logic.
& the Laws of L. are necessary for Intelligibility.
lol - are you taking all of your medications?
g24417 10 months ago
Atheism is the belief that the existence of a higher being cannot be proven. It does not rely on the existence of theism; this is a completely fallacious use of logic. According to your reasoning, the denouncement of the existence of unicorns relies on the existence of unicorns; thus, unicorns exist. Nay, the THEORY of the existence of unicorns exists, just as the theory of the existence of God exists, the latter which cannot be proven, giving credence to atheism.
scaredshoeless 1 year ago
Comment removed
scaredshoeless 1 year ago
You never introduce the laws of logic, nor attempt to explain how atheism is incongruous with such laws. You simply refer to ad hominem attacks, only perpetuating the unsubstantiated extremist views of religious zealots. Your arguments hold no merit.
scaredshoeless 1 year ago
Ignorance does NOT make a god real or necessary. Your argument holds no merit. You are a moron.
You molest kids.
You have a mad rash around your anus.
miniontemple 1 year ago
Oh my god. You are out of your mind retarded. My fellow commenters below I'm sure know why. At least your small brain has found something to dedicate itself to, until you die with false hopes of living forever.
lanikaula 1 year ago
anthonymilessee 1 year ago
lol, there is really no foundational logic to anything you say. You have no premise, nice try though. nice try.
xRECESSIVE 1 year ago
@xRECESSIVE
I second that. This video was one long nonsensical ramble.
djliquefaction 1 year ago
I can see why noone makes a video response to this it would take a 10 min video, it would look like my high school English papers a little bit of content with a page full of red ink
robvlob 2 years ago
atheism presupposes theism for it must use invariant universals and all-encompassing non-material laws in which only theism can supply the epistemic fount and ground
God lives even if you hate Him and His laws of reason
anthonymilessee 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Almighty God, the Big Bang, Evolution, Reincarnation and Pendulum Dowsing are related subjects.
Listening to my selection of short videos will help you come to terms with the Holy Bible and Holy Quran and encourage atheists to reconsider the existence of Almighty God.
jrnjames1 2 years ago
lol Someone has failed to learn basic logic.
Learn yer' P's and Q's, kid
Then come back to us "jeerper's creepers, goofy, dumb, achey stupid, lack of pondering, wacky, and freaky: folks
Oh, good job not stating (hein's?) induction argument so it can't be refuted like every other ridiculous thing that has been swatted already
PS: Last time I checked, people who are right in a debate never needed to insult the opposition. Why? Their evidence stands up for itself. wonder what that says for you
Niveous23 2 years ago
...
Here's a question.
If you're an ordinary human being, isn't it staggeringly arrogant to presume you completely comprehend the minds of people you don't even know? Would you take such presumption with those you consider friends, family, or allies?
Inquiring badgers wanna know! o.o
stealthbadger 2 years ago
Stalin and Mao took advantage of their countries blind faith. If they were atheists they would have said "fuck you, your not a divine being, why should i do what you say". Instead they wordshipped the dictators with blind faith just like the religious folks. As hitchens puts it ,"you shouldn't be in the dictator business if you don't take advantage of that". Plus, were all the soldiers and killers atheists? I don't think so! We need logic, we don't need religion. Don't be stupid logic=religion??
stemcgolf 2 years ago
I love irony. I find it hilarious when fools call me a fool.
However I feel genuine pity for the intellecually and morally bankrupt who have been brainwashed from birth to believe blind faith and ignorance is a virtue.
Do us all a favor, emancipate yourself from the man made idea of a celestial dictatorship. Have the courage to take responsibility for your moral compass regardless of where it points.
Tapecutter59 2 years ago
lol. please read any of the books against your position. you do not understand the arguments.
kksf1979 2 years ago
Eeny Meeny Miny Moe
Catch some logic by the toe
If it's Matter let it lay
In a bucket for a day
Yet hard & physical it is not
For Yes is Yes & not: no
Thus the irrational atheist does not know.
- Atheists cannot account for the Non-Material, immutable, atemporal Laws of logic, God who is: Non-Material, immutable, atemporal does, thus atheism is self-refuting.
anthonymilessee 2 years ago
Theists cannot account for the laws of logic either.
transferosome 2 years ago
Well you are creating a god of the gaps, science can't account for the laws of logic, therefor god must have created them, that arguement is fail because it creates excess hypothesis without any evidence.(occams razor) There is no evidence for god, so why should we make things more complicated than they are?
glgamecoder 2 years ago
I like how the worst thing you can say about Russel is that he's a "Wife stealer"...
