I watched the debate and IMO both sides got caught in non essential to the topic arguments failing to recognize the argument on the other side.Once the debate got heated there was no much development on arguments.
The real question is are there absolutes at all and if yes that's lost battle for atheism since it points to intelligent design supported with clear facts of design in nature...the name of the intelligent source /designer or power/ doesn't matter at this point.It is a lost battle
Great show! I still think Bill Gaede has the best all-round arguments for why god doesn't exist. It's not the usual logic/contradiction/proof axiomatic approach.
Matt Slick debated one of Bill's protiges in his Hubpages comments, here: fatfist.hubpages(dot)com(slash)hub(slash)There-are-NO-Absolutes-There-is-NO-Absolute-Truth
His arguments were refuted in record time. I wanted to post this for the fine, bright minds that watch this show. Might be of some use against the religionists! Thanks!
i haven't seen the debate, yet, but to be fair, "neither" is not a counter to conceptual/physical being a dichotomy. If "neither" exists in the empty set, then the dichotomy holds. I further disagree that the burden of proof rests entirely on him. He made a reasonable (even if incorrect) assertion, and then asked you to help him better understand. This is a completely fair part of dialogue and debate. It would also be fair for you to say "i don't think the dichotomy holds, but I don't know".
Logical arguments being used to prove the existence of something that they claim manifests itself in physical reality? This is really scraping the barrel!
It's not an argument that religions and beliefs in gods exist, but somehow all Matt can muster is an emotional plea to why the observed should be something other that is not observed. Then to try to claim victory by evoking an emotion plea as logic.lol
News flash Matt, proving god and disproving god is one argument. your personal bias for one is not proof of the other sides invalidity. do you even know how "logic" works? apparently not.
Matt Slick is a complete IDIOT! He is a pervert who is addicted to porn and tells anyone who disagrees with him that they have no understanding of logic. Obviously the opposite is true. He likes to have his lovers have abortions. You are a naughty naughty man Mr. Slick. GO SUCK A FUCKING DICK!!!!
As soon as one identifies his observation, math tells its fact as a number, but only in relation to the self of whom is identifying. That is within relativity, if you were start identifying within irrelativity you would have difficulties : either you would think holisitically, everything being one (but no action, therefore no math) and all time being frozen out of dynamics (no changes) or you would identify a quark, within an infinite fraction of time. Everything in between is relativistic.
I don't really understand the distinction between "not true" and "false" in the terms of saying true/false is not a true dichotomy. I'm not saying he's wrong, I'd just like to know if someone can explain it to me a bit better, so I can understand what he's getting at.
No Matt, the fact that you won't commit to an answer is reason enough to believe you are running. If you didn't declare victory it's because you know you didn't win, it's very simple. Nice of you loosing graciously. Now with this video your just back tracking, trying to show your viewers your still in the game.
Slick has another argument based upon the cosmological argument which starts out as: The reason for the existence of the universe is either personal or non-personal...
A 40 headed beast that mankind has never seen before is roaming the streets in front of Slick's house. Slick walks outside of the house with his neighbor and the neighbor says, "What is that?" Slick says, "That's a zebra." His neighbor says, "Thats not a zebra." Matt replies, "Can you tell me what it is? No? Then how can you tell me what it isn't?"
@314Aurelius Where in Slick's argument did he try to identify something that no one has ever seen before (40 headed beast) and claim that it is something we do know (a zebra)? Your analogy does not accurately reflect the argument. They BOTH agreed that log abs exist. But Dilla then said he doesnt know the nature of them, and then said Slick is wrong about them. That's evasion at its finest. If he cant argue something intelligently just claim that no discussion is necessary. Cheap, cheap, cheap
@314Aurelius That wasn't their specific disagreement at the time. It was whether logical absolutes are conceptual or non-conceptual (or something else). After agreeing that logical absolutes existed, Dilla then turned around and said he doesn't know their nature nor does he believe that he needs to provide an answer JUST so that he could derail the argument and not allow Slick to win the argument. (Knocking over the table when it looks like your opponent will get checkmate).
The analogy of the 40 headed beast is misleading. You have started from the position that you know it is a 40 headed beast, not something you don't know. With that presumption, of course it seems Matt is crazy. But what Matt is saying (in that example) is that you can't tell him it's not a zebra because you DON'T KNOW what it is. So basically you are just guessing that it's not a zebra. He's not saying why he believes it is a zebra, just that if you can't see, you can't know.
Matt said a true dichotomy is physical or not physical and he said Slick's dichotomy didn't work because of the "neither" option. But doesn't that also work here? Why can't you said everything is either physical or not physical or neither? In fact couldn't one use the "neither" option for any dichotomy and one can then say it's not a dichotomy?
Notice how the set of conceptual things exists as PART of the Not Physical set, but does not constitute that entire set. So if you say something is Physical OR Conceptual, you are wrong, because you are willfully ignoring the set of non-physical-non-conceptual things. Slick proposed a false dichotomy.
@Lowraith Okay I get why Slick has a false dichotomy, that makes sense. But it still doesn't answer why someone can't say physical or non-physical or neither and make that dichotomy false too. Or is it a true dichotomy because it sticks with only one concept; physical?
@Drunkenprophet23 Physical or non-physical is by definition a true dichotomy. Saying neither wouldn't work in this situation because if something is not physical it MUST be classed as non-physical, and if something is not non-physical then it MUST be classed as physical so neither is a logically impossible answer. Something is what it is (lets say physical) and is not what it is not (non-physical) and cannot be both or NEITHER at the same. These are laws of logic.
@AliCat9100 Gotcha. I suppose where I got confused is Matt said neither was a valid objection even if he didn't explain what the neither was, but I guess with physical and non physical there really is no neither option.
IMO it's the whole 'bible' debate that gets people up in arms.It's easy to throw scripture around and change it to justify your beliefs (JW).The Mary myth is one that bothers me but I also belive that Jesus was a great teacher (as well as Mohammed).There is so much more that we can't possibly know.. just saying...NOPE..can't be, prove it to me or YES..there IS definately a God-you can't prove he isn't here..you can't prove a negative, does my head in.Would the world be better without religion?
@1955JAFO According to the societal health scores of religious countries vs. countries with a higher rate of atheism, yes, it would. No there's not a god. You really don't understand. We don't have to prove he doesn't exist. We're the negative, actually. You have to prove that he does, because you're saying he does. We're saying you haven't even come close to proving he does, so we're not going to believe you.
I would just force myself not to. But Why do you care what I believe in anyways? Worry about yourself. And another thing... why worship a god that has killed so many people including children? Why worship a god that demands it or threatens eternal hellfire? lol. And this is the god you're giving your SOUL to? Has it ever crossed your little bitty mind that god could be lying to you? And the truth is backwards?
They are holding back very important knowledge from the public, NASA already admitted they wouldn't release any proof of intelligent life, ever. Besides bacteria, but who wants to see that shit? They said it because they believe "Religious" people can't handle it, and religion would fall apart. Funny... NASA is government controlled, so is religion. Shit doesn't make sense to me.
but I'm not going to do that, unless I'm provoked. so... believe what you want, it just doesn make sense to me mount Sinai the most special place for Christians in the world, is on the same exact opposite side of the erath is Roswell. And it aligns in a 33 degree angle. Just not a coincidence to me.
God vs human sexuality, god vs Satan, god vs free will, god vs Science, god and his threat of eternal hellfire, god and his angels "having sex" with human beings, god and his mass genocides. God and his HUMAN EMOTIONS like anger and jealously. God and his pillars and chariots of fire flying around in the sky. It makes A LOT more sense if you replace "God" with Alien. At least that will give you a logical explanation of WHY god does the things he does. NOT GOD. Wake up people.
And there is a cover up going on. Prayer, baptism, after life, resurrection, virgin births, THE CROSS. Are all ancient Egyptian in origin. Even the ten commandments are stolen from the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Creation Story and the Flood Story are stolen from ancient Sumeria, a civilization that predates Xianity for thousands of years, how did it end up in the Bible? So many questions... no answers. You do the research, the lies start to open up. Angels having sex with humans? Wtf
amazes and interests me about this subject. The same mountain "Mount Sinai" where "God" came to Moses in the bible. Is directly, EXACTLY, the same spot but on the other side of the globe is where ROSWELL NM is located. Roswell and Mount Sinai are ALLIGNED perfectly, 33 degrees. Now 33 is a BIG occult number, 33 degree mason, 33 nazarene in the bible, 33 vertabraes in the spine. I can go on and on about the number 33. Coincidence? I think not. God is NOT god.
'I'm not afraid of a god that doesn't exist.' Manson has a real good point there. There is no proof whatsoever that god exists. It's a personal belief system and nothing more. If you believe in god that's fine, but do not get on some high horse ranting about those who do not (you'll lose every time). What really makes me laugh is the misguided people who fail to grasp this simple fact. FYI there has been more murders,pain & suffering caused in the name of god than any other. Food for thought.
@TheVovo68 lol, sounds a lot like the Christian god. Believing Christianity is like God having a gun to your head, hell carved on the bullets. I don't choose to believe in his son, or worship him. I go to an eternal burning lake of fire. Does THAT really sound like a loving god to you? I thought the Christian god believed in free will? Obviously not if we have no other choice to believe him and his son. THATS EXACTLY like having a gun to your head. So wtf are you talking about? You're the freak.
@Severe777 ok you stupid boy lets ask you this... if you were on a plane and the plain was going down what are you doing in that moment be4 your life ends?
all you atheists live a life worth nothing and you are all selfish and ignorent ! pleas, tell me what you live your life for because as far as i see it you live a life of emptyness= you get up, go to work, eat, sleep, and then start all over again so you really dont do that mutch good do you?
