That quote on 1:21 seems to get at a concept that I find flawed, even for Dawkins. "...how complex, improbable appearance of design..."
There is no real matter of probability in existence. If thing were different, things would be different. Seeing current reality as a matter of probability against other realities is, at the time being, pointless.
@shanedk Well, grammatically a bit iffy, but I suppose that's just semantics. Putting my words more accurately, those who subscribe to the "fine tuned" mindset are those who misunderstand the use of probability.
@shanedk Too bad. I was following this discussion. I am shocked that you not only blocked Entropy56 but deleted most of his other comments. What rule did he violate? I thought he made some good points.
@anonymousVagabond How do you know entropy56 is a sockpuppet of GoodScienceForYou? (I had to look up who that is.) I thought identities were anonymous on YouTube. How did you know that?
@Virgil0211 I thought it was important because it was important to the moderator. I happen to be watching some of their videos right now as we speak, thanks to the moderator. I have some interest in this subject, but need to get back to doing other things today. I was just curious.
I want to know how anyone on YouTube knows the identity of an anonymous person. Do you?
@anonymousVagabond lol. Don't get so defensive. You'll start looking like a sockpuppet yourself. In fact, why is the only content on your channel a 5 second clip of a blender thats obviously meant as filler?
Here's another example of quotemining. "The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
Kent Hovind
This would be dishonest if you didn't add "That is what they teach in order to be a good communist"
The reason scientists don't cuntpaste this all over youtube is that when the facts support you then you don't have to lie.
@Entropy56 Let me finish that for you "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."
@Entropy56 I love how creationists try to act like every one else follows their lame argument from authority. Scientists have observed bacteria in a lab evolving several times. While it is true that the circumstantial evidence makes it silly to believe life didn't evolve on Earth, evolution has been observed.
Also since biblical creationism hasn't been observed and the circumstantial evidence actually proves it didn't happen, your on much weaker ground.
@johnrainrules In fact, circumstantial evidence is generally more trustworthy than eye witness accounts of events. Circumstantial evidence can be examined and cross-checked scientifically in multiple ways (in many instances, at least), while an eye witness may be mistaken about things, have forgotten details, or added details that weren't really there at all.
@shanedk It's a good thing that science doesn't go for definitive conclusions on the positive side. Law is a different matter, but that's about CONVINCING people of things, not PROVING things.
@evensgrey Well science still works on convincing people, it's just a different idea. The criteria is not 100% certainty, but a level of certainty that is so high it would be irrational to not accept the conclusion.
Also an eyewitness on the street may be unreliable, but having something happen in a lab, be witnessed by multiple people, and having the results documented should be enough to allay any doubts about whether evolution does happen.
@johnrainrules It's the instruments that really do it, though. You can question the accuracy of human memory and never be able to truly test it, but you CAN definitively test whether that spectroscope is properly calibrated or not, to any confidence level you want. And, in PROPERLY performed science (which, unfortunately, tends to leave out a lot of fields like psychology where there is a long tradition of abuses of this process) ANYONE ELSE can verify it themselves, with their own equipment.
@evensgrey Yes, however I see no point in conceding to a creationist that Evolution somehow only happened only in the past according to said creationist "as an ironclad principle" when we have evidence of it being observed in a lab.
So, yall wanna do battle with Evolutionists and Creationists because both of them are completely wrong? Go to God aint Floatin on Youtube, where i have defeated the fuck out of atheism, and be sure to click those little numbers at the bottom, those are pages where you can go back and see what people have said in the past.
What happens when you die? Have you told lies, stolen, used God's name in vain(10 Commandments)? If yes, then you're a liar, thief, and a blasphemer in the sight of God. When you die & be judged by God, you'll be guilty of sin, & go to Hell! But God sent His Son Jesus to shed His blood & die on a cross for your sins, He was buried & rose again from the dead on the third day. If you'll believe the Gospel(Jesus died for your sins,was buried & resurrected)you'll not perish & have eternal life
@gramosjr7 I will tell you what happens when you die. First you start hallucinating like you just swam in THC. Then there is eternal blackness. You cease feeling or thinking anything. No judgement, no hell, no heaven, just eternal nothingness.
In reference to the biblical account of creation etc, you spoke about a "bronze age text passed down orally for centuries and then continually translated and re translated each new edition being as revisionist as the ones before it." The new testament (NT) of the Bible, was written before the end of the 1st century by people who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples. The NT affirms what was written in the old testament)
"The new testament (NT) of the Bible, was written before the end of the 1st century by people who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples. "
the earliest account was 50 years AFTER the events and none of the writers were direct witnesses.
@BibleRevelation2012 By what evidence do you say that? First of all, the 4 gospels have differences, which means some authors were not witnesses. Second, the NT and OT were written during vastly different times. Even if the subject of the two works (God in this case) is the same, it does not mean the two validate one another. They should be treated as independent works to be analyzed individually.
You block people who disagree with you? You're pretty liberal with that "LIAR" word too. (A name for anyone who disagrees with you). I checked the posts and you DEFINITELY said "Confucius was a Taoist". For your information, Confucianism and Taoism are VASTLY different ideologies.
@Hammersley1967 You continue to INSIST that I said these things WHICH I DIDN'T. So you're now in violation of Rule #5. First warning--and your posts were deleted.
Now can you show in the writings of Lao Tzu that the Taoist concept of Chi is different from the Confucianist?
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the belief that God brings individual human souls into existence at conception or birth Compare traducianism
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the doctrine that ascribes the origins of all things to God's acts of creation.
Oh dear, I think I've just been (blocked) and banished to the dark dungeons of cyberspace were all the God-slaying dragons gather waiting for their daily fix.
@shanedk Cant handle the truth AGAIN? I wonder why someone would devote what little time he has on this deathbound planet trying to immortalize himself in cyberspace defending a non belief in a non-material reality that cant possibly be real in an all material world. On your theory anything written over 100yrs ago is worthless. What happens then, when youtube goes under Wont all your "achievments" and attempts to give your nanocosmic life, tiny little gratifications come to nought?