Lmao - you're a faggot.
ByronC900 3 years ago
Ratings disabled... Shocking!
seth3481 3 years ago
saudi arabia is not much better.
AlternateArtisan 3 years ago
Communist countries are atheist in the same way my pencil is. It sure as heck doesn't believe in a god.
Does that mean anything? Nope, not a thing.
sroHex 3 years ago
Nietzsche had a serious brain disease at the end of his life, moron, that's why. Do your homework shallow idiot!
CoolAtheist 3 years ago
theistic epistemology & claims can't be defeated by autonomous opinions and personal experience, nor by empiricism since they examine the mandatory preconditions that make human experience intelligible.
since the laws of logic are necessary to make experience intelligible, one can't examine mere experience to undermine laws of logic considering intelligible experience presupposes laws of logic. thus A can't be A & Non-A at the time/way. God alone furnishes the preconditions
anthonymilessee 3 years ago
Ousias: Sub par because it involves no logic or reason. And irreligious is not a-moral or a-rational (did you mean irrational?). The terms are exclusive. I know that calling someone a knucklehead is not good -- why doesn't he? I obviously live a much more moral and commending life than the poster of this video (I have since done my homework on him and found I should not have wasted my time here). And since you are his minion -- away with you as well. Good luck in fantasy land.
Coryscott5 3 years ago
LOL! Perhaps Jesus ran around calling everyone a knucklehead, etc, who knows. But ignorantmilesblind fails to see how how his responses make him look like a teenage moron rather than someone who stands behind their beliefs. I feel sorry for someone as deluded as this.
I'll brace for the childish, uneducated response.
Coryscott5 3 years ago
cory,
I think Anthony is busy, so I'll ask the obvious question.
You live in an a-rational and a-moral universe, a universe without rhyme or reason. In light of this, what is the principled basis of your complaint against someone who calls others "knuckleheads"? And what is the principled basis of your complaint that his responses are sub-par? It looks like anthony is living in harmony with the world as you believe in it. Or is he?
Ousias1 3 years ago
at least i'm not another atheist self-hating miscreant who lives on a rationally self-refuting atheist worldview-
toss the atheistic nonsense - it impresses no one and leaves you doomed
anthonymilessee 3 years ago
False, you are just wrong. Wrong answer.
atm8162 3 years ago
Theism has absolutely nothing to do with "reason". Absolutely nothing. Reason would suggest theism is irrelevant.
Oh, and yes, the belief system you have chosen is indeed a religion. Back to school young man. This was weak and transparent.
Coryscott5 3 years ago
CrotchShot5
hey knucklehead - wake up, u have been asleep at the wheel of your studies-
thanks for your self-stultifying non-sense - you dopey anti-theists are a bunch of self-loathing loons
repent and find expiation, imputation and the preconditions for intelligibility
anthonymilessee 3 years ago
new-day agnosticism wins the battle unless you've given up. then christianity will probably win(agnosticism is same as atheism if you go back far enough)
keepitreal999999 3 years ago
agnostics are loony self-deceivers who hate the truth as much as they hate themselves - they run but they can't hide their profligate souls
anthonymilessee 3 years ago
You, anthonymilesee, like to use the word logic a whole bunch, but you provde no logical arguments at all for your stance against atheism. Your video is nothing more than a personal attack against atheists I suppose because you just don't like them. Apparently you think that you have logic and reason on your side, but just saying the word logic over and over doesn't make it so. All you've done is create a straw man and then proceeded to tear it down.
skuuvatakis 3 years ago
get an air hose and blast the ear wax out of your big dopey ears and perhaps u can hear the arguments since u are an atheist we don't think u can read many of the arguments
but be of good cheer all your kooky atheism presupposes theism but u are doomed unless u repent
anthonymilessee 3 years ago
All you've got, apparently, are personal attacks. My ears are truly not that big and I don't think ears can actually be dopey. And since I just read your reply I guess you are wrong about my level of illiteracy. Your writing style is indicitive of about a third grade level, so no need to reply, since this will be my last post. Have a nice day.