@TheVovo68 Stupid boy!? HAHA! Ok my.Ibelievethebibleistruttolife. Let's hear what you got to say. First, I'm not atheist DUMBASS. Thanks for assuming though. I believe in God, but I don't believe in a god that sends people to eternal hellfire if they don't get on their knees and worship him, a god that causes mass genocides, and sin. Then blames it all on humanity,t hen uses Satan for a scape goat for his stupid mistake. And the Christian god is not "god". But an alien being,and that's what
@Severe777 ok fine i dont believe that gd sends eny one to hell if they dont worship Him but i do believe that you go to hell for being a bad person and for killing!
i am not christian but thank you eny way and i dont believe in thier "gd" either!
@Severe777 I'm not making fun, just trying to demonstrate the absurdity of whatever label you decide to place on what you can't fully explain, ie the god of the gaps. There is no reason to suppose that aliens are the source of religion any more so than a god, or a super monkey zebra. A more simpler solution would be to say that Christianity is a melting pot of ideas from earlier religions, which are just a mish-mash of even earlier traditions and beliefs, and so on.
@aarhallenbeck Uhmmm ok? And that still doesn't change the fact that Mount Sinai and Roswell New Mexico are exactly in the same spot, but on opposite sides of the earth. Isn't that a little strange to you? Perfectly alligned 33 degrees. And I hear this number "33" A LOT. 33 degree mason, 33 Nazarene in the bible, 33 vertabraes in the human spinal cord. 33, the on going number of forever. I can go on dude. This is NOT a coincidence, and our world powers need to answer for it.
@Severe777 If you try hard enough, you can find connections with almost ANY specific number throughout all of history. Your particular example with Roswell is a huge stretch, to the point of being meaningless. But, I won't continue to argue with conspiracy theorists, because they always think they have done more "research".
@aarhallenbeck Like what? Give me some examples? UFOs is one of the biggest conspiracies out there, millions and millions of people witnessed these things, it's been going on since biblical times. Through out the bible is eye witness accounts. I don't got evidence, I could be wrong. I admit this, but there is FAR too many coincidences man, even you have to admit this. There's something going on, I don't know... and No. I don't believe in god or Jesus. I think those characters are made up.
@aarhallenbeck Oh yea, and the number "33" and it happening to be connected with Roswell (biggest UFO conspiracy in the world) and Mount Sinai from the bible (The most important place of Christianity) is not a coincidence. 33 is a MAJOR number played out through the occult world. It was meant to happen. But anyways, list me some examples. I'll take a look of them. I want you to back your talk up. :)
@Severe777 Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859 - 1+8+5+9 = 23. Two divided by three makes 0.666 recurring (allegedly - actually it makes 0.6666666667). The Hiroshima bomb was dropped at 8.15am - 8+15= 23. 9/11/2001 = (9+11+2+0+0+1) add up to 23. Each parent contributes 23 chromosomes to the start of human life. The Knights Templar had 23 Grand Masters. The first morse code transmission - "What hath God wrought?" - was from the Bible passage Numbers 23:23.
@aarhallenbeck yea, and all of these examples you just listed have ties to the OCCULT. So you see? NOT a coincidence, you supported my case further and not even realizing it. Also, an atom contains 6 electrons, 6 neutrons, and 6 protons. :) Oh yea... and for the "I would force myself not to pray comment". lol, it's part of being honest. I been raised by religious people my whole life, I'm guessing you have been too. So if it really came down to it, and since I've been RAISED that way.
@Severe777 All of those examples were completely irrelevant, arbitrary, and meaningless. There are an infinite amount of ways you can twist and skew any particular piece of data to make it seem like there is a connection, and you wouldn't know unless you were specifically looking for it, or someone told you before hand. Additionally, any two common numbers such as those less than 100 coming up multiple times throughout history is inevitable in any context.
@Severe777 Your comment on the atom also brings into question your gullibility, as any particular atom has vastly different amounts of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Specifically, carbon has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons. I don't know if you meant that in the first place, but if you did it doesn't support any of your arguments.
@Severe777 ha ha ha and that my friend answears my question perfectly, you would have to FORCE yourself to not pray! meaning its the first thing that would really come to your minde in a situation like that proovong my point that atheism is something meaningfull to you untill your put into a situation like that.
@TheVovo68 Oh yea... and if you want to play the "who's right game" with me. Then answer me this question you smart ass little prick. How come the Creation story, ancient Egyptian in origin which predates Christianity for thousands of years end up in the bible? Did they steal it? Oh yea... and what about the Flood story as well? Ancient Sumerian in origin which predates both Christianity and ancient Egypt. What's it doing in the bible? Answer me that. Until then, stfu. You believe in a lie. :)
Proof of God read Job 36:13 it actually states how atheists will be for the next 3,500 years..angry, cause that's all I ever see, I've never once in my life ever met a godless insect they call atheists HAPPY. Never! Instead all you do is dedicate your pathetic lives obsessing about a God you don't believe in. PATHETIC
@Angelsword135 I obsess about religous fundies like yourself pushing your fairy tale beliefs into our schools and our politics. And by the way I am a very happy person, I have everything I ever wanted except freedom from religon being shoved down my throat.
@josephrl82 Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
"You will hereby be known as the lying two-faced weasel who thinks wizards exist and cast spells.
ENJOY!!!! LOL"
Let me know if you want to contact a witch and talk with one for yourself, I direct you to the right place. Who knows maybe you will become one yourself through on of her spells. LOL
"24 hours to go! I notice you haven't yet replied to any of my latest comments...let's hope it's because you're so busy bringing a wizard to show me. ;)"
I'm glad you've been so entertained that you missed me so much! Are you serios? :) I do have a life outside of you and youtube. I haven't even seen the last few messages that you sent due to not checking the email that youtube sends too.
Your are very welcome. Your arguments had so much substance in them that I just couldn't take it anymore. Those that are atheist should be glad to have such a gread defeater of Christianity on their side!
@Gooberlicious54 You called me a "lying two-faced weasel" which you haven't shown any evidence for, something you have shown to be notorious for. I'll tell you what, I'll take you to a wicth but first you 48 hours to show me that you have "ONE MILLION DOLLARS" which I doubt you have in the first place. What did you think I was just going to trust your word! Silly boy. I think this will really show who the real liar and weasel is!!!
"Time to put up or shut up. You have 48 hours to produce a bonafide, spell casting wizard...do it and I will give you ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!! Don't do it and stand exposed as a lying two-faced weasel.Your call. "
First off I'm not subject to your standards and don't really care what you think! :) And why did you make a time frame in the first place? Maybe because you don't even really have "ONE MILLION DOLLARS" to give.....
Slick looked like such an idiot in the original debate and this is a lovely concise list of his stupidity. Slick's later comments of 'declaring victory' just shows that he doesn't care if what he says is true he just wants to look smart. He failed!
@CRM0001 'Could you give an example of what made Slick look "like such an idiot"?'
He made himself look stupid by saying 'if you can't tell me what they (logical absolutes) are then you can't tell me what they are not'. And repeating it over and over again and smugly chuckling to himself as if he has 'stumped' Matt D. reinforced it.
'Do you believe the Laws of Logic are nonmaterial and nonconceptual?'
Yes, (assuming your definitions of material and conceptual are the same as mine)
Thank you for the response. Yeah I disagree with Slick on that as well. I have defined things by nagation myself!
nonmaterial=not physical, not extended in space, not composed of matter. nonconceptual=something that is not a conpect or does not exist in the thought process or mind.
Let me know if you agree with the above definitions. If not please define what your understanding of them might be.
@CRM0001 "Could you give an example of what made Slick look "like such an idiot"?"
Gosh, to pick just ONE out of the DOZENS available...okay here you go:
According to Slick, Physical/Conceptual is a true dichotomy, and he refuses to accept "neither" as a 3rd option, but when asked which one is God, he says "neither".
@CRM0001 That is the most compelling argument for Christianity that I have ever read. Thank you for helping me see the light that is Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!.......
Everything that your saying from a materialist atheist point of view would be like a soda can that was shaken up and opened just doing what it does. Fizz! In other words you would not be able to KNOW epistemologically.
@CRM0001 He does not read these comments. If you have such good arguments you should call into the show! I am not being snarky.... it is a great show and if you have good arguments call in my friend!
Thank you for the response. I'm a busy person, I don't even know when the show is on. I just watched it on youtube. Maybe I'll look into it. It's really not that much of a proirity. At least with youtube I am able to timeshift.
From your material athiest standpoint it would seem that you would have to hold the position that reason, logic and itelligence is an emergent property of matter. I challenge your premiss. You don't know this, and certainly can't prove it. You have the burden. I might ad that even if it were so you wouldn't be able to know that to be the case because from a material atheist standpoint we are just atoms banging around.
You miss the point! I don't deny we are atoms banging around. I deny that we are *JUST* atoms banging around. If you go back and read what I typed you will see the word "just" which was left our of your quote. In otherwords we are not merely atoms banging around. We have thought capacity, therefore we can abstract in relation to the law of logic.
With all do respect you are missing the point again. You say:
"You are making a claim that atheists have this absolute "faith" in atoms...and it's just not true."
That's not at all what I'm claiming at all. So I grant that you may be right that what you think I'm claiming may be a strawman. But you are wrong because that is not what I was claiming.
Just to claim that something is nonsense does not make it so. Please explain how God existing in Jesus is nonsense.