@shanedk@dashan091 "10. heaps all the past woes of the world on religion but says nothing about genocide reaked by Mao Stalin Pol Pott etc "
I cant see the word "atheist" anywhere here. Arent u over-reacting. Are u sure your just an "agnostic" or are u one of those sad, God hating bigots out for blood who cant control his emotions or tongue?.
Atheism can no more be "refuted" than theism can be refuted (or affirmed for that matter).
Atheism is merely the philosophical position that belief in a creative intelligence is baseless as there is simply no evidence to support that conclusion.
As the video host says "religious people should stick to it as a faith issue".
Problems arise when either side ventures into attempting to support their faith position with evidence.
“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” Professor Frank Tippler
@Gericho49 When are you going to realize that these anecdotes are worthless? It's the STATISTICS that matters, not what scientists you can cherry-pick.
EINSTEIN reflecting late in his life: “I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are like a little child in a huge library filled with books in many languages. I knows someone must have written those books but don't know how nor understands the language. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is.” “That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. ”
@Gericho49 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar."
@shanedk errh what did i read about your religious convictions? Sorry u've lost me.
"I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. " Neither would I expect u to. Believe in the God who authors all things, "holds u in the palm of his hand","knew u before u were born" the God that Jesus describes in The Prodigal Son, the God who created u in His own image, loves u unconditionally and promises u and I more than we ever deserve.
@Gericho49 "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
Another late in life "quote mine" from a FAMOUS scientist
“Reason tells me of the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” –Charles Darwin.
@Gericho49 YOU FUCKING LIAR!!! That was Darwin writing his autobiography RECOUNTING HOW HE FELT AS HE WAS WRITING ORIGIN OF SPECIES!!! He was NOT talking about his current religious views!!!
Another immoral corrupt creationist LIAR. Nothing to see here, folks.
@shanedk And I thought u were a rational debater, tut tut. Where is the lie. That was a direct quote from Darwin AFTER he wrote Origin of Species. Such are the lies told by atheists claiming Darwin denied the existence of God.
Not only that, but given the 150+ years of addition and support for the theory, why do they still think that trying to say that Darwin believed this or that will mean a thing? Even if everything they said about him were true, it wouldn't mean the first thing about the theory of evolution.
@Hammersley1967 I've been debating creationists for something like 20 years now. I haven't met a SINGLE ONE that wasn't a liar--because the ones who WEREN'T liars didn't stay creationists!
It is true that creationists who debate online start from the a priori position that "God exists and created the universe" as and then proceed from there.
Those from the scientific paradigm start from no position, examine the evidence, and then arrive at a conclusion of most probable reality.
But some creationists come from the position that their beliefs stem from an unprovable faith in the unknown and leave the "argument" their.
@Hammersley1967 Except that they DON'T leave it there. If they did, they'd be theistic evolutionists, since they'd be accepting that evolution took place, but that God got the ball rolling or set up the laws that allow it to happen or whatever.
@Hammersley1967 "Creationists - by definition - are creationists."
Sorry, you don't get to use the word itself in its definition.
The word itself dates back no further than the 19th century--around 1880, in fact--and from its start has referred to the opposition to Darwin's theory based on divine creation ex nihilo. That's what it IS. DEAL with it.
"1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
@Hammersley1967 "What? The presence of an psychic essence has NOTHING to do with evolution."
If evolution is true (and it is), then there is no "psychic essence."
"Whether a human being is "special" or not has NOTHING to do with evolution."
It absolutely does! If evolution is true (and it is), we are fundamentally no different from animals, save from our uniquely evolved features we gained after our most recent common ancestor.
Making blind assertions won't make the facts go away.
"If evolution is true (and it is), we are fundamentally no different from animals, save from our uniquely evolved features we gained after our most recent common ancestor."
Not that I believe in the concept of a "soul" (or a "self" for that matter), how does the matter of being "fundamentally no different from animals" preclude the existence of a soul?
Animists believe that all living being are fundamentally the same, but all possess a "living essence".
"Because the whole idea of the claim is that humans have a soul and animals don't, making humans superior to animals."
No it doesn't. That is a complete non sequitur...
I've just given you three examples of three creationist religions that contain the notion of a soul and make no distinction between humans and animals.
But, like the intellectual midget and coward that you are, you resort to digression and lies.
Macquarrie (1984, pp 34 - 35) makes it easy to see why emanationism is often closely associated with pantheism. Emanationism is the view that ”creation“ is not a ”making,“ but in some sense a ”flowing forth“ from God or its origin, as Macquarrie puts it. And, what ”flows forth“ ”maintains a closer relation to [its] origin. It participates in the origin, and the origin participates in it.
@Hammersley1967 No, it's an ALLEGORICAL TALE. There are several such "creation" stories in Taoism, none of which were EVER claimed to be how the universe actually came to be.
"the claim is that humans have a soul and animals don't, making humans superior to animals."
Bioevolution is not a metanarrative that purports to explain the origins and nature of all existence. It is a singular theory that attends to one dimension of reality – biological speciation – nothing more and nothing less. Your claim that it ventures into the metaphysical dimension and excludes the possibility of a soul is, one again, a categorical and epistemological error.
@Hammersley1967 It's not the EVOLUTION side that does that AND YOU KNOW IT, LIAR--it's the CREATIONIST side! THEIR claim is that we don't have a soul if evolution is true!
But, to avoid being shown for the LIAR you are, you compound it with another LIE.
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the belief that God brings individual human souls into existence at conception or birth Compare traducianism
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the doctrine that ascribes the origins of all things to God's acts of creation.
(The Free Dictionary by Farlex)
And even if we go with your cherry picked definition, is EVERYONE who believes that an a "LIAR" by definition?
Evolution "says" that we are animals? It says no such thing.
Evolution is simply the theory that accounts for the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.
Just as it makes no aspersions on economics, sociology, or metaphysics, It is makes no such ontological presuppositions about any essential definition between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom.
@Hammersley1967 "It is makes no such ontological presuppositions about any essential definition between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom."
Human beings are CLASSIFIED AS ANIMALS, you foaming imbecile!!!
@Hammersley1967 Oh, read The Descent of Man, why don't you! He DELIBERATELY avoided mentioning man in Origin, so this is yet another desperate attempt to cover your LIE. He wrote about man in Descent of Man, NOT Origin of Species.