P.S. I am of very good cheer, thanks.
skuuvatakis 3 years ago
What is "indicitive" of a third grade reading level? I'm afraid I missed something.
By the way, since we are talking about grades, something that assumes standards,and since you complained about anthony's personal attacks, something that assumes moral standards, care to tell us by what standard you as an atheist determine that it is wrong to attack other people, especially atheists who tell us they are really people after all, at least not what we have traditionally meant by "people"?
Ousias1 3 years ago
Above. that should say: "are really NOT people"....
Ousias1 3 years ago
Let me help you with your logic. I am an atheist, I can't hate something I believe does not exist.I will not go to hell ,same reason. Please get a better argument.
pamor25 4 years ago
You may not be able to hate something you believe does not exist (which only shows that because you DO hate God, then you must believe in him at some level), but you most certainly can go somewhere even if you don't believe it is a real place.
Just because you don't believe hell is real doesn't mean you can't go there and it won't be really hot.
You may not believe in hell, but reality does not conform to your thinking. reality is kind of stubborn that way.
Ousias1 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i was, like u, a dopey irrational non-believer until I researched the evidence and found that the proof for Christianity was not only overwhelming, but it was not possibly false and i found that atheism is an alogical self-hating philosophy that stultifies itself and is only for dim-witted knuckleheads
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
well if you think the "proof" for christianity is overwhelming...then you must be drowning in awe in atheist proof.lol
jassi4010709 3 years ago
well knucklehead, u as a dopey atheist call it nonsense due to the a posteriori fact that anti-theism lacks epistemic responsibility - so thanks for admitting this and this proves that anti-theism is irrational and self-refuting for girly-men who hate themselves as much as they hate God
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Lol, this is so stupid it's funny.
lachann 4 years ago
Lol, this is so stupid it's funny.
lachann 4 years ago
Okay, here is the problem:
You talk about atheism being a result of stupidity, yet you present no argument save to insult atheists. Your video is nothing more than sophism. Ad hominem is hardly a valid argument.
Religion is not based on the laws of logic, which owe a lot to one of the first known cases of someone being sentenced to die for being an atheist: Socrates.
Religion is based on faith and following what bronze age people who thought the world was flat said - not logic.
Supergodlessman 4 years ago
You charged the author of the video with presenting no argument and in the next paragraph try and refute his argument, although all you really did was give us an atheist martyr story about Socrates. I guess it takes an atheist to get how that isn't stupid.
In any case, Socrates was not an atheist. Apparently you don't believe what he said in his defense any more than his judges did. Of course I don't think Socrates, his gods or his daemon (as he called it) had a valid answer any more than u
Ousias1 3 years ago
"Maybe the anti-theists should get a ticket to atheistic N. Korea"
No thank you, I am happy in atheistic and free-thinking Germany.
Superphilipp 4 years ago
If it makes you happy it must be true.
Ousias1 3 years ago
but what if they r only happy for a few years and then face wrath for eternity?
anthonymilessee 3 years ago
We all know what happened the last time atheist free-thinking determined things over there in your beloved Germany.
Ousias1 3 years ago
Yes, it was 1949, and people drafted a modern, free constitution, guaranteeing an egalitarian system. Thanks for appreciating that. :-)
Superphilipp 3 years ago
The people also democratically elected Hitler. Are atheists and pagans over their priming things up up for big number III?
And by the way, where in the world did the notion of a "constitution" come from. Surely not atheism. Thanks for appreciating our contribution to the world, a contribution you grant "guarantee's" freedom.
But watch out. Atheism will eat away and erode the freedom you have. Constitutionalism is Christian in origin and assumes a view of the world that you reject.
Ousias1 3 years ago
"The people also democratically elected Hitler."
The Christians, you mean.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
Even assuming so, my point still sticks. In fact it has to sting.
I noticed you shied away from the central points I made. That's entirely understandable.
Ousias1 3 years ago
I'm not interested in debating you, you are a moron.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
Boy, you ran out of gas fast.
Ousias1 3 years ago
If you like to think of it that way.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
I do. Others will too.
Ousias1 3 years ago
I hope I will survive the humiliation.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
Behind a computer screen, probably. In the presence of your conscience gnawing away at you and when the veil of this life is removed,...not likely.