No you did not. And here is why. You assume what you have yet to prove. Zeus was never said to exist in Hercules, so that is a fairytale. He was the father of Hercules. Even if both phrases are just as valid the conclusion is a non sequitur. All you did was ask a sarcastic rhetorical question without answering the question. I ask again, please explain how God existing in Jesus is nonsense?
You said: "Please explain how Ra existing in Horus is nonsense?"
I don't know if I would agree that Ra existed in Horus the way your putting it, but in studying the history of Ra and Horus and what the people believed about them it's quite easy to see how Ra-Herakhty came about. Ra becoming Horus and Horus becoming Ra. A short lived belief. I may not believe it, but why must it be nonsense? Just because you have a lack of belief in it?
Horus, the Son of the Virgin Isis, Savior of mankind, was worshipped for far longer than Christianity has been around...where do you get this "short lived belief" bullshit from?
"why must it be nonsense"
For you, it MUST be...otherwise YOUR beliefs are no longer valid as exclusive.
Besides, wouldn't your god get pissed if you started worshiping Horus? LOL
Your funny, I suppose you are repeating what you've heard. Horus was conceived by the resurrected Osiris that Isis put back together after collecting all his dismembered bodyparts and but since the penis was no loger available she replaced it with an erect golden one that she used to get herself pregnant. Hardly a comparison to the virgin birth of Jesus. If that was your intention! I don't know.
@CRM0001 "I suppose you are repeating what you've heard"
Bad assumption (again) - the story of the virgin Isis fishing the pieces of Osiris out of the Nile, then laying down next to them and awakening pregnant - is part of a mythology that I've known about for years.
"Hardly a comparison to the virgin birth of Jesus"
Yeah...conceived of a god, born of a virgin, destined to be a Savior...hardly a comparison to Jesus!
If you are serious about the comparison, from my perspective it's really laughable! She had sex with a golden penis that she made for the resurrected Osisis. How do you compair that to the virgin birth of Jesus? I could show more evidence of the diffences as well. But what's the point?
@Gooberlicious54 You said: "where do you get this "short lived belief" bullshit from?"
If you read me in context you will see that I was refering to "Ra becoming Horus and Horus becoming Ra" "Ra-Herakhty" which was a short lived belief compared to the Ra belief as a whole. If I'm wrong I will retract, but give the evidence.
"For you, it MUST be...otherwise YOUR beliefs are no longer valid as exclusive. Besides, wouldn't your god get pissed if you started worshiping Horus? LOL"
Yes according to my belief it's not true, but not necessarily nonsense. So yes if Chrisianity is true the others are wrong. And yes worshiping Horus would be breaking the first commandment.
But according to your standard you can't "make factual claims about your beliefs unless you can support them with evidence" so with that being the case you can't say that God existing is Jesus or any of the others that you mentioned are nonsense unless you could give the evidence to support those claims. So I ask again, what is the evidence that God existing in Jesus is nonsense?
You quoted me twice. I was addressing the second quote which was still in quotes which implies that you were still quoting me. So you are right and you are wrong. So the law of non-contradiction can be violated! :)
You said: "However, since that's not an atheist ideology, I didn't use it in MY words."
Good, I don't think we are "just atoms banging around" either.
Please explain what you think my point was about us just being atoms banging around. It's not what you said the fist time which you called a strawman. If you get it right you might see what I was getting at. It's interesting that you mention "atheist ideology" when many atheist would claim atheism is not an ideology but just a lack of belief in a god or gods. The beef is if you lack a belief in God then how do you account for the Laws of Logic epistemologically?
It must also be stated that I'm not a "right wing Vantillian (do not hold to hard model TAG). With being said, I do think TAG shows that atheism is nonsense.
The fact is that Christianity *CAN* account for the Laws of Logic and at least from what I've seen Athiesm has not been able too. You said:
"But don't make factual claims about your beliefs unless you can support them with evidence, okay?"
You should take your own advice on this. It is your belief that God existing in Jesus is a "fairytale" and "nonsense" but you have not suppported that belief with evidence!
Able to what? Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Period. You are playing the Strawman again by applying standards to atheism that just aren't true.
Please stop doing that, it makes you appear slimy and dishonest.
"you have not suppported that belief with evidence!"
So if I claim that purple fairies from the 14th dimension poofed the universe into existence, and you BELIEVE that it is a "fairytale" and "nonsense" - where is your evidence for it?
I don't think you are seeing that are failing to be consistent. If I can't make factual claims about my beliefs "unless" i "can support them with evidence" then you can't either, even if it has to do with purple fairies, Zues, Ra or whatever other red herring you want to introduce. If you think it's okay for you and not for me then you are using a double standard! So is it okay to make factual claims without evidence or not??? Which is it?
So it would seem that you only have a few choices. Either admit that you don't have evidence that God does not exist in Jesus along with all the other examples that you brought up or that it's okay for one to make factual claims without evidence. If you believe one must present evidence for a belief then what is your evidence that believing that God is in Jesus is nonsense? If you don't have any then according to your own standard you refute yourself!
So I guess the answer is no. If you don't understand go back an read the question that I asked about three times now that has been evaded everytime.
"There is as much evidence for your god as there is for purple fairies from the 14th dimension."
That perception only exist in your mind. Where are all the followers of these purple faires? Where is the historical evidence about these purple faires?
@Gooberlicious54 "The exact same place as the historical evidence for gods."
You are commit the fallacy of false analogy here. Could you show historical evidence of people believing in purple fairies that farted the universe into existence or is that something you made up? With Christianity and the Hebrew people I could point you to 66 books that are written as history. Just because you don't hold them as true does not void the evidence.
You gave no evidence to show that the god YOU believe in is any more valid than Osiris, Horus, or any other god/fairy that YOU deem to be false or nonsense.
I can show historical evidence of people believing that lost spirits made girls pregnant...and historical evidence of people believing in dragons. Did you have a point with that?
Could you show some evidence for your god? And stop evading, please?
@Gooberlicious54 Okay, so first you say regarding the evidence: "There isn't any." Now you seem to be changing your tune and implied that there is evidence but you don't accept it because there is other historical evidence of other beliefs as well. Which is it? There are many points. For starters why do you assume they are all nonsense? What is your evidence for that?
@Gooberlicious54 "Could you show some evidence for your god? And stop evading, please?"
Having the absence of belief in God leaves you in a position of not being able to account for the uniformity of nature which makes science possible, and not being able to account for moral absulutes, which otherwise makes morals relative, and not being able to account for the laws of logic which makes reasoning possible. Holding to the Christian worldview enables one to account for all those things.
@Gooberlicious54 You say: "Not any better nor worse than you can." Really how do you know that tomorrow will be like the past? How do you know that nature will continue to stay uniform?
"How about murder?" One of the commandments of God is not to commit murder. If Christianity is true then so is the truth not to commit murder. If it's not true and you murdered me an were to get away with it and no one were to catch you then cosmically you don't think it woudl be wrong?
@Gooberlicious54 In otherwords you can't make sense out of the world in which you live. For you it would seem that something like love or reason is nothing more than electro chemical processes in the brain controlled by the laws of phycis in which case your not really thinking and making free decisions but are simply bound by biochemical responses.
@Gooberlicious54 The Scriptures tell us that we are created us in the image and likness of God. He created us with a mind. He is the the source of all wisdom knowlege and truth. Christian see the laws of logic as expressions of God's thinking, therefore humans being made in His image should reflect that thinking. We are to think Gods thought after Him.
@Gooberlicious54 You said: "Wow, are you really this fucking stupid?"
Wow, are you? There are no unicorns in the bible you knucklehead! :) There are no Dragons either. The one mentioned in the Book of Revelation is used symbolically of Satan. I don't know of any scholar or person that actually believes that's a literal dragon or that John was speaking of a literal dragon. Witches and wizards exist to this very day and cast spells, the bible says not practice those things.
@Gooberlicious54 A surface level bible student would only come up with this by quoting the King James Version which translated the Hebrew word re’em as unicorn. re’em is not a unicorn, that's why in most modern tranlations it's not translated that way. That's why a more literal translation like the NASB translate those passages as "wild ox" and others such as NKJV, NIV, ESV, RSV,ASV, do as well. The NET translates it as "wild bull". The exact animal of re’em is not even 100% known!
"Of course, because the edits that came LATER are more LITERAL."
This is simply false. The word re'em diddn't mean unicorn then nor does it now as I have showed.
I showe that you don't even see when you commit a logical fallacy and you say that I can't "grasp basic logic"? Amazing! I show that you are not consistent in applying the same standards that you apply to me and my apologic is pathetic? Simply amazing! Talk about weakness of position!
@CRM0001 Still waiting for your "wild oxen" with a gleaming white horn on its head.
Not to mention your claim of "Witches and wizards exist to this very day and cast spells" still waiting for you to produce an actual witch or wizard that can cast spells!
I just love how the NEW English Translation is somehow more accurate than the KJV. Just because they edited some parts that embarrassed the church, like unicorns...funny that they left the flat earth verses in.
@Gooberlicious54 Part 1 You said: "Still waiting for your "wild oxen" with a gleaming white horn on its head."
Did everything I said go right over your head? Seems like it!!!
You say: "still waiting for you to produce an actual witch or wizard that can cast spells!"
First show that you have the "ONE MILLION DOLLARS" that you claim you will give to me. I laughed and did not take your comment seriously but read it as sarcastic empty rhetoric. Which I still think it was.
@Gooberlicious54 Part 2 In fact I don't even have to have your 1 million dollars. If you really want to meet a live breathing spell casting witch contact me privately and I will give you information on contacting one that cast spells. Since you were wrong regarding the NET Bible now you go about making more unsustantiated false claimes without evidecne. Don't you remember your own words? "when making fact claims remember to support them with evidence."