@Hammersley1967 "You have NO understanding of what a theory covers and what t doesn't"
I know you can't have a theory without facts to explain and provide a predictive framework for. I have a video on the subject, and it's covered in my book.
All you have are bald assertions and you've made it CLEAR that you don't have the first fucking clue what a scientific theory actually is.
@Hammersley1967 "Chi is defined a living essence that exists beyond death."
NO, IT, IS, NOT. In fact, Confucious SPECIFICALLY said that Chi became depleted in old age--that's what they thought aging WAS!!!
You have NO FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about, yet you INSIST on speaking like an expert...you only show yourself to be a complete ignoramus in the process. Someone with at least a little smarts would have given up and gone away by now...
1:58 - 2:13 LOLOLOLOLOL
GuitarMannnnnn 5 days ago
@thecitylightsbloom lol! Kermit for president!
An0maly777 5 days ago
I love this guy. However, it is hard for me to get the image of Ned Ryerson from Groundhogs Day out of my head as he speaks.
davidmaiolo 1 week ago
Religionists are so damned desperate. :)
dirtydonki 1 month ago
i did not know "kermit the frog" had such strong opinions about the situation.
thecitylightsbloom 2 months ago
That quote on 1:21 seems to get at a concept that I find flawed, even for Dawkins. "...how complex, improbable appearance of design..."
There is no real matter of probability in existence. If thing were different, things would be different. Seeing current reality as a matter of probability against other realities is, at the time being, pointless.
TuahShinguru 2 months ago
@TuahShinguru Which is why he used the word "appearance."
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk Well, grammatically a bit iffy, but I suppose that's just semantics. Putting my words more accurately, those who subscribe to the "fine tuned" mindset are those who misunderstand the use of probability.
TuahShinguru 2 months ago
@TuahShinguru Alright, that still sounded bad. I'm just going to give up before I butcher my own thoughts even worse. xD
TuahShinguru 2 months ago
Entropy56 has been blocked for being a sockpuppet of GoodScienceForYou (as well as several Rule #5 violations).
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Too bad. I was following this discussion. I am shocked that you not only blocked Entropy56 but deleted most of his other comments. What rule did he violate? I thought he made some good points.
anonymousVagabond 3 months ago
@anonymousVagabond How do you know entropy56 is a sockpuppet of GoodScienceForYou? (I had to look up who that is.) I thought identities were anonymous on YouTube. How did you know that?
anonymousVagabond 3 months ago
@anonymousVagabond Any particular reason why you felt the need to specify that you had to look up who GoodScienceForYou was?
Virgil0211 3 months ago
@Virgil0211 I thought it was important because it was important to the moderator. I happen to be watching some of their videos right now as we speak, thanks to the moderator. I have some interest in this subject, but need to get back to doing other things today. I was just curious.
I want to know how anyone on YouTube knows the identity of an anonymous person. Do you?
anonymousVagabond 3 months ago
@anonymousVagabond lol. Don't get so defensive. You'll start looking like a sockpuppet yourself. In fact, why is the only content on your channel a 5 second clip of a blender thats obviously meant as filler?
Virgil0211 3 months ago
@Virgil0211 That is very suspicious.
shanedk 3 months ago
@anonymousVagabond Because he made the same posts word-for-word.
shanedk 3 months ago
Here's another example of quotemining. "The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
Kent Hovind
This would be dishonest if you didn't add "That is what they teach in order to be a good communist"
The reason scientists don't cuntpaste this all over youtube is that when the facts support you then you don't have to lie.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
Your refutation of the refutation has been refuted by another refutation.
Entropy56 3 months ago
@Entropy56 Where?
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.” - Richard Dawkins
Entropy56 3 months ago
@Entropy56 Let me finish that for you "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@johnrainrules Before I comment further, I want to ask you to commit to agree with Dawkins' statement as an ironclad absolute.
Entropy56 3 months ago
@Entropy56 Nope, but that still doesn't excuse you deliberately quotemining Dawkins in an attempt to change his point.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@johnrainrules You will not agree with Dawkins? Okay.
Entropy56 3 months ago
@Entropy56 I love how creationists try to act like every one else follows their lame argument from authority. Scientists have observed bacteria in a lab evolving several times. While it is true that the circumstantial evidence makes it silly to believe life didn't evolve on Earth, evolution has been observed.
Also since biblical creationism hasn't been observed and the circumstantial evidence actually proves it didn't happen, your on much weaker ground.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@johnrainrules In fact, circumstantial evidence is generally more trustworthy than eye witness accounts of events. Circumstantial evidence can be examined and cross-checked scientifically in multiple ways (in many instances, at least), while an eye witness may be mistaken about things, have forgotten details, or added details that weren't really there at all.
evensgrey 3 months ago
@evensgrey "In fact, circumstantial evidence is generally more trustworthy than eye witness accounts of events."
Yeah, but only because eyewitness evidence is so terrible. You really can't get to a definitive conclusion with either one.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk It's a good thing that science doesn't go for definitive conclusions on the positive side. Law is a different matter, but that's about CONVINCING people of things, not PROVING things.
evensgrey 3 months ago
@evensgrey Well science still works on convincing people, it's just a different idea. The criteria is not 100% certainty, but a level of certainty that is so high it would be irrational to not accept the conclusion.
shanedk 3 months ago
@evensgrey True, however we have both.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
Also an eyewitness on the street may be unreliable, but having something happen in a lab, be witnessed by multiple people, and having the results documented should be enough to allay any doubts about whether evolution does happen.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@johnrainrules It's the instruments that really do it, though. You can question the accuracy of human memory and never be able to truly test it, but you CAN definitively test whether that spectroscope is properly calibrated or not, to any confidence level you want. And, in PROPERLY performed science (which, unfortunately, tends to leave out a lot of fields like psychology where there is a long tradition of abuses of this process) ANYONE ELSE can verify it themselves, with their own equipment.
evensgrey 3 months ago
@evensgrey Yes, however I see no point in conceding to a creationist that Evolution somehow only happened only in the past according to said creationist "as an ironclad principle" when we have evidence of it being observed in a lab.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So, yall wanna do battle with Evolutionists and Creationists because both of them are completely wrong? Go to God aint Floatin on Youtube, where i have defeated the fuck out of atheism, and be sure to click those little numbers at the bottom, those are pages where you can go back and see what people have said in the past.
toddieoneal 5 months ago
Response video: ""The God Delusion Refuted" Refuted" REFUTED
EpicFishFingers 5 months ago
@EpicFishFingers Been waiting for that one...
shanedk 5 months ago
I became a creationist after i was touched by his noodly appendage.
