William Lane 'Two Citations' Craig, Academic Midget
Top Comments
Video Responses
All Comments (2,481)
-
I find it sad that the porn industry has been more useful to humanity than the entirety of theology. Face it guys, all you're really doing is making up word games to prove the existence of a being that you have already made unprovable. Find an actual job or something.
-
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 [if you were a liar it's not like you're going to come out and admit it]
If you say you tell the truth and I'm willfully ignorant, I can say you're deluding yourself because you have shit for brains and I'm the one seeking rational justification for believing certain things. Tit for tat.
[I insult you because you repeatedly show yourself to deserve it]
What a shame that I don't deserve it then. You're wasting energy on that childish crap.
-
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 [Being willfully ignorant isn't an excuse]
How lucky I am then that I don't apply willful ignorance, but instead rely on evidence and evidence only. When someone makes a declarative statement I'm not going to believe that statement until it is backed up with evidence. Unfortunaley you don't seem to share that attitude with me Ripper. You prefer to keep make statements and insult me because I don't agree with you on face value.
-
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 Given that about 70% of your commentary consists of insults and 30% are declarative statements lacking motivation, you strongly give the impression that you think your insults makes you right about everything you say.
It's called circular reasoning. Because you call me dumb, it means I'm dumb, because you called me dumb. Actually that makes YOU dumb. Even the dumbest baby could see through this unbelievably braindead bullshit.
-
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 Funny how you remove my comments but let your own remain. Nobody is going to understand who you were talking to. Anyway Is saved what I wrote.
Every insult is your every comment and not one single comment of yours can survive without an insult in it.
[I'm not going to take you seriously ]
From the get go you have never took me seriously, but I on the other hand have a good reason to not take YOU seriously; because of your insults you rely upon.
-
(con) like things about me or Craig or logic or theology or science. That's why I complain about being insulted. Because it's useless. But you seem to have finally learned something, even if it goes very slow.
Sigh, the comment limit exceeder is a bitch and I'd prefer PM but I suppose you wouldn't be interested in that either, so here it is a freaking ocean of comments - from the both of us actually. I'll also address your channel comments while at it. It's fun.
-
(con) whether you think I've been hurt by your insults or not. In fact JackassRipper, I think you are desperately trying to tell yourself I'm mad because of your insults. If you didn't tell yourself that (ignoring the evidence in the comment section here) your self-confidence would be at risk. And obviously your self-confidence and "feel good about yourself" strategy is WAY more important to you than to actually believe things that are true (con)
-
(con) gets very DRAINED very quick because you make up these attributes as you go along instead of comparing evidence to my way of handling it. You insist on keep telling me that you know the truth and I'm willfully ignorant, but if anybody looks at the discussion going on that's hardly how it really is. And giving me these psych outs again and again is not going to fucking save you. When you're done insulting me I'll just get back to the topic whether you like it or not (con)
-
(con) Anyway there is no "denial" or "willful ignorance" from my part because our discussion about Craigs argumentation have BARELY even BEGAN, because of you and your childish fucking obtuse ways of writing comments slows the progress down. If you keep make