Ousias1 3 years ago
Yeah, God is gonna slap me around some bad for not wanting to debate history with an idiot on Youtube. He's got a special place in hell just for those, just as it says in the bible. "Thou shalt not ignore stupid comments by scientific illiterates on thy internet". That's bound to be in there somewhere.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
For a guy out of gas, you don't mind pulling over on the side of the road in order to pretend like you are still driving and going somewhere.
So, since you are still gonna hang around, let's get back to it.
Now, why would God slap you around, as you put it? Not b/c you couldn't anwer me, even though I am an idiot, as you say, and which I would assume would make your job easier, but b/c you do know the answer and just refuse to own up to it.
cont...
Ousias1 3 years ago
I don't stay for the presentation but for the cake.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
Among the many evidences that you do know God IS, is the fact that you make all sorts of evaluative statements and make moral judgments, all of which assume some kind of standard, even though your wv cannot account for them.
What is wrong with being a "moron", an "idiot", or any future word you may use for me? What is wrong if the whole show is meaningless, or, as Shakespeare put it, "a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing."
Ousias1 3 years ago
Superfillup....
Now that you have refueled the gas tank, care to come up with these standards you are relying on when you evaluate my remarks as either rational or irrational and my character as either good or bad?
Ousias1 3 years ago
Nope.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
It isn't running. Now slowly remove the keys from the car with your left hand and toss them out the window. Then use your left hand and open the door from the outside. Get out... You have been taken through a sobriety test and have failed. Go to youtube prison and resolve to never getting behind the atheist wheel again...
Ousias1 3 years ago
Do you have any more clever car metaphors? :D
Superphilipp 3 years ago
The longer you stick around and yet refuse to get your car out of impound, the more it is costing you.
Ousias1 3 years ago
I don't even own a car.
Nice cake though.
Superphilipp 3 years ago
"I don't even own a car"
Well, doesn't that say it all. For that, you take the cake.
Ousias1 3 years ago
I'll eat it, too!
Superphilipp 3 years ago
I'll bet you will. Apparently you haven't followed the metaphor very well.
Look in your non-existent rear view mirror, there is some (bad) cake all over your face.
Ousias1 3 years ago
All you have going for yourself is insults. That's not very christian-like. I don't hate myself, I don't ache or hurt, and I am not red in the face. Everyone is an Atheist at one point in their life. No one is born with the knowledge of anything, including god. If god created us in his image, why is the world so corrupt? If you ask 'who do u know there is not god?' Well, there's not much point in disproving something that has no been proven. ur just rambling about pointless insults.
atimetokill7 4 years ago
LOL, is this a joke?
velocityeleven 4 years ago
ha ha ha ha!!!
TheBigHo111 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
rrrrrrrrr me heart'ys there be only one true god, one realistic like religion, that be the flyin spaghetti monster,, may ye be touched by his noodly appendage,,,, peace and meatballs to ye all,,, shiver me timbers,
jubbster 4 years ago
I´m a atheist. And I´m very very creepy. Mmmmuuuhhaaahhaaahhhhhaaaahhaaaaa.
javdan73 4 years ago
nope - try taking some reading lessons - if a loopy atheist has enough brain power to read anything
but the goodnews is all your kooky rants presuppose God as they employ universals and immutables which only God accounts for
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
A is A and the sun is the sun because we call them so. What exactly is your point?
celsius233 4 years ago
Ratings diabled... nuff said.
youmeandsomeknives 4 years ago
How very Christian of you Anthoneymilessee, God must be SO proud of you :) And no I'm sorry, Einstein WAS an athiest no matter how much you want to cry about it. He made that VERY clear. The fact that you can take 1 of his quotes out of context doesn't negate the several others in which he expresses the negativity of religion.