WonderfulDenmark 5 months ago 3
@WonderfulDenmark Show us on the doll where he touched you with his noodly appendage.
shanedk 5 months ago 4
Too bad this stupid kid had a creator....his poor mother.
mickeypopa 5 months ago
Your voice sounds like a pastor, shanedk.
Good video, btw.
MBoothe517 5 months ago
Be careful, you're going to confuse the creationists.
Everytime we reference a theory and then a hypothesis that is called a theory, we should make it abundantly clear.
String Theory is actually a hypothesis, unlike the Big Bang Theory.
PalulukanMakto 6 months ago
What happens when you die? Have you told lies, stolen, used God's name in vain(10 Commandments)? If yes, then you're a liar, thief, and a blasphemer in the sight of God. When you die & be judged by God, you'll be guilty of sin, & go to Hell! But God sent His Son Jesus to shed His blood & die on a cross for your sins, He was buried & rose again from the dead on the third day. If you'll believe the Gospel(Jesus died for your sins,was buried & resurrected)you'll not perish & have eternal life
gramosjr7 6 months ago
@gramosjr7
Can you prove it? If not, shut up and read a science book.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
@gramosjr7 Do you have even 1 shred of evidence for any of what you just claimed (other than the bible itself)?
Do you have verifiable evidence that a god exists? If so can you give evidence that that god is the god of the bible? I have evidence against this.
Do you have evidence of a life after this one? IHEAT.
Do you have evidence that the 10 commandments were ever given to Moses? IHEAT.
Do you have evidence that we are being watched and judged? IHEAT.
Evidence of hell as real? IHEAT
TheAnubisDrake 5 months ago
@gramosjr7 I will tell you what happens when you die. First you start hallucinating like you just swam in THC. Then there is eternal blackness. You cease feeling or thinking anything. No judgement, no hell, no heaven, just eternal nothingness.
Helge129 3 months ago
All Creationists are either deaf or have selective hearing. I will go with the latter.
Even so, there is no excuse for misquoting a book, because anyone who can read can also point out your lies. Good job.
MunkyDrag0n 6 months ago 5
@MunkyDrag0n Creationists rely on their flock being gullible enough not to check for themselves.
shanedk 6 months ago 8
In reference to the biblical account of creation etc, you spoke about a "bronze age text passed down orally for centuries and then continually translated and re translated each new edition being as revisionist as the ones before it." The new testament (NT) of the Bible, was written before the end of the 1st century by people who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples. The NT affirms what was written in the old testament)
BibleRevelation2012 6 months ago
@BibleRevelation2012
"The new testament (NT) of the Bible, was written before the end of the 1st century by people who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples. "
the earliest account was 50 years AFTER the events and none of the writers were direct witnesses.
Learn your history.
Atharkas 6 months ago 12
@BibleRevelation2012 By what evidence do you say that? First of all, the 4 gospels have differences, which means some authors were not witnesses. Second, the NT and OT were written during vastly different times. Even if the subject of the two works (God in this case) is the same, it does not mean the two validate one another. They should be treated as independent works to be analyzed individually.
MunkyDrag0n 6 months ago
@BibleRevelation2012
The NT affirms what was written in the old testament
In the same way that The Chamber of Secrets affirms what was written in The Philosopher's Stone.
And the Bible, it's just a book.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
I totally appreciate and agree with your argument. I just wish it wasn't stated in such an annoying, nasally tone.
therealsagefrancis 6 months ago
"You misquoting baffoooooon"
Made me lawl.
AgowTisro 6 months ago 2
AnviIOfKrom has been blocked as another sockpuppet of Hammersley1967.
shanedk 6 months ago
FREEAMERlCAN0W69 has been blocked for being a sockpuppet of Hammersley1967.
shanedk 6 months ago
Hammersley1967 And THAT false accusation, after MAKING IT THREE OTHER TIMES, gets you BLOCKED.
Good riddance, ASSHOLE.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
You block people who disagree with you? You're pretty liberal with that "LIAR" word too. (A name for anyone who disagrees with you). I checked the posts and you DEFINITELY said "Confucius was a Taoist". For your information, Confucianism and Taoism are VASTLY different ideologies.
AnviIOfKrom 6 months ago
@AnviIOfKrom No, I block people who BREAK THE RULES. And false accusations are prohibited under Rule #5.
"I checked the posts and you DEFINITELY said "Confucius was a Taoist""
Then QUOTE ME.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
OK, 28 hours ago you posted (and I quote verbatim):
"Confucius was DEFINITELY a Taoist."
AnviIOfKrom 6 months ago
@AnviIOfKrom Funny, I did a search through ALL the comments and the only one that came up was yours.
shanedk 6 months ago
@AnviIOfKrom Oh, and YouTube doesn't SAY "28 hours ago." The most it goes is "23 hours ago." After that it's "1 day ago."
You're a liar and a fraud, Hammersley1967. Keep up this harassment and you will be reported to YouTube.
shanedk 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "You never told me that..."
It's TWO POSTS BELOW THAT ONE, YOU FUCKING LIAR!!!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"You never told me that... It's TWO POSTS BELOW THAT ONE"
Oh! Trying to cover your retarded tracks with references to fictitious posts that you never made...
Jesus you're pathetic...
Do I get any more warnings?
Please! Just ONE more warning?
You're a desperate, cornered little boy who is WAY out of his intellectual league...
Your only way out of this predicament that you've got yourself into is to block and delete me...
COWARD
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "You said that Confucius was a Taoist"
NEVER EVER, LIAR.