@Gooberlicious54 Part Three: Humble yourself and learn something from Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Certain poetical passages of the Bible refer to a strong and spendid horned animal called re'em. This word was translated "unicorn" or "rhinoceros" in many versions of the Bible, but the modern translations prefer "wild ox" (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew re'em."
Don't you know that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic? The autograpah!
The NET is a bible is a very accurate Bible translation called the New English Translation Kiddo! It is the Word of God.
I already refuted your claim so why do you keep using the arguement? Do you not understand it? Do back and read what I proved about re'em in the other post.
@Gooberlicious54 "Before claiming to have refuted anything, how about backing the claims YOU made, mmkay?"
I did back up my claims. I showed you the fact that re'em does not mean a mythological unicorn. And in my last post I even backed it up with Encyclopedia Brittanica. So I'm waiting for you to shop *FACTUAL EVIDENCE* regarding the Hebrew word re'em! Even the Jews didn't understand re'em to mean unicorn! Don't for get to use your standard!
@Gooberlicious54 Again this only shows your ignorace of the biblical text, with the evidence that I cited.
"Yikes...you actually believe this? You are delusional."
Yeah, I actually knew a witch (a solitary practitioner ) personally, and have debated Wiccans on the internet. Witch's and the Craft have been around for very long time many covens exist to this day. The United States Air Force even has many witches in it. All this is factual!!! At this point your ignorace is showing!
@Gooberlicious54 Since the Scritures say that God is unchanging, then the Laws of Logic are unchanging as well. Since God is eternal so are the Laws of Logic. This is not some made "up supernatural" story that I invented but comes from men from all walks of life that encountered the eternal God that became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ that died and was burried and rose to life again on the third day and was seen by over 500 brethren.
@Gooberlicious54 "So why do religions, Christianity in particular, keep changing their god?" They haven't!
"The god of Christianity today is NOT the same god it was 1000 years ago, or even 200 years ago." Not true, the Scritures tell us who God is, the Scriptures have note changed.
"It may not be a story YOU made up, but it is definitely supernatural and "made up" and was invented by primitve tribal men centuries ago."
@Gooberlicious54 "Just another copied myth, this time from Hinduism."
Please provide the proof of that statement. You assume that it was copied with no proof. Where in Hinduism is the eternal God the creator of all said to take on flesh by being born as a human baby through a virfgin and enter into His own creation? Where is the proof that Christ is a myth? Denying God and using reason to do it is tantamount to denying that air exist while your breathing it.
"No evidence for his existence, therefore:" Like I mentioned before even some of the most liberal and atheist scholars disagree with you. You are in the minority. The evidence is there you just don't accept it.
As I pointed out several times, you are inconsistent and can't live by your own standard.
"when making fact claims remember to support them with evidence."
If you believe this then you don't take your own advice!
@CRM0001 "I could point you to 66 books that are written as history."
LOL!!! You can't be serious!
Dragons, unicorns, talking snakes, talking donkeys, witches, wizards, giants, etc...and you are going to claim it's HISTORY?! It is Bronze Age mythology, ALL of it.
@Gooberlicious54 You said: "I've been able to destroy every "argument" and every false claim of evidence from you." Maybe in your own mind. Maybe you should go back and read the discussion again point by point. You can't even live by your own standard! That is you are inconsistent. You can't even recognise when you commit the fallacy of a nonsequiter.
I watched the debate and IMO both sides got caught in non essential to the topic arguments failing to recognize the argument on the other side.Once the debate got heated there was no much development on arguments.
The real question is are there absolutes at all and if yes that's lost battle for atheism since it points to intelligent design supported with clear facts of design in nature...the name of the intelligent source /designer or power/ doesn't matter at this point.It is a lost battle
VESANG 1 month ago in playlist TAG Debated: The transcendental argument.
@mas03
Did you watch the debate?
DonMezzo 2 months ago
Great show! I still think Bill Gaede has the best all-round arguments for why god doesn't exist. It's not the usual logic/contradiction/proof axiomatic approach.
Matt Slick debated one of Bill's protiges in his Hubpages comments, here: fatfist.hubpages(dot)com(slash)hub(slash)There-are-NO-Absolutes-There-is-NO-Absolute-Truth
His arguments were refuted in record time. I wanted to post this for the fine, bright minds that watch this show. Might be of some use against the religionists! Thanks!
L1ber8ted 2 months ago
Sure Dillahunty talk shit and say Slick is wrong without having him on the line to hear his objections. Smart
mas03 3 months ago
i haven't seen the debate, yet, but to be fair, "neither" is not a counter to conceptual/physical being a dichotomy. If "neither" exists in the empty set, then the dichotomy holds. I further disagree that the burden of proof rests entirely on him. He made a reasonable (even if incorrect) assertion, and then asked you to help him better understand. This is a completely fair part of dialogue and debate. It would also be fair for you to say "i don't think the dichotomy holds, but I don't know".
slocal75 4 months ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
"Everything is either physical or conceptual."
"Which one is god?"
"Neither."
What a well-spoken idiot.
Logical arguments being used to prove the existence of something that they claim manifests itself in physical reality? This is really scraping the barrel!
JMUDoc 6 months ago
It's not an argument that religions and beliefs in gods exist, but somehow all Matt can muster is an emotional plea to why the observed should be something other that is not observed. Then to try to claim victory by evoking an emotion plea as logic.lol
News flash Matt, proving god and disproving god is one argument. your personal bias for one is not proof of the other sides invalidity. do you even know how "logic" works? apparently not.
romney27 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matt Slick is a complete IDIOT! He is a pervert who is addicted to porn and tells anyone who disagrees with him that they have no understanding of logic. Obviously the opposite is true. He likes to have his lovers have abortions. You are a naughty naughty man Mr. Slick. GO SUCK A FUCKING DICK!!!!
MrSupernova890 6 months ago
I can prove God is real. I found the Garden of Eden He created. Look at my Videos.
downyourtube 7 months ago
@salvationplusfaith Wow, what a convincing argument! You asserted it, therefore it's true.
jacarandas82 7 months ago
As soon as one identifies his observation, math tells its fact as a number, but only in relation to the self of whom is identifying. That is within relativity, if you were start identifying within irrelativity you would have difficulties : either you would think holisitically, everything being one (but no action, therefore no math) and all time being frozen out of dynamics (no changes) or you would identify a quark, within an infinite fraction of time. Everything in between is relativistic.
Joke9972 8 months ago
As soon as one identifies his observation, math tells its fact as a number, but only in relation to the self of whom is identifying.
Joke9972 8 months ago
I don't really understand the distinction between "not true" and "false" in the terms of saying true/false is not a true dichotomy. I'm not saying he's wrong, I'd just like to know if someone can explain it to me a bit better, so I can understand what he's getting at.
w35m4n 8 months ago
No Matt, the fact that you won't commit to an answer is reason enough to believe you are running. If you didn't declare victory it's because you know you didn't win, it's very simple. Nice of you loosing graciously. Now with this video your just back tracking, trying to show your viewers your still in the game.
amanwithdreams 8 months ago
Slick has another argument based upon the cosmological argument which starts out as: The reason for the existence of the universe is either personal or non-personal...
huntmatuk 9 months ago
sorry but what "TAG" mens??
DarthRinum 9 months ago
@DarthRinum Transcendental Argument or the existence of God.
huntmatuk 9 months ago
A 40 headed beast that mankind has never seen before is roaming the streets in front of Slick's house. Slick walks outside of the house with his neighbor and the neighbor says, "What is that?" Slick says, "That's a zebra." His neighbor says, "Thats not a zebra." Matt replies, "Can you tell me what it is? No? Then how can you tell me what it isn't?"
314Aurelius 9 months ago 31
@314Aurelius Where in Slick's argument did he try to identify something that no one has ever seen before (40 headed beast) and claim that it is something we do know (a zebra)? Your analogy does not accurately reflect the argument. They BOTH agreed that log abs exist. But Dilla then said he doesnt know the nature of them, and then said Slick is wrong about them. That's evasion at its finest. If he cant argue something intelligently just claim that no discussion is necessary. Cheap, cheap, cheap
petepittsburgh 4 months ago
@petepittsburgh - To answer your question -- something that Slick tried to identify that one has ever seen before: God.
314Aurelius 4 months ago
@314Aurelius That wasn't their specific disagreement at the time. It was whether logical absolutes are conceptual or non-conceptual (or something else). After agreeing that logical absolutes existed, Dilla then turned around and said he doesn't know their nature nor does he believe that he needs to provide an answer JUST so that he could derail the argument and not allow Slick to win the argument. (Knocking over the table when it looks like your opponent will get checkmate).
petepittsburgh 4 months ago
@314Aurelius
Because I know what a zebra looks like and that is not a zebra?
MrDp297 1 month ago
The analogy of the 40 headed beast is misleading. You have started from the position that you know it is a 40 headed beast, not something you don't know. With that presumption, of course it seems Matt is crazy. But what Matt is saying (in that example) is that you can't tell him it's not a zebra because you DON'T KNOW what it is. So basically you are just guessing that it's not a zebra. He's not saying why he believes it is a zebra, just that if you can't see, you can't know.
Tamarahope77 1 week ago
Matt said a true dichotomy is physical or not physical and he said Slick's dichotomy didn't work because of the "neither" option. But doesn't that also work here? Why can't you said everything is either physical or not physical or neither? In fact couldn't one use the "neither" option for any dichotomy and one can then say it's not a dichotomy?