JimNagle87 4 years ago
A wise man once said to never argue with a fool, hence, I rest..
spydderweb 4 years ago
theism is not neccesary.
if there were no religions this world would still be turning, with you me and everyone else in it. maybe there would be just a few less wars caused by theism.
rifleattheplayground 4 years ago
the laws of logic are universal, unchanging, and non-physical and the physical only, always changing, non-universal cosmos could not produce them nor account for them, only the God of the Bible is universal, unchanging and has universal power, reach and knowledge to ground the necessary laws of logic
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
2) Your doublespeak is confusing. "anti-theism cannot even supply the certain and universal conditions to account for the notion of evidence." This is nonsense. What are "certain and universal conditions"? Are you referring to immaterial processes? What is a "notion of evidence"? Where is this "plethora of evidence" that Christianity can account for universal conditions?
mcaisley 4 years ago
try listening and take your earwax out - or take reading lessons and peruse the other hundreds of comments by me on your questions therein
or try to talk yourself into your anti-theistic alogical irrationality - it works for your kooky false gods dawkins and hitchens
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
1) This is top-down philosophy. You claim to know the criterion of God (his ontology, etc). This is impossible; therefore one of your premises is invalid. You claim that there must be certainty. Why? At the most, and this is a stretch, you can only point to an inconsistency of atheism. But that does not logically require that theism is true. You can only suggest God as the most likely metaphysical source.
mcaisley 4 years ago
mcCrazy
hey ape-boy,
are u certain that there is no certainty???
u r in another anti-theistic pickle - close you eyes and just deny deny deny - works for the irrational atheists, until they die
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Ya what he said, in your face atheists. Now what can you say? burn!!
no4giveness 4 years ago
Your kidding right?? so all the stupid atheists like, lets see, Thomas A. Edison, Albert Einstein, I could go on but it would be lost on your silly narrow minded double digit IQ. You just don't know anything..
spydderweb 4 years ago
spydderPoop
anti-theism cannot even supply the certain and universal conditions to account for the notion of evidence.
Christianity has a plethora of evidence,
& the call for evidence itself presupposes theism,
so does the hundreds and hundreds of certain proof that the theists have already placed in these posts.
Anti-theism cannot supply epistemic certainty.
There must be certainty
and atheism is refuted yet again.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
anthonymilessee....you called spydderweb spydderPoop. How fucking old are you? Six?
PheenixTears420 4 years ago
anthonymilessee...you called spydderweb spydderPoop. How old are you? Six?
PheenixTears420 4 years ago
PheenixFearsHell4ever
yep - sometimes it seems that way - but oh the fun
plus momma wipes my nose and makes hot-chocolate
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
"PheenixFearsHell4ever"
Nice. Now I can see why Hitchens calls religion the infancy of the human species. You prove his point more beautifully than any analogy I have ever witnessed.
PheenixTears420 4 years ago
nope eistein was a theist and you are a dopey atheistic knucklehead who hates God almost as much as u hate yourself
repent and find expiation or u r doomed - either way it's win win
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
as usual you are wrong on all counts, it's nice to see that you are consistently moronic...you have people on your side like Hovind, what a dope and pat the screwball robertson and I'm glad that tub of shit Falwell took the big dirt dive. made my day...
spydderweb 4 years ago
I'm a mongoose. No really. Honest.
youmeandsomeknives 4 years ago
Einstein was not a theist. He was a pantheist at most, or a deist.
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts." - A.E.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Eistein was an atheist. He didnt believe in a same god as u think, it was all a metaphore, he meant the perfect way how our universe works, not some dude who created us and whole world.
dawidll 4 years ago
Einstein was an agnostic
braino2000 4 years ago
Two atheists may share nothing in common other than their opinion about God's existence. One may be a staunch conservative the other may be a devoted liberal. There is no atheistic Bible which dictates how every atheist should behave. Nobody tells you which group to hate or rail against. There is no dogma that asks you not to question it. Being an atheist is the most open, free and liberating experience. It has certainly made me free to ponder and consider every possibility.
navin09 4 years ago
Exactly Navin...Two atheists may have nothing in common but their atheism, since in atheism, as you say, there is no Bible which dictates, provides dogmas, or rules by which to be railed against. You call this freedom and liberation, but other people called it hell on earth under Stalin, Mao, etc.
You can't distance yourself from these men because your atheism leaves you NOTHING, by your own admission - no standard, no norms, no laws, no basis for judgment.
(Freedom...not what it used 2b
Ousias1 3 years ago
Stalin and Mao put communism first, they made the state their church and with themselves at the head of that church. Communism is not atheism. I oppose communism as much as you do.
Atheism is best defended using formal logic. It is formal logic that theists must reject on many counts.
gklr 3 years ago
"Stalin and Mao put communism first, they made the state their church and with themselves at the head of that church. Communism is not atheism. I oppose communism as much as you do."