THIRD AND FINAL WARNING.
shanedk 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "But you know that you called Confucius a Taoist"
NEVER did, LIAR. I quoted him as an authority on Chi, WHICH HE WAS, as EVEN TAOISTS ACKNOWLEDGE.
SECOND warning.
shanedk 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 You continue to INSIST that I said these things WHICH I DIDN'T. So you're now in violation of Rule #5. First warning--and your posts were deleted.
Now can you show in the writings of Lao Tzu that the Taoist concept of Chi is different from the Confucianist?
shanedk 6 months ago
"So you're STILL A LIAR."
I sourced 2 definitions.
The Encarta definition was in their current online data base and therefore it was sourced at 2011.
You know this and therefore you are a LIAR and an intellectual coward...
(And sadly, you know it but still continue to hide behind false accusations.)
LIAR, COWARD AND INTELLECTUAL WEAKLING...
: - )
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 No, you sourced ONE, and it was FICTICIOUS. THERE IS NO 2011 EDITION OF ENCARTA.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Ummmm...
18 hours ago I posted this:
creationism [kriːˈeɪʃəˌnɪzəm] n
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the belief that God brings individual human souls into existence at conception or birth Compare traducianism
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the doctrine that ascribes the origins of all things to God's acts of creation.
(The Free Dictionary by Farlex)
LIAR (and you lnow it...)
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
But Shane, without god, how would we build roads? :P
vspqbd 6 months ago
Gericho49 has been blocked for false accusations of mass murder.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Can u handle the truth, Shane? Listen to Roger ACTUALLY talking about Hawkings silly and farcical ideas.
"They (H's theories) are hardly science" metacafeDOTcom/watch/5278793/roger_penrose_debunks_stephen_hawkings_new_book_the_grand_design/
Dont worry its just another "Creationist lie" Penrose didnt really say those things about Hawking. It was an impersonator.
Gericho49 6 months ago
Oh dear, I think I've just been (blocked) and banished to the dark dungeons of cyberspace were all the God-slaying dragons gather waiting for their daily fix.
Gericho49 6 months ago
@Gericho49 To think you just outsmarted Hawking with your internet smarts shows both your idiocy and arrogance.
I'll translate into small words, so you can understand: You are a fucking idiot, you have been proven wrong. Now shut up for a very long time.
djtripnosys 6 months ago
dashan091 has been blocked for accusing atheists of mass murder.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Cant handle the truth AGAIN? I wonder why someone would devote what little time he has on this deathbound planet trying to immortalize himself in cyberspace defending a non belief in a non-material reality that cant possibly be real in an all material world. On your theory anything written over 100yrs ago is worthless. What happens then, when youtube goes under Wont all your "achievments" and attempts to give your nanocosmic life, tiny little gratifications come to nought?
Gericho49 6 months ago
@shanedk @dashan091 "10. heaps all the past woes of the world on religion but says nothing about genocide reaked by Mao Stalin Pol Pott etc "
I cant see the word "atheist" anywhere here. Arent u over-reacting. Are u sure your just an "agnostic" or are u one of those sad, God hating bigots out for blood who cant control his emotions or tongue?.
Gericho49 6 months ago
Religious people trying to "refute" atheism?
Atheism can no more be "refuted" than theism can be refuted (or affirmed for that matter).
Atheism is merely the philosophical position that belief in a creative intelligence is baseless as there is simply no evidence to support that conclusion.
As the video host says "religious people should stick to it as a faith issue".
Problems arise when either side ventures into attempting to support their faith position with evidence.
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” Professor Frank Tippler
Gericho49 6 months ago
@Gericho49 When are you going to realize that these anecdotes are worthless? It's the STATISTICS that matters, not what scientists you can cherry-pick.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Damn lies and statistics?
dashan091 6 months ago
EINSTEIN reflecting late in his life: “I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are like a little child in a huge library filled with books in many languages. I knows someone must have written those books but don't know how nor understands the language. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is.” “That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. ”
Get over it!
Gericho49 6 months ago
@Gericho49 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar."
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk errh what did i read about your religious convictions? Sorry u've lost me.
"I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. " Neither would I expect u to. Believe in the God who authors all things, "holds u in the palm of his hand","knew u before u were born" the God that Jesus describes in The Prodigal Son, the God who created u in His own image, loves u unconditionally and promises u and I more than we ever deserve.
Pax vobiscum.
Gericho49 6 months ago
@Gericho49 Those are all Einstein quotes! Him saying the OPPOSITE of what you attribute to him!
shanedk 6 months ago
@Gericho49 "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
shanedk 6 months ago
Another late in life "quote mine" from a FAMOUS scientist
“Reason tells me of the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” –Charles Darwin.
Gericho49 6 months ago
@Gericho49 YOU FUCKING LIAR!!! That was Darwin writing his autobiography RECOUNTING HOW HE FELT AS HE WAS WRITING ORIGIN OF SPECIES!!! He was NOT talking about his current religious views!!!
Another immoral corrupt creationist LIAR. Nothing to see here, folks.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk And I thought u were a rational debater, tut tut. Where is the lie. That was a direct quote from Darwin AFTER he wrote Origin of Species. Such are the lies told by atheists claiming Darwin denied the existence of God.
Gericho49 6 months ago
@Gericho49 "Where is the lie. That was a direct quote from Darwin AFTER he wrote Origin of Species."
Talking about what he believed BEFORE HE PUBLISHED IT!!! YOU are the liar, as I PROVED.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Not only that, but given the 150+ years of addition and support for the theory, why do they still think that trying to say that Darwin believed this or that will mean a thing? Even if everything they said about him were true, it wouldn't mean the first thing about the theory of evolution.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd It's still important, though, to show what liars creationists are and the desperate, despicable, dishonest lengths they will go to.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Indeed.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@shanedk
"It's still important, though, to show what liars creationists are and the desperate, despicable, dishonest lengths they will go to."
True, dishonest and devious fundamentalism should always be exposed and challenged for the sake of reason and intellectual integrity.
However, the supposition that all "creationists are liars" and "desperate, despicable, dishonest" is a skewed and exaggerated perception...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 I've been debating creationists for something like 20 years now. I haven't met a SINGLE ONE that wasn't a liar--because the ones who WEREN'T liars didn't stay creationists!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"I haven't met a SINGLE ONE that wasn't a liar"
It is true that creationists who debate online start from the a priori position that "God exists and created the universe" as and then proceed from there.