Drunkenprophet23 10 months ago
No, and here is why:
Set of all things{
--Set of Physical things{ ... }
--Set of Not Physical things{
-- --Set of Purely Conceptual things{ ... }
-- --Set of Not Conceptual things{ ... }
--}
}
Notice how the set of conceptual things exists as PART of the Not Physical set, but does not constitute that entire set. So if you say something is Physical OR Conceptual, you are wrong, because you are willfully ignoring the set of non-physical-non-conceptual things. Slick proposed a false dichotomy.
Lowraith 9 months ago 18
@Lowraith Okay I get why Slick has a false dichotomy, that makes sense. But it still doesn't answer why someone can't say physical or non-physical or neither and make that dichotomy false too. Or is it a true dichotomy because it sticks with only one concept; physical?
Drunkenprophet23 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Drunkenprophet23
"Or is it a true dichotomy because it sticks with only one concept; physical? "
Exactly right! Matt was able to say "neither" _BECAUSE_ it was a false dichotomy. True dichotomies have only A or not A. There would be no "neither".
Lowraith 9 months ago
@Drunkenprophet23 Physical or non-physical is by definition a true dichotomy. Saying neither wouldn't work in this situation because if something is not physical it MUST be classed as non-physical, and if something is not non-physical then it MUST be classed as physical so neither is a logically impossible answer. Something is what it is (lets say physical) and is not what it is not (non-physical) and cannot be both or NEITHER at the same. These are laws of logic.
AliCat9100 9 months ago
@AliCat9100 Gotcha. I suppose where I got confused is Matt said neither was a valid objection even if he didn't explain what the neither was, but I guess with physical and non physical there really is no neither option.
Drunkenprophet23 9 months ago
Comment removed
Lowraith 9 months ago
IMO it's the whole 'bible' debate that gets people up in arms.It's easy to throw scripture around and change it to justify your beliefs (JW).The Mary myth is one that bothers me but I also belive that Jesus was a great teacher (as well as Mohammed).There is so much more that we can't possibly know.. just saying...NOPE..can't be, prove it to me or YES..there IS definately a God-you can't prove he isn't here..you can't prove a negative, does my head in.Would the world be better without religion?
1955JAFO 10 months ago
@1955JAFO According to the societal health scores of religious countries vs. countries with a higher rate of atheism, yes, it would. No there's not a god. You really don't understand. We don't have to prove he doesn't exist. We're the negative, actually. You have to prove that he does, because you're saying he does. We're saying you haven't even come close to proving he does, so we're not going to believe you.
weirddudeonice 10 months ago
I would just force myself not to. But Why do you care what I believe in anyways? Worry about yourself. And another thing... why worship a god that has killed so many people including children? Why worship a god that demands it or threatens eternal hellfire? lol. And this is the god you're giving your SOUL to? Has it ever crossed your little bitty mind that god could be lying to you? And the truth is backwards?
Severe777 10 months ago
They are holding back very important knowledge from the public, NASA already admitted they wouldn't release any proof of intelligent life, ever. Besides bacteria, but who wants to see that shit? They said it because they believe "Religious" people can't handle it, and religion would fall apart. Funny... NASA is government controlled, so is religion. Shit doesn't make sense to me.
Severe777 10 months ago
but I'm not going to do that, unless I'm provoked. so... believe what you want, it just doesn make sense to me mount Sinai the most special place for Christians in the world, is on the same exact opposite side of the erath is Roswell. And it aligns in a 33 degree angle. Just not a coincidence to me.
Severe777 10 months ago
lol, I can make fun of you a lot more then you can make fun of me, I saw your videos. Watch who you criticize Peter Pan.
Severe777 10 months ago
Start from top to bottom please...
Severe777 10 months ago
God vs human sexuality, god vs Satan, god vs free will, god vs Science, god and his threat of eternal hellfire, god and his angels "having sex" with human beings, god and his mass genocides. God and his HUMAN EMOTIONS like anger and jealously. God and his pillars and chariots of fire flying around in the sky. It makes A LOT more sense if you replace "God" with Alien. At least that will give you a logical explanation of WHY god does the things he does. NOT GOD. Wake up people.
Severe777 10 months ago
And there is a cover up going on. Prayer, baptism, after life, resurrection, virgin births, THE CROSS. Are all ancient Egyptian in origin. Even the ten commandments are stolen from the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Creation Story and the Flood Story are stolen from ancient Sumeria, a civilization that predates Xianity for thousands of years, how did it end up in the Bible? So many questions... no answers. You do the research, the lies start to open up. Angels having sex with humans? Wtf
Severe777 10 months ago
amazes and interests me about this subject. The same mountain "Mount Sinai" where "God" came to Moses in the bible. Is directly, EXACTLY, the same spot but on the other side of the globe is where ROSWELL NM is located. Roswell and Mount Sinai are ALLIGNED perfectly, 33 degrees. Now 33 is a BIG occult number, 33 degree mason, 33 nazarene in the bible, 33 vertabraes in the spine. I can go on and on about the number 33. Coincidence? I think not. God is NOT god.
Severe777 10 months ago
'I'm not afraid of a god that doesn't exist.' Manson has a real good point there. There is no proof whatsoever that god exists. It's a personal belief system and nothing more. If you believe in god that's fine, but do not get on some high horse ranting about those who do not (you'll lose every time). What really makes me laugh is the misguided people who fail to grasp this simple fact. FYI there has been more murders,pain & suffering caused in the name of god than any other. Food for thought.
abrnt1 10 months ago
if someone held a gun to your head you sick atheist you would be doing nothing but muttering prayers
when it comes down to it all we all boliev in g-d no mmatter what religion all atheists are stupid freeks who live life for nothing!
TheVovo68 11 months ago
@TheVovo68 lol, sounds a lot like the Christian god. Believing Christianity is like God having a gun to your head, hell carved on the bullets. I don't choose to believe in his son, or worship him. I go to an eternal burning lake of fire. Does THAT really sound like a loving god to you? I thought the Christian god believed in free will? Obviously not if we have no other choice to believe him and his son. THATS EXACTLY like having a gun to your head. So wtf are you talking about? You're the freak.
Severe777 11 months ago
@Severe777 ok you stupid boy lets ask you this... if you were on a plane and the plain was going down what are you doing in that moment be4 your life ends?
all you atheists live a life worth nothing and you are all selfish and ignorent ! pleas, tell me what you live your life for because as far as i see it you live a life of emptyness= you get up, go to work, eat, sleep, and then start all over again so you really dont do that mutch good do you?
pleas send me back an answear. thanx!
TheVovo68 10 months ago
@TheVovo68 Stupid boy!? HAHA! Ok my.Ibelievethebibleistruttolife. Let's hear what you got to say. First, I'm not atheist DUMBASS. Thanks for assuming though. I believe in God, but I don't believe in a god that sends people to eternal hellfire if they don't get on their knees and worship him, a god that causes mass genocides, and sin. Then blames it all on humanity,t hen uses Satan for a scape goat for his stupid mistake. And the Christian god is not "god". But an alien being,and that's what
Severe777 10 months ago
@Severe777 ok fine i dont believe that gd sends eny one to hell if they dont worship Him but i do believe that you go to hell for being a bad person and for killing!
i am not christian but thank you eny way and i dont believe in thier "gd" either!
TheVovo68 10 months ago
@TheVovo68 Well good for you.
Severe777 10 months ago
@Severe777 I would like to replace "alien" with "super monkey zebra", it makes more sense to me.
aarhallenbeck 10 months ago
@aarhallenbeck hey, I'm just coming up with a theory :) no need to make fun.
Severe777 10 months ago
@Severe777 I'm not making fun, just trying to demonstrate the absurdity of whatever label you decide to place on what you can't fully explain, ie the god of the gaps. There is no reason to suppose that aliens are the source of religion any more so than a god, or a super monkey zebra. A more simpler solution would be to say that Christianity is a melting pot of ideas from earlier religions, which are just a mish-mash of even earlier traditions and beliefs, and so on.
aarhallenbeck 10 months ago
@aarhallenbeck Uhmmm ok? And that still doesn't change the fact that Mount Sinai and Roswell New Mexico are exactly in the same spot, but on opposite sides of the earth. Isn't that a little strange to you? Perfectly alligned 33 degrees. And I hear this number "33" A LOT. 33 degree mason, 33 Nazarene in the bible, 33 vertabraes in the human spinal cord. 33, the on going number of forever. I can go on dude. This is NOT a coincidence, and our world powers need to answer for it.
Severe777 10 months ago
@Severe777 If you try hard enough, you can find connections with almost ANY specific number throughout all of history. Your particular example with Roswell is a huge stretch, to the point of being meaningless. But, I won't continue to argue with conspiracy theorists, because they always think they have done more "research".
aarhallenbeck 10 months ago
Comment removed
Severe777 10 months ago
@aarhallenbeck Like what? Give me some examples? UFOs is one of the biggest conspiracies out there, millions and millions of people witnessed these things, it's been going on since biblical times. Through out the bible is eye witness accounts. I don't got evidence, I could be wrong. I admit this, but there is FAR too many coincidences man, even you have to admit this. There's something going on, I don't know... and No. I don't believe in god or Jesus. I think those characters are made up.