I can see from this post that you are not a communist-atheist, but still want to know what kind you are.
Also, you can hardly be opposed to communism as much as I am, especially since, as you said before, morality is subjective, a mere matter of opinion.
Ousias1 3 years ago
Come back and try and distance yourself from communism "as much as I do" when you have an objective standard to do so.....like I do.
Ousias1 3 years ago
You have no objective morals, they do not exist. Morals are subjective. The means of deciding any moral view is the same for you as it is for anyone.
gklr 3 years ago
You may not believe the Xian view is correct, but it will hardly do to redefine it.
Your approach is subjective, relative, and worthless by your own admission.
You borrow from my view to condemn communism. It's that simple.
Ousias1 3 years ago
All of the supposed examples of "atheistic states" which you've given in your description, are either Communist/Socialist or some variety of something similar. All of those are ideologies, which have nothing to do with atheism, although they incorporate being atheist as a condition for belonging to their club making them more like a religion. Being an atheist just because Karl Marx asked you to is just as bad as being Christian just because your priest or pastor asked you to.
navin09 4 years ago
yet under atheist Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood was exterminated simply for being priests, as were the clergy of other religions 100,000's of Baptists. the claim that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his actions may be the most disingenuous from atheists & the armies of the atheistic French revolution had marched under icons of the Virgin & the common justification for China's atheistic invasion of Tibet had not been the awful priest-ridden backwardness of Budd.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
"Darwin helped to further brutalize mankind through providing scientific sanction for bloodthirsty and selfish desires."
(Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, page 64) "At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist."
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
atheism is wonderful today in Cuba, N. Korea/China. maybe u should get a ticket to atheistic N. Korea - I'll send you a Idiots Guide to Korean Language book, if u know how to read - most atheists aren't too. if u keep up the dark work maybe you too can murder a 100 million for atheism or repent.
"Without a god, it's natural and, while often brutal, just makes sense"
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
For God to have created the laws of logic would mean that God would have had to exist before them. To say God existed before there was logic is meaningless, because existence itself derives its meaning from logic. The law of non-contradiction would have to have existed if God has to be God. If it did not then the word "God" holds no meaning, since "God" could just as well be "not God". He could also exist and not exist at the same time. Chew on that Mr. Anti-atheist.
navin09 4 years ago
The laws of logic are an immutable aspect of God's ontology. thus your twist on Eurythro Dilemma doesn't apply. God cannot do and approve of that which breaks the laws of logic.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Tony:
Ignorance = lack of knowledge
Stupidity = ignorance of ignorance
Why, oh why do YOU Advertise your stupidity ?
tellnet 4 years ago
Theocentric claims & epistemology
can't be overturned by appeals to formal Rationalism, empirical experience:
They provide the required preconditions to make experience intelligible.
Since the laws of logic are necessary to make experience intelligible,
one can't appeal to experience to undermine Laws of Logic for intelligible experience presupposes Laws of Logic.
Thus A is A. & A can't be A & ~A in the same manner. What can supply the preconditions to make this certainly known? Only God.
deu64 4 years ago
The laws of logic are non-physical, universal, transcendent & invariant, thus, God, who is non-physical, universal, transcendent & invariant, supplies the needed preconditions for the the laws of logic.
God inviolably exists.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
the material cosmos can only account for particulars that are always in flux and changing; only an unchanging, non-material God cannot account for the unchanging non-material laws of logic that are required to assert anything.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Yes, but if you press the headlock you have on the atheists, how can they breath?
Be, maybe not nice for they are wicked, but how about a dialog with courtesy?
deu64 4 years ago
Why did the atheist cross the road?
he didn't since atheism fails to account for the Laws of Logic:
the road = "A" and the other side "Non-A".
What do u call a hardened atheist with a half-brain?
gifted.
what's the difference between an atheist and a mirror? one speaks without reflecting, and one reflects without speaking.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
1 day a zoo keeper noticed that the an ape was reading Darwin's Origin of Species and the Bible. The zoo keeper was surprised, he asked the ape, "why are u reading both of these books?"
Well said the ape, I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my Keeper's brother.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
I would agree that one cannot tie together the a priori and the a posteriori.