Those from the scientific paradigm start from no position, examine the evidence, and then arrive at a conclusion of most probable reality.
But some creationists come from the position that their beliefs stem from an unprovable faith in the unknown and leave the "argument" their.
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 Except that they DON'T leave it there. If they did, they'd be theistic evolutionists, since they'd be accepting that evolution took place, but that God got the ball rolling or set up the laws that allow it to happen or whatever.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Except that they DON'T leave it there."
Some do some don't...
Of course, the ones that you DEBATE with don't "leave it there", otherwise they wouldn't be debating with you.
The one's that DO leave it there don't debate with you because there's nothing to debate.
So, essentially your perception of ALL creationists being "liars" is derivative of a sample bias via the selection of creationists who debate.
If they debate, they lie... If they don't debate, they have private beliefs...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "The one's that DO leave it there don't debate with you because there's nothing to debate."
Meaning they would have no problem with evolution, meaning they're theistic evolutionists, like I said.
Theistic evolutionists ARE NOT CREATIONISTS. Creationists--BY DEFINITION--oppose evolution.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Meaning they would have no problem with evolution, meaning they're theistic evolutionists, like I said."
No, meaning that they do not hold the same belief system as you.
They simply disagree with you and don't debate or seek to change the way you think.
They see there belief systems as a a function of faith - not empiricism, reason or logic.
They believe what they believe without recourse to a defense or promotion of those beliefs.
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Creationists--BY DEFINITION--oppose evolution."
Nope...
Creationists - by definition - are creationists.
That is a semantic and categorical error.
One can hold beliefs (faith based) without opposing another belief system.
You are confusing FAITH with empiricism and positivism.
Equating the philosophy of science to the philosophy of theology are like equating apples to oranges.
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "Creationists - by definition - are creationists."
Sorry, you don't get to use the word itself in its definition.
The word itself dates back no further than the 19th century--around 1880, in fact--and from its start has referred to the opposition to Darwin's theory based on divine creation ex nihilo. That's what it IS. DEAL with it.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Sorry, you don't get to use the word itself in its definition."
Why not? Who says? You? YES MASSA!!!
Semantic definition is merely the process of using words to further elaborate the conventional "meaning" of a word. And on that score you are wrong.
The term "creationism" merely denotes "the belief that God created the universe" (Encarta English Dictionary, 2011) - nothing more, nothing less.
Your assertion that the term means "opposing evolution" is a pure fiction.
Nice try...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 They stopped publishing Encarta in 2009, LIAR.
Nice try.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Really?
Open a word document, type the word "Creationism" on it, right click on the word, and then left click on the "look up" option...
Your will find the definition that I cited verbatim in the right hand side the page as derived from the Encarta data base...
Is the data base 2009 rather than 2011?
Ooooh! Yes! There's been a HUGE semantic shift over the past two years hasn't there?
Is that all ya got?
Still, your fictitious definition was ALMOST half convincing...
LIAR.
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 So, you didn't ACTUALLY look it up, then.
Dictionary dotcom definition:
"1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
shanedk 6 months ago
"3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born."
"Origin: 1840–50; creation + -ism"
"DictionaryDOTcom Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011."
Looks like you LOSE.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born."
"Looks like you LOSE"
Lose? What the hell does that third definition have to do with evolution?
Looks like you....
????????????
HERE'S A TIP: Try to stay on track...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 That is a SPECIFIC argument against evolution: no new souls could come about, we're just animals, nothing special about humans, etc.
Now where's YOUR definition in there, LIAR?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"That is a SPECIFIC argument against evolution: no new souls could come about, we're just animals, nothing special about humans, etc."
What? The presence of an psychic essence has NOTHING to do with evolution.
Whether a human being is "special" or not has NOTHING to do with evolution.
Your are making profound metaphysical and categorical errors...
????????????????????????????
As I said, TRY to stay on track...
Oh, and of course I'm a "LIAR" for saying that...
*roll eyes*
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "What? The presence of an psychic essence has NOTHING to do with evolution."
If evolution is true (and it is), then there is no "psychic essence."
"Whether a human being is "special" or not has NOTHING to do with evolution."
It absolutely does! If evolution is true (and it is), we are fundamentally no different from animals, save from our uniquely evolved features we gained after our most recent common ancestor.
Making blind assertions won't make the facts go away.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"If evolution is true (and it is), we are fundamentally no different from animals, save from our uniquely evolved features we gained after our most recent common ancestor."
Not that I believe in the concept of a "soul" (or a "self" for that matter), how does the matter of being "fundamentally no different from animals" preclude the existence of a soul?
Animists believe that all living being are fundamentally the same, but all possess a "living essence".
Ditto Taoist and Pantheists.
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "how does the matter of being "fundamentally no different from animals" preclude the existence of a soul?"
Because the whole idea of the claim is that humans have a soul and animals don't, making humans superior to animals.
"Animists believe that all living being are fundamentally the same, but all possess a "living essence".
"Ditto Taoist and Pantheists."
But that's a different thing entirely--NOT what we're talking about.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Because the whole idea of the claim is that humans have a soul and animals don't, making humans superior to animals."
No it doesn't. That is a complete non sequitur...
I've just given you three examples of three creationist religions that contain the notion of a soul and make no distinction between humans and animals.
But, like the intellectual midget and coward that you are, you resort to digression and lies.
LIAR
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "I've just given you three examples of three creationist religions"
Those are NOT creationist religions. Two of them don't have a creator AT ALL!!!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Those are NOT creationist religions. Two of them don't have a creator AT ALL!!!"
All three religions have a creation story (legend)...
Therefore, they are creationist religions...
LIAR
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "All three religions have a creation story"
There is NO creation story in Taoism OR Pantheism. YOU LOSE.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"There is NO creation story in ... Pantheism."
NOPE... Pantheism incorporates Emanationism.