Severe777 10 months ago
@aarhallenbeck Oh yea, and the number "33" and it happening to be connected with Roswell (biggest UFO conspiracy in the world) and Mount Sinai from the bible (The most important place of Christianity) is not a coincidence. 33 is a MAJOR number played out through the occult world. It was meant to happen. But anyways, list me some examples. I'll take a look of them. I want you to back your talk up. :)
Severe777 10 months ago
@Severe777 Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859 - 1+8+5+9 = 23. Two divided by three makes 0.666 recurring (allegedly - actually it makes 0.6666666667). The Hiroshima bomb was dropped at 8.15am - 8+15= 23. 9/11/2001 = (9+11+2+0+0+1) add up to 23. Each parent contributes 23 chromosomes to the start of human life. The Knights Templar had 23 Grand Masters. The first morse code transmission - "What hath God wrought?" - was from the Bible passage Numbers 23:23.
aarhallenbeck 10 months ago
@aarhallenbeck yea, and all of these examples you just listed have ties to the OCCULT. So you see? NOT a coincidence, you supported my case further and not even realizing it. Also, an atom contains 6 electrons, 6 neutrons, and 6 protons. :) Oh yea... and for the "I would force myself not to pray comment". lol, it's part of being honest. I been raised by religious people my whole life, I'm guessing you have been too. So if it really came down to it, and since I've been RAISED that way.
Severe777 10 months ago
@Severe777 All of those examples were completely irrelevant, arbitrary, and meaningless. There are an infinite amount of ways you can twist and skew any particular piece of data to make it seem like there is a connection, and you wouldn't know unless you were specifically looking for it, or someone told you before hand. Additionally, any two common numbers such as those less than 100 coming up multiple times throughout history is inevitable in any context.
aarhallenbeck 10 months ago
@Severe777 Your comment on the atom also brings into question your gullibility, as any particular atom has vastly different amounts of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Specifically, carbon has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons. I don't know if you meant that in the first place, but if you did it doesn't support any of your arguments.
aarhallenbeck 10 months ago
Comment removed
Severe777 10 months ago
@Severe777 ha ha ha and that my friend answears my question perfectly, you would have to FORCE yourself to not pray! meaning its the first thing that would really come to your minde in a situation like that proovong my point that atheism is something meaningfull to you untill your put into a situation like that.
TheVovo68 10 months ago
@TheVovo68 Oh yea... and if you want to play the "who's right game" with me. Then answer me this question you smart ass little prick. How come the Creation story, ancient Egyptian in origin which predates Christianity for thousands of years end up in the bible? Did they steal it? Oh yea... and what about the Flood story as well? Ancient Sumerian in origin which predates both Christianity and ancient Egypt. What's it doing in the bible? Answer me that. Until then, stfu. You believe in a lie. :)
Severe777 10 months ago
What kind of religion has to STEAL stories from other religions that predate it? That tells you A LOT about the bible and it's creators.
Severe777 10 months ago
Nothing but organized criminals.
Severe777 10 months ago
95 people are homo's. That's right! I'm a bigot! You bunch of smelly homo's! Dumb primative Homo Habilis!
ganados0 11 months ago
Proof of God read Job 36:13 it actually states how atheists will be for the next 3,500 years..angry, cause that's all I ever see, I've never once in my life ever met a godless insect they call atheists HAPPY. Never! Instead all you do is dedicate your pathetic lives obsessing about a God you don't believe in. PATHETIC
Angelsword135 11 months ago
@Angelsword135 I obsess about religous fundies like yourself pushing your fairy tale beliefs into our schools and our politics. And by the way I am a very happy person, I have everything I ever wanted except freedom from religon being shoved down my throat.
josephrl82 11 months ago 3
@josephrl82 Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 11 months ago
"I think this will really show who the real liar and weasel is!!!"
Indeed.
One million dollars exists...and anyone can prove it.
Your magic spell casting wizard (that you claimed exists) is pure bullshit, and you know it.
I'm glad youtube doesn't let maggots like you edit their comments anymore...the stupidity is there for all to see!
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54 You commented on my profile: TIME'S UP!
"You will hereby be known as the lying two-faced weasel who thinks wizards exist and cast spells.
ENJOY!!!! LOL"
Let me know if you want to contact a witch and talk with one for yourself, I direct you to the right place. Who knows maybe you will become one yourself through on of her spells. LOL
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 You commented on my profile:
"24 hours to go! I notice you haven't yet replied to any of my latest comments...let's hope it's because you're so busy bringing a wizard to show me. ;)"
I'm glad you've been so entertained that you missed me so much! Are you serios? :) I do have a life outside of you and youtube. I haven't even seen the last few messages that you sent due to not checking the email that youtube sends too.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 LOL!
I knew you were a chickenshit lying weasel.
Thanks for proving it.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54
"I knew you were a chickenshit lying weasel.
Thanks for proving it."
Your are very welcome. Your arguments had so much substance in them that I just couldn't take it anymore. Those that are atheist should be glad to have such a gread defeater of Christianity on their side!
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 You called me a "lying two-faced weasel" which you haven't shown any evidence for, something you have shown to be notorious for. I'll tell you what, I'll take you to a wicth but first you 48 hours to show me that you have "ONE MILLION DOLLARS" which I doubt you have in the first place. What did you think I was just going to trust your word! Silly boy. I think this will really show who the real liar and weasel is!!!
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 Part 1 You left this comment on my profile:
"Time to put up or shut up. You have 48 hours to produce a bonafide, spell casting wizard...do it and I will give you ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!! Don't do it and stand exposed as a lying two-faced weasel.Your call. "
First off I'm not subject to your standards and don't really care what you think! :) And why did you make a time frame in the first place? Maybe because you don't even really have "ONE MILLION DOLLARS" to give.....
CRM0001 1 year ago
Slick looked like such an idiot in the original debate and this is a lovely concise list of his stupidity. Slick's later comments of 'declaring victory' just shows that he doesn't care if what he says is true he just wants to look smart. He failed!
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago
@TheOmegajuice
Could you give an example of what made Slick look "like such an idiot"?
Do you believe the Laws of Logic are nonmaterial and nonconceptual?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 'Could you give an example of what made Slick look "like such an idiot"?'
He made himself look stupid by saying 'if you can't tell me what they (logical absolutes) are then you can't tell me what they are not'. And repeating it over and over again and smugly chuckling to himself as if he has 'stumped' Matt D. reinforced it.
'Do you believe the Laws of Logic are nonmaterial and nonconceptual?'
Yes, (assuming your definitions of material and conceptual are the same as mine)
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago
@TheOmegajuice
Thank you for the response. Yeah I disagree with Slick on that as well. I have defined things by nagation myself!
nonmaterial=not physical, not extended in space, not composed of matter. nonconceptual=something that is not a conpect or does not exist in the thought process or mind.
Let me know if you agree with the above definitions. If not please define what your understanding of them might be.
CRM0001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CRM0001 "Could you give an example of what made Slick look "like such an idiot"?"
Gosh, to pick just ONE out of the DOZENS available...okay here you go:
According to Slick, Physical/Conceptual is a true dichotomy, and he refuses to accept "neither" as a 3rd option, but when asked which one is God, he says "neither".
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
the promoted video for this page is "What the Pup Funny Video" YouTube really has a good sense of irony...
Sambonable 1 year ago
you would have to be totaly dippppy not to understand matt XD
IDMWEIGHTSIDM 1 year ago
i think if you use smaller words then christians can understand it
phychobillygirl 1 year ago
Matt,
There is so much more to say but I'll leave it at that for now.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 Where does god exist?
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@notnowchief8
God exist in Jesus, try looking there.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 That is the most compelling argument for Christianity that I have ever read. Thank you for helping me see the light that is Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!.......
notnowchief8 1 year ago
@notnowchief8
You're welcome!!! :) You never did answer my question.
CRM0001 1 year ago
Matt,
Everything that your saying from a materialist atheist point of view would be like a soda can that was shaken up and opened just doing what it does. Fizz! In other words you would not be able to KNOW epistemologically.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 He does not read these comments. If you have such good arguments you should call into the show! I am not being snarky.... it is a great show and if you have good arguments call in my friend!
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888
Thank you for the response. I'm a busy person, I don't even know when the show is on. I just watched it on youtube. Maybe I'll look into it. It's really not that much of a proirity. At least with youtube I am able to timeshift.
CRM0001 1 year ago
Matt,
From your material athiest standpoint it would seem that you would have to hold the position that reason, logic and itelligence is an emergent property of matter. I challenge your premiss. You don't know this, and certainly can't prove it. You have the burden. I might ad that even if it were so you wouldn't be able to know that to be the case because from a material atheist standpoint we are just atoms banging around.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "I challenge your premise"
Have you called in to the show yet?
"from a material atheist standpoint we are just atoms banging around"
From ANY standpoint that doesn't deny reality we are "atoms banging around" - this is a FACT, not a belief based on ideology.
It would seem you don't really have an argument, you just like to whine.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
You miss the point! I don't deny we are atoms banging around. I deny that we are *JUST* atoms banging around. If you go back and read what I typed you will see the word "just" which was left our of your quote. In otherwords we are not merely atoms banging around. We have thought capacity, therefore we can abstract in relation to the law of logic.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 Yes, I left off the word "just". - because to leave it in is a Strawman.
You are making a claim that atheists have this absolute "faith" in atoms...and it's just not true.
"God exist in Jesus, try looking there."
You do realize that this statement is just as valid as:
Zeus exist in Hercules, try looking there.
And both are equally nonsense.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
With all do respect you are missing the point again. You say:
"You are making a claim that atheists have this absolute "faith" in atoms...and it's just not true."
That's not at all what I'm claiming at all. So I grant that you may be right that what you think I'm claiming may be a strawman. But you are wrong because that is not what I was claiming.
Just to claim that something is nonsense does not make it so. Please explain how God existing in Jesus is nonsense.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "Please explain how God existing in Jesus is nonsense."
I already did.
That phrase is JUST AS VALID as the phrase "Zeus existing in Hercules".
Do you really need someone to explain to you why ancient fairytales are nonsense?