Without a universal source grounding universals in epistemology, how can an individual person know that something is universal?
deu64 4 years ago
rushnKook
All the put downs from the anti-theists require God for even those must use the laws of logic for which God, who is non-physical, universal, changeless, is the universally necessary condition for the non-physical, univ. changeless laws of logic.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Isn't this a bit prejudiced? many of my friends are atheists and have top marks...
fuckthisnick 4 years ago
As far as Morality, there is a distinction in my world view between morality and moral LAW.
Everyone has some type of morality, but moral Law can only come from & be accounted for by one with exhaustive power, authority and knowledge, this all autonomous humans lack.
Moral Law is required for communication, yet atheism cannot supply the mandatory pre-necessities for it. It undermines the notion of moral Law.
deu64 4 years ago
Your atheist friends cannot account for logic, the principle of induction, morality, personal identity, etc. In short, they can't supply a worldview in which their high marks or anything else make any sense, not without secretly relying on and borrowing from Christian principles.
Ousias1 3 years ago
Nonsense. Induction is quite explained by my videos, so is morality and personal identity. You wish it was the case otherwise.
Many "yt atheists" don't know what they are talking about, yes. They are not even atheists most of the time. So you build strawmen around them if you like, it doesn't matter to atheists or atheism.
gklr 3 years ago
Welcome, gklr. I can see I am going to have some fun with you.
Who would have expected such atheistic luminaries as Hume and Russel to be answered first in a youtube video? Completely unforseen.
Of course I don't think you or your videos do any such thing, but it is an entertaining claim, to say the least.
You must be the atheist comedian who is going to replace the recently deceased George Carlin.
Ousias1 3 years ago
I don't claim to be either Hume or Russell or Carlin. Russell said he could not be an atheist because it required knowing there is no God, which makes Russell wrong. Atheism is the belief there is no God, not the knowledge there is no God. Atheism necessarily includes the admission there may be a God.
gklr 3 years ago
"Many 'yt atheists' don't know what they are talking about, yes. They are not even atheists most of the time. So you build strawmen around them if you like, it doesn't matter to atheists or atheism."
I have been telling people for ages that atheists have their own little denominations. In light of your confession above, what denom of atheist are you?
Ousias1 3 years ago
Without God one cannot even provide the essential
a priori conditions for a rational viewpoint. Anti-theism uses of the laws of logic, this affirms God and refutes your own anti-theism. One must employ the Laws of L, only God provides the pre-essentials for the L. of Logic; God must exist & your denial presupposes God exists. God back to your - Rem. Rorty - he died this year & now he's a professing theist.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Most of these anti-theists have denied that the Laws of logic r laws, all the while necessarily employing them in their assertions as Laws Atheism must employ the laws of logic -only God provides the necessary preconditions of universality, invariance, transcendence for the Laws of logic. Atheism presupposes God. God must exist, this is certain. Atheists love abortion, homo behavior, & Barney. Barney won't help u at the judgment seat, thus repent.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
the posts in the vid site - turn you vol. down - we have the technology - Your sweeping objections undermine your own worldview. your anti-theism must use the Law of logic in your arguments & depends of its whole virtue rest on the very principals that allows for your kooky claims, so that whatever claim u r making u r taking for granted the very things which must be proved.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Exchange theist and anti-theist in this Boy's Life level joke-
still works just as poorly-
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
MadManMC - then turn off your Sponge-Bob Square Pants video's and pick up some Kant, Hume and Russell, then get back to me.
i asked my anti-theist friend what 14 minus 14 equals -
he said nothing.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
ba-dum-pum
did you read the Hume I told yo to read ?
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
i've read hume for years, and kant standing on his shoulders destroyed the Cosm. and Tel. arguments in a more exhaustive and undeniable manner (if one stands on an autonomous a priori worldview), so i don't rely on the classical arguments nor evidentialism, but on the logical necessity of theism.
kant did like the moral argument FTEG.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
There is no logical necessity for theism-
that's just semantics-like the arguments you and Van till present.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
here again for your reading pleasure is an anti-theist wacko who presents one more dopey hate-filled uneducated argument, for the
atheist fundies r full of wickedness & debauched.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Okay, then clear up our semantic problem.
How do you as an atheist account for standards, laws, norms, etc?