Macquarrie (1984, pp 34 - 35) makes it easy to see why emanationism is often closely associated with pantheism. Emanationism is the view that ”creation“ is not a ”making,“ but in some sense a ”flowing forth“ from God or its origin, as Macquarrie puts it. And, what ”flows forth“ ”maintains a closer relation to [its] origin. It participates in the origin, and the origin participates in it.
LIAR
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 You're just plain wrong. See the entry for pantheism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
FELLA...
I think we're done...
You've got no idea about that which you've got no idea about...
You've been exposed as a LIAR and a second rate hack...
True ignorance...
Do some reading and get back to me in a couple of years...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@shanedk
"There is NO creation story in Taoism OR Pantheism."
You lose again moron...
Have you never heard of "The Myth of Pan Ku: Creation and the Universal Egg"?
It's the Taoist creation story you ignoramus...
The depth of your ignorance and dishonesty is ASTOUNDING!!!
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 No, it's an ALLEGORICAL TALE. There are several such "creation" stories in Taoism, none of which were EVER claimed to be how the universe actually came to be.
IDIOT.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"No, it's an ALLEGORICAL TALE."
Nice side step coward...
It is one of several creationism stories within TAOISM...
It obliterates your ignorant claim that "There is NO creation story in Taoism"...
You are a liar and now have been exposed as a liar...
So sorry... YOU LOSE...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 Wait, so you're saying that Taoists believed that the universe was created in several completely different ways?
Make that claim to an actual Taoist and he'll just laugh and pat you on the head...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"the claim is that humans have a soul and animals don't, making humans superior to animals."
Bioevolution is not a metanarrative that purports to explain the origins and nature of all existence. It is a singular theory that attends to one dimension of reality – biological speciation – nothing more and nothing less. Your claim that it ventures into the metaphysical dimension and excludes the possibility of a soul is, one again, a categorical and epistemological error.
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 It's not the EVOLUTION side that does that AND YOU KNOW IT, LIAR--it's the CREATIONIST side! THEIR claim is that we don't have a soul if evolution is true!
But, to avoid being shown for the LIAR you are, you compound it with another LIE.
shanedk 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 By the way, you STILL haven't given anything other than a made-up source for your bogus definition.
So you're STILL A LIAR.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"By the way, you STILL haven't given anything other than a made-up source for your bogus definition."
The definition was soursed from the Encarta English Dictionary (UK) data base via Microsoft Word.
You know that perfectly well as I explained it to you a number of comments ago...
Nice try with the verbaling though...
And really, the monotonous, baseless accusation of "LIAR" is intellectual laziness and cowardice.
Especially as you know it's not true.
That makes you the lair.
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 No, YOU claimed it was from the 2011 edition of Encarta, WHICH DOESN'T EXIST.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
It was from the CURRENT version attached to the current edition of Microsoft Word.
IS that all you've got?
Knit picking about a date?
WOW!!! You really are out of options aren't you?
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@shanedk
Did YOU actually look it up?
creationism [kriːˈeɪʃəˌnɪzəm] n
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the belief that God brings individual human souls into existence at conception or birth Compare traducianism
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the doctrine that ascribes the origins of all things to God's acts of creation.
(The Free Dictionary by Farlex)
And even if we go with your cherry picked definition, is EVERYONE who believes that an a "LIAR" by definition?
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 Yes, and BOTH of those are used to deny evolution. 1 says that humans aren't just animals, and 2 DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS IT.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"that humans aren't just animals"
That is a metaphysical and ontological assumption.
What the HELL does that have to do with the biological process of evolution?
You really are in a muddle aren't you?
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "What the HELL does that have to do with the biological process of evolution?"
Because evolution says WE'RE ANIMALS. It COMPLETELY nixes that possibility.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Because evolution says WE'RE ANIMALS"
Evolution "says" that we are animals? It says no such thing.
Evolution is simply the theory that accounts for the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.
Just as it makes no aspersions on economics, sociology, or metaphysics, It is makes no such ontological presuppositions about any essential definition between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom.
Oh dear, you are in a muddle aren't you?
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "It is makes no such ontological presuppositions about any essential definition between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom."
Human beings are CLASSIFIED AS ANIMALS, you foaming imbecile!!!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Human beings are CLASSIFIED AS ANIMALS, you foaming imbecile!!!"
Show me one passage from the "Origins of the Species" that makes an ontic similitude or distinction between humans and animals...
Your undersanding of epistemology, philosophy and metaphysics is APPALLING...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 Oh, read The Descent of Man, why don't you! He DELIBERATELY avoided mentioning man in Origin, so this is yet another desperate attempt to cover your LIE. He wrote about man in Descent of Man, NOT Origin of Species.
LIAR.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
You really don't know what you don't know...
You have NO understanding of what a theory covers and what t doesn't...
You have know idea of the boundaries of epistemology, philosophy, metaphysics or anything else...
Get an education for Christ's sake...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "You have NO understanding of what a theory covers and what t doesn't"
I know you can't have a theory without facts to explain and provide a predictive framework for. I have a video on the subject, and it's covered in my book.
All you have are bald assertions and you've made it CLEAR that you don't have the first fucking clue what a scientific theory actually is.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Human beings are CLASSIFIED AS ANIMALS, you foaming imbecile!!!"
Yes humans are classified within the phylogenetic tree... I think everyone on this thread gets that.
But it is a non sequitur to claim that the idea of a soul:
1) Distinguishes humans from animals.
and
2) That the theory of bioevolution in any way excludes the possibility of a soul.
Do you see the fundamental error of category, epistemology and logic that you are making?
THINK before you post moron...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "But it is a non sequitur to claim that the idea of a soul:
"1) Distinguishes humans from animals."
That's the WHOLE POINT OF THE SOUL!!!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
" "1) Distinguishes humans from animals."
That's the WHOLE POINT OF THE SOUL!!"
Is it? within the Abrahamic religions - yes...
But to make a blanket statement "That's the WHOLE POINT OF THE SOUL!!!"
It is not. And I've cited 3 religions in which the notion of soul make no special provision for humans...
You are wrong...
You don't get it do you?
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "And I've cited 3 religions in which the notion of soul"
WRONG, LIAR. Again, there is NO SOUL in Taoism or Pantheism.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Again, there is NO SOUL in Taoism or Pantheism."
More lies and intellectual dishonesty...
Both religions have an inherent notion of a "living essence".
In Taoism its called "Chi"...
LIAR and CRETIN...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 Chi is NOT a soul. It's a "life energy" inherent in all things, contrary to the definition I just gave you.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Chi is NOT a soul. It's a "life energy" inherent in all things"
LIAR
Chi is defined a living essence that exists beyond death...
As such, it fulfills the same criteria as "soul"...
You know it, I know it... You really are clutching at straws now aren't you?
"Allegory", "life energy"... Any other equivocal side stepping qualifications you'd like to make to get you out of this embarrassing spot?
DUCK, DIVE, DUCK, DIVE...
SQUIRM, SQUIRM, SQUIRM...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "Chi is defined a living essence that exists beyond death."
NO, IT, IS, NOT. In fact, Confucious SPECIFICALLY said that Chi became depleted in old age--that's what they thought aging WAS!!!
You have NO FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about, yet you INSIST on speaking like an expert...you only show yourself to be a complete ignoramus in the process. Someone with at least a little smarts would have given up and gone away by now...
shanedk 6 months ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Confucious SPECIFICALLY said"
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Oh Boy!!!
You REALLY embarrassed yourself with that one...
And it only took you 21 hours of research to come up with that MORONIC drivel...
Thanks for the giggle...
: - )
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Confucious SPECIFICALLY said that Chi became depleted in old age"
Confucious said????
You moronic TOOL!!
For a start the name is CONFUCIUS.
Secondly, HE WASN'T A TAOIST!!!
Confucianism and Taoism, despite the fact that they both originated in China, are completely separate religions with distinct philosophies.
How does your peanut sized brain generate enough energy to keep your fingers tapping on that keyboard?
You are now officially off the credibility register...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "For a start the name is CONFUCIUS."
It's a CHINESE name, MORON. It's transliterated MANY ways. The most accurate is actually K'ung fu-tzu.
"Secondly, HE WASN'T A TAOIST!!!"
Chi isn't specific to Taosim, MORON. You were talking about the concept of Chi there, NOT Taosim, so now you're shifting the goalposts.
YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"It's a CHINESE name, MORON. It's transliterated MANY ways."
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Trying to dig your way out of it?
SQUIRM!!! SQUIRM!!! SQUIRM!!!
Just give me ONE translation of the name in which it is spelled "Confucious"...
JUST ONE.
CONFUCIUS is the ONLY correct way that it is spelled in the English language...
And you know it.... LIAR...
YOUR GRAVE IS GETTING DEEPER...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "CONFUCIUS is the ONLY correct way that it is spelled in the English language..."
WRONG! I gave you a MORE correct transliteration in that very post!
And AT BEST you have a pedantic spelling error...and you are going to these amazing lengths to distract from the fact that you are 100% WRONG.
YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"You were talking about the concept of Chi there, NOT Taosim"
SQUIRM, SQUIRM, SQUIRM...
YOU ARE A BALD FACED LIAR...
We were talking about TAOISM. And the concept of Chi as it exists in TAOISM.
You know it and I know it...
It is now obvious that you are a desperate individual who is cornered, out of answers, and well and truly of of his intellectual league...
LOVE IT!!!
Confucius said?
Can't take that one back can ya?
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "We were talking about TAOISM. And the concept of Chi as it exists in TAOISM."
THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE!!! The concept of Chi in Taoism and the concept of Chi in Confucianism are THE SAME THING!!!
You're a FUCKING LIAR. All there is to it.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Waiting for an example of CONFUCIUS being spelled CONFUSCIOUS...
Doesn't seem to be in any of the online dictionary or my hard copy...
Oh dear...
Guess who's been caught LYING?
Why not give it up while you're only this far behind?
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 "Waiting for an example of CONFUCIUS being spelled CONFUSCIOUS..."
I NEVER spelled it that way, LIAR.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Waiting for an example of CONFUCIUS being spelled CONFUSCIOUS... I NEVER spelled it that way, LIAR."
Ooops...
For give me for making a typo over your error
I meant "CONFUCIOUS"
That's how you spelled it wasn't it...
So yes, I'm waiting for an example of CONFUCIUS being spelled "CONFUCIOUS..."
Better now?
Is that all ya got left?
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@shanedk
Waiting for the reference to that spelling of Confucius...
Any dictionary will do, but a reputable online one would be better...
WAITING...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 I already told you, LIAR, that Wikipedia accepted my spelling.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"It's a CHINESE name, MORON. It's transliterated MANY ways."
REALLY?
Then why is it spelled "CONFUCIUS" in every single dictionary?
LIAR
Humiliated much?
: - (
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 From Wikipedia (BTW, my spelling redirects there):
"Other forms of Romanisations are Kǒng Fūzǐ (or Kǒng fū zǐ) in pinyin, and K'ung fu-tzu in Wade-Giles (or, less accurately, Kung fu-tze)."
ANY source will give you these spellings. "Confucius" is probably the LEAST accurate, since it doesn't match how his name was actually pronounced.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Other forms of Romanisations are Kǒng Fūzǐ (or Kǒng fū zǐ) in pinyin, and K'ung fu-tzu in Wade-Giles (or, less accurately, Kung fu-tze)."
SQUIRM!!! SQUIRM!!! SQUIRM!!!
I repeat, show me ONE dictionary reference that spells the name "CONFUCIOUS"...
Just one... I'm waiting for you...
LIAR...
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 I said IN THAT VERY POST that Wikipedia recognized my spelling, LIAR.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Wikipedia recognized my spelling"
Wikipedia "recognised" your spelling?
Did they spell it "CONFUCIOUS" on the website?
No? Didn't think so...
LIAR
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
@Hammersley1967 LIAR, here's how Confucius/K'ung Fu-tzu/whatever is ACTUALLY spelled: 孔夫子
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
LIAR...
We're conversing in ENGLISH retard...
You said that Confucius was a Taoist.
And you spelled Confucius as CONFUCIOUS!!!
Ya can't take them little beauties back!!!
And we were talking about Taoism NOT Chi you LIAR...
You're a fucking retard and you know it !!!
Hammersley1967 6 months ago