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
No you did not. And here is why. You assume what you have yet to prove. Zeus was never said to exist in Hercules, so that is a fairytale. He was the father of Hercules. Even if both phrases are just as valid the conclusion is a non sequitur. All you did was ask a sarcastic rhetorical question without answering the question. I ask again, please explain how God existing in Jesus is nonsense?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "Zeus was never said to exist in Hercules"
Technically you are correct. Zeus was said to exist in Dionysus - the savior/redeemer of the Greek pantheon.
Or if Greek gods just aren't your thing, try this one.
Please explain how Ra existing in Horus is nonsense?
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
You said: "Please explain how Ra existing in Horus is nonsense?"
I don't know if I would agree that Ra existed in Horus the way your putting it, but in studying the history of Ra and Horus and what the people believed about them it's quite easy to see how Ra-Herakhty came about. Ra becoming Horus and Horus becoming Ra. A short lived belief. I may not believe it, but why must it be nonsense? Just because you have a lack of belief in it?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "A short lived belief"
Horus, the Son of the Virgin Isis, Savior of mankind, was worshipped for far longer than Christianity has been around...where do you get this "short lived belief" bullshit from?
"why must it be nonsense"
For you, it MUST be...otherwise YOUR beliefs are no longer valid as exclusive.
Besides, wouldn't your god get pissed if you started worshiping Horus? LOL
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
Your funny, I suppose you are repeating what you've heard. Horus was conceived by the resurrected Osiris that Isis put back together after collecting all his dismembered bodyparts and but since the penis was no loger available she replaced it with an erect golden one that she used to get herself pregnant. Hardly a comparison to the virgin birth of Jesus. If that was your intention! I don't know.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "I suppose you are repeating what you've heard"
Bad assumption (again) - the story of the virgin Isis fishing the pieces of Osiris out of the Nile, then laying down next to them and awakening pregnant - is part of a mythology that I've known about for years.
"Hardly a comparison to the virgin birth of Jesus"
Yeah...conceived of a god, born of a virgin, destined to be a Savior...hardly a comparison to Jesus!
And guess who came first? Jesus is just a copy.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
If you are serious about the comparison, from my perspective it's really laughable! She had sex with a golden penis that she made for the resurrected Osisis. How do you compair that to the virgin birth of Jesus? I could show more evidence of the diffences as well. But what's the point?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 You said: "where do you get this "short lived belief" bullshit from?"
If you read me in context you will see that I was refering to "Ra becoming Horus and Horus becoming Ra" "Ra-Herakhty" which was a short lived belief compared to the Ra belief as a whole. If I'm wrong I will retract, but give the evidence.
CRM0001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54 You said:
"For you, it MUST be...otherwise YOUR beliefs are no longer valid as exclusive. Besides, wouldn't your god get pissed if you started worshiping Horus? LOL"
Yes according to my belief it's not true, but not necessarily nonsense. So yes if Chrisianity is true the others are wrong. And yes worshiping Horus would be breaking the first commandment.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
But according to your standard you can't "make factual claims about your beliefs unless you can support them with evidence" so with that being the case you can't say that God existing is Jesus or any of the others that you mentioned are nonsense unless you could give the evidence to support those claims. So I ask again, what is the evidence that God existing in Jesus is nonsense?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "If you go back and read what I typed you will see the word "just" which was left our of your quote"
If you would take your own advice and read the posts more clearly, you would see that I left the word "just" in your quote.
However, since that's not an atheist ideology, I didn't use it in MY words.
It's okay, we all make mistakes. ;)
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
You quoted me twice. I was addressing the second quote which was still in quotes which implies that you were still quoting me. So you are right and you are wrong. So the law of non-contradiction can be violated! :)
You said: "However, since that's not an atheist ideology, I didn't use it in MY words."
Good, I don't think we are "just atoms banging around" either.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "Good, I don't think we are "just atoms banging around" either."
Whom did you quote saying this? "Either" implies someone else, or a number of people, hold this ideology.
And since it has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, I am curious as to where you heard this.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
Please explain what you think my point was about us just being atoms banging around. It's not what you said the fist time which you called a strawman. If you get it right you might see what I was getting at. It's interesting that you mention "atheist ideology" when many atheist would claim atheism is not an ideology but just a lack of belief in a god or gods. The beef is if you lack a belief in God then how do you account for the Laws of Logic epistemologically?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
It must also be stated that I'm not a "right wing Vantillian (do not hold to hard model TAG). With being said, I do think TAG shows that atheism is nonsense.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "I do think TAG shows that atheism is nonsense."
Hey, believe whatever you want - believe that purple hippos farted the universe into existence if you want.
But don't make factual claims about your beliefs unless you can support them with evidence, okay?
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
The fact is that Christianity *CAN* account for the Laws of Logic and at least from what I've seen Athiesm has not been able too. You said:
"But don't make factual claims about your beliefs unless you can support them with evidence, okay?"
You should take your own advice on this. It is your belief that God existing in Jesus is a "fairytale" and "nonsense" but you have not suppported that belief with evidence!
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "Athiesm has not been able too."
Able to what? Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Period. You are playing the Strawman again by applying standards to atheism that just aren't true.
Please stop doing that, it makes you appear slimy and dishonest.
"you have not suppported that belief with evidence!"
So if I claim that purple fairies from the 14th dimension poofed the universe into existence, and you BELIEVE that it is a "fairytale" and "nonsense" - where is your evidence for it?
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
I don't think you are seeing that are failing to be consistent. If I can't make factual claims about my beliefs "unless" i "can support them with evidence" then you can't either, even if it has to do with purple fairies, Zues, Ra or whatever other red herring you want to introduce. If you think it's okay for you and not for me then you are using a double standard! So is it okay to make factual claims without evidence or not??? Which is it?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
So it would seem that you only have a few choices. Either admit that you don't have evidence that God does not exist in Jesus along with all the other examples that you brought up or that it's okay for one to make factual claims without evidence. If you believe one must present evidence for a belief then what is your evidence that believing that God is in Jesus is nonsense? If you don't have any then according to your own standard you refute yourself!
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 Just admit that your BELIEF is just that, a belief based on blind faith.
You can play semantics and twists words all you'd like - but when making fact claims remember to support them with evidence.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
You said: "when making fact claims remember to support them with evidence."
You made a fact claim that God existing in Jesus along others you mentioned are "nonsense."
Are you taking your own advice here or do you have evidence? And as I have showed it i you who have twisted my words. And gave the evidence. :)
Peace out!!!
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "Are you taking your own advice here or do you have evidence?"
Evidence for what?
There is as much evidence for your god as there is for purple fairies from the 14th dimension.
Are you really going to evade here and NOT say that purple fairies are nonsense?
You keep asking about evidence - I'm not the one claiming a god exists, YOU are.
Time to man up.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
So I guess the answer is no. If you don't understand go back an read the question that I asked about three times now that has been evaded everytime.
"There is as much evidence for your god as there is for purple fairies from the 14th dimension."
That perception only exist in your mind. Where are all the followers of these purple faires? Where is the historical evidence about these purple faires?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "Where is the historical evidence about these purple fairies?"
The exact same place as the historical evidence for gods.
There isn't any.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 "The exact same place as the historical evidence for gods."
You are commit the fallacy of false analogy here. Could you show historical evidence of people believing in purple fairies that farted the universe into existence or is that something you made up? With Christianity and the Hebrew people I could point you to 66 books that are written as history. Just because you don't hold them as true does not void the evidence.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "I just gave some evidence!"
You gave no evidence to show that the god YOU believe in is any more valid than Osiris, Horus, or any other god/fairy that YOU deem to be false or nonsense.
I can show historical evidence of people believing that lost spirits made girls pregnant...and historical evidence of people believing in dragons. Did you have a point with that?
Could you show some evidence for your god? And stop evading, please?
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54 Okay, so first you say regarding the evidence: "There isn't any." Now you seem to be changing your tune and implied that there is evidence but you don't accept it because there is other historical evidence of other beliefs as well. Which is it? There are many points. For starters why do you assume they are all nonsense? What is your evidence for that?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 "Could you show some evidence for your god? And stop evading, please?"
Having the absence of belief in God leaves you in a position of not being able to account for the uniformity of nature which makes science possible, and not being able to account for moral absulutes, which otherwise makes morals relative, and not being able to account for the laws of logic which makes reasoning possible. Holding to the Christian worldview enables one to account for all those things.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "not being able to account for the uniformity of nature"
Not any better nor worse than you can.
The difference is, I am not afraid to admit we don't know everything - I don't make up supernatural answers to questions we don't have answers to yet.
"not being able to account for moral absolutes"
LOL - prove moral absolutes exist.
"Holding to the Christian worldview enables one to account for all these things."
Wow, it does?!
Is slavery morally right or wrong? How about murder?
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54 You say: "Not any better nor worse than you can." Really how do you know that tomorrow will be like the past? How do you know that nature will continue to stay uniform?
"How about murder?" One of the commandments of God is not to commit murder. If Christianity is true then so is the truth not to commit murder. If it's not true and you murdered me an were to get away with it and no one were to catch you then cosmically you don't think it woudl be wrong?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "One of the commandments of God is not to commit murder"
LOL!!!
You sure don't know your Bible very well.
Your god commands the murder of WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
He even condones the RAPE of the female children.
Do you really need chapters and verses for this? Are you that ignorant of Scripture??
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 In otherwords you can't make sense out of the world in which you live. For you it would seem that something like love or reason is nothing more than electro chemical processes in the brain controlled by the laws of phycis in which case your not really thinking and making free decisions but are simply bound by biochemical responses.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 The Scriptures tell us that we are created us in the image and likness of God. He created us with a mind. He is the the source of all wisdom knowlege and truth. Christian see the laws of logic as expressions of God's thinking, therefore humans being made in His image should reflect that thinking. We are to think Gods thought after Him.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "The Scriptures tell us"
Yes yes I know...you forgot the parts about dragons, giant, witches, wizards, unicorns, and magic spells.
Please stop reference a Bronze Age fairy tale as if it had any significance.
I may as well reference the Lord of the Rings and claim it is evidence for Gandalf!
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 "Please stop reference a Bronze Age fairy tale as if it had any significance."
Where is the evidence that the 66 books of the bible is a fairty tail? You don't have any! :)
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "Where is the evidence that the 66 books of the bible is a fairty tail? You don't have any!"
Wow, are you really this fucking stupid?
Dragons, unicorns, wizards, witches, giants, magic spells...you believe in ALL of these things, or do you admit they are fairy tales?
If you believe in the Bible, you believe in these things...and it's pretty silly at this point.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 You said: "Wow, are you really this fucking stupid?"
Wow, are you? There are no unicorns in the bible you knucklehead! :) There are no Dragons either. The one mentioned in the Book of Revelation is used symbolically of Satan. I don't know of any scholar or person that actually believes that's a literal dragon or that John was speaking of a literal dragon. Witches and wizards exist to this very day and cast spells, the bible says not practice those things.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "There are no unicorns in the bible you knucklehead!"
Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn
Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 A surface level bible student would only come up with this by quoting the King James Version which translated the Hebrew word re’em as unicorn. re’em is not a unicorn, that's why in most modern tranlations it's not translated that way. That's why a more literal translation like the NASB translate those passages as "wild ox" and others such as NKJV, NIV, ESV, RSV,ASV, do as well. The NET translates it as "wild bull". The exact animal of re’em is not even 100% known!
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "a more literal translation"
Of course, because the edits that came LATER are more LITERAL.
We're done here - you cannot even grasp basic logic, and your pathetic attempt at Biblical apologetics just shows the weakeness of your position.
Thanks for playing!
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
"Of course, because the edits that came LATER are more LITERAL."
This is simply false. The word re'em diddn't mean unicorn then nor does it now as I have showed.
I showe that you don't even see when you commit a logical fallacy and you say that I can't "grasp basic logic"? Amazing! I show that you are not consistent in applying the same standards that you apply to me and my apologic is pathetic? Simply amazing! Talk about weakness of position!
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 Still waiting for your "wild oxen" with a gleaming white horn on its head.
Not to mention your claim of "Witches and wizards exist to this very day and cast spells" still waiting for you to produce an actual witch or wizard that can cast spells!
I just love how the NEW English Translation is somehow more accurate than the KJV. Just because they edited some parts that embarrassed the church, like unicorns...funny that they left the flat earth verses in.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 Part 1 You said: "Still waiting for your "wild oxen" with a gleaming white horn on its head."
Did everything I said go right over your head? Seems like it!!!
You say: "still waiting for you to produce an actual witch or wizard that can cast spells!"
First show that you have the "ONE MILLION DOLLARS" that you claim you will give to me. I laughed and did not take your comment seriously but read it as sarcastic empty rhetoric. Which I still think it was.
CRM0001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54 Part 2 In fact I don't even have to have your 1 million dollars. If you really want to meet a live breathing spell casting witch contact me privately and I will give you information on contacting one that cast spells. Since you were wrong regarding the NET Bible now you go about making more unsustantiated false claimes without evidecne. Don't you remember your own words? "when making fact claims remember to support them with evidence."
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 Part Three: Humble yourself and learn something from Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Certain poetical passages of the Bible refer to a strong and spendid horned animal called re'em. This word was translated "unicorn" or "rhinoceros" in many versions of the Bible, but the modern translations prefer "wild ox" (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew re'em."
Don't you know that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic? The autograpah!
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 Tell ya what there, kiddo...
Produce a "wild ox" with a single, gleaming white horn on its head (as described in the Bible) and I will let your excuse pass.
Otherwise...
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54
"Produce a "wild ox" with a single, gleaming white horn on its head (as described in the Bible) and I will let your excuse pass."
I already refuted this showing that re'em does not mean unicorn, or a animal with only one horn. Did you not read it? So there is nothing to let pass.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "The NET translates it as "wild bull"
That's nice, I didn't know you worshipped the NET.
The Word of God says UNICORN...not once, not twice, SIX FUCKING TIMES.
Or do you no longer believe the Bible is the Word of God?
So which is it? Can't have it both ways!
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
"I didn't know you worshipped the NET."
The NET is a bible is a very accurate Bible translation called the New English Translation Kiddo! It is the Word of God.
I already refuted your claim so why do you keep using the arguement? Do you not understand it? Do back and read what I proved about re'em in the other post.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "I already refuted your claim"
You did?
You claimed there were no unicorns in the Bible, I posted six verses of Scripture with "unicorn" in them.
You claimed wizards and witches actually exist and can cast spells. Still waiting for this one! LOL
Before claiming to have refuted anything, how about backing the claims YOU made, mmkay?
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 "Before claiming to have refuted anything, how about backing the claims YOU made, mmkay?"
I did back up my claims. I showed you the fact that re'em does not mean a mythological unicorn. And in my last post I even backed it up with Encyclopedia Brittanica. So I'm waiting for you to shop *FACTUAL EVIDENCE* regarding the Hebrew word re'em! Even the Jews didn't understand re'em to mean unicorn! Don't for get to use your standard!
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "There are no unicorns in the bible you knucklehead!" Part Two
Psalms 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Psalms 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
"Witches and wizards exist to this very day and cast spells"
Yikes...you actually believe this? You are delusional.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54 Again this only shows your ignorace of the biblical text, with the evidence that I cited.
"Yikes...you actually believe this? You are delusional."
Yeah, I actually knew a witch (a solitary practitioner ) personally, and have debated Wiccans on the internet. Witch's and the Craft have been around for very long time many covens exist to this day. The United States Air Force even has many witches in it. All this is factual!!! At this point your ignorace is showing!
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 Since the Scritures say that God is unchanging, then the Laws of Logic are unchanging as well. Since God is eternal so are the Laws of Logic. This is not some made "up supernatural" story that I invented but comes from men from all walks of life that encountered the eternal God that became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ that died and was burried and rose to life again on the third day and was seen by over 500 brethren.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 So why do religions, Christianity in particular, keep changing their god?
The god of Christianity today is NOT the same god it was 1000 years ago, or even 200 years ago.
It may not be a story YOU made up, but it is definitely supernatural and "made up" and was invented by primitve tribal men centuries ago.
"God that became flesh"
Just another copied myth, this time from Hinduism.
No evidence for your Christ, sorry. Just another myth.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54 "So why do religions, Christianity in particular, keep changing their god?" They haven't!
"The god of Christianity today is NOT the same god it was 1000 years ago, or even 200 years ago." Not true, the Scritures tell us who God is, the Scriptures have note changed.
"It may not be a story YOU made up, but it is definitely supernatural and "made up" and was invented by primitve tribal men centuries ago."
Were you there? How do you know this definitely?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 "Just another copied myth, this time from Hinduism."
Please provide the proof of that statement. You assume that it was copied with no proof. Where in Hinduism is the eternal God the creator of all said to take on flesh by being born as a human baby through a virfgin and enter into His own creation? Where is the proof that Christ is a myth? Denying God and using reason to do it is tantamount to denying that air exist while your breathing it.
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "Where is the proof that Christ is a myth?"
No evidence for his existence, therefore:
Myth (noun) - a person or thing whose existence is fictional or unproven
"Denying God"
I'm not denying your god any more than you are denying purple fairies.
Air exists, your god doesn't.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54
"No evidence for his existence, therefore:" Like I mentioned before even some of the most liberal and atheist scholars disagree with you. You are in the minority. The evidence is there you just don't accept it.
As I pointed out several times, you are inconsistent and can't live by your own standard.
"when making fact claims remember to support them with evidence."
If you believe this then you don't take your own advice!
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 "There isn't any." Well, I just gave some evidence! Don't forget: "when making fact claims remember to support them with evidence."
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "I could point you to 66 books that are written as history."
LOL!!! You can't be serious!
Dragons, unicorns, talking snakes, talking donkeys, witches, wizards, giants, etc...and you are going to claim it's HISTORY?! It is Bronze Age mythology, ALL of it.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 "LOL!!! You can't be serious!"
Regarding the 66 books of the bible I'm very serious otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian.
What is your position on biological life? Did it always exist? What about the quality of intelligibility? Did it aways exist?
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 "Regarding the 66 books of the bible I'm very serious"
Any credibility you might have had just got flushed down the toilet with this one.
Another religitard exposed as a lying weasel...NEXT!
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54
"Any credibility you might have had just got flushed down the toilet with this one."
Not taking your own advice again, see below.
"when making fact claims remember to support them with evidence."
"Another religitard exposed as a lying weasel...NEXT!"
And again see below.
"when making fact claims remember to support them with evidence."
CRM0001 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54
You really tore apart TAG even though you never addressed it or showed an understanding of it. Great job!!! :)
CRM0001 1 year ago
@CRM0001 Haven't had to deconstruct TAG here - I've been able to destroy every "argument" and every false claim of evidence from you.
Did you have anything else?
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gooberlicious54 You said: "I've been able to destroy every "argument" and every false claim of evidence from you." Maybe in your own mind. Maybe you should go back and read the discussion again point by point. You can't even live by your own standard! That is you are inconsistent. You can't even recognise when you commit the fallacy of a nonsequiter.