Ousias1 3 years ago
Tortured analogies and name-calling are all you have to offer. Though you mention logic, you offer none. There are no substantiated arguments in your video.
klangsteiner 4 years ago
u pretty much nailed it - but there is a small shell of an argument at the very end of the vid - all my vids are mostly argument free - but there are many arguments laid out in the comment section of N. Rhymes #1.
the antithesis is placed there numerous tiems.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Unfunny comedian-
have you read Hume's decimation of
'creationism' ?
I would do so before invoking his critique of induction.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
How can Hume "decimate" creationism if he, by his own admission, can't account for induction?
If Hume didn't have the power to pick up a gun or pull the trigger than he also can't claim to have shot someone to death.
Ousias1 3 years ago
How many letters are there in the atheist Alphabet?
One. The letter "I."
Since atheism rests on autonomy, it fits.
Atheism cannot deliver the universals, necessities, and changeless forms and laws because it is grounded on the autonomy of man.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Grade school humor failure-
it's not atheists that posit themselves as not only the center of the universe and a mythical all powerful god's attention-
but as the very reason for it's existence.
No form is 'changeless'-
"....properly speaking, even god is mortal."
Ouspensky
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
The height of misplaced confidence: Standing up in a hammock or rationally standing on the groundless anti-theistic worldview.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
the 'grounding' of faith is illusory-
do you imagine that ancient greeks didn't have 'faith' in zeus ?
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
MadManMC
do u have faith your statement that "grounding of faith is illusory"?
if not, demonstrate how you can be
absolutely certain of your assertion_______
if not your statement is self-nullifying for it's illusory.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Your name calling isn't any funnier than your attempted jokes-
it takes no 'faith' to with hold judgement in the face of insufficient evidence-
no matter how much you wish it does-
science is never 100% sure of anything-
unlike religions-any theory is subject to revision-
the only easy answers come from religious fairy tales.
cont
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
cont
Why are your fairy tales any better than the hundreds of other's told by other religions ?
that Van Till stuff is nonsense-
he was a fool who understand virtually nothing of what he read in Hume and Russell-
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
i have known many atheists and i have helped many become Christians - some are now ministers and public debaters - and I have refuted 100's of anti-theists on you tube.
so join the fun.
what do u get when u cross an atheist with a cow?
a blind cow.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
That 'joke' is stupifyingly dumb-
I would say you 'deluded' not 'helped' anyone if they became christers-
have yet to see you refute anything-
good luck on that.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
thanks and i solicit your prayers in that undertaking.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Prayer is just asking an imaginary friend to make 2 plus 2 equal to 5 for one's personal benefit-
got no use for it.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
The great news is all your crazy philosophical schemes & nuttiness presuppose God for they must employ the laws of logic which require God.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Madhatter...Are you suggesting that God can't make 2 + 2 equal 5? Does that mean that it ALWAYS equals four? Careful, you may not like where this is going....
Ousias1 3 years ago
morally & absolutely OUGHT mathematics to be looked at through a religious lens or an atheist lens?
Is the ultimate locus for mathematics the rational mind of man?
how can math be a priori and innate at the same time w/o God?
Are the rational innate and a priori's in ALL men or 1 man. 1 man plus some others? Or All men minus the humans born next week or next year?
Where does the truth of math reside?
Name the place:__________
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
How does a theist octopus go into battle against an anti-theist?
fully-armed.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Do u believe in clubs for atheists?
only when all other means of persuasion fail.
-just kidding on the last part
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
That wasn't worth refuting.
Kailoa36 4 years ago
The Laws of logic: Law of Non-contradiction & Law of Identity are true everywhere & all the time.
How can one account for this universal necessity?
Not through mere sense perception, for past experience doesn't guarantee epistemic future certainty, unless your source has omniscience.
Atheism is an non-immutable based, physical-only world view that lacks the ground for universals & non-tangible, invariant truths.
Theism does, theism must be true.
try that 4 a spin
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
what's the difference between an atheist and a halloween costume?
not much, both are creepy and both try to mask the truth.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
The Laws of logic have the properties of Universality, Immutability, Immateriality & All rational thought requires the Laws of Logic, if the laws of logic have the properties U, I, & I and God also has those properties and the physical cosmos lacks them:
Conclusion:
God can account for the Laws of Logic.
& the Laws of L. are necessary for Intelligibility.
Intelligibility, hence God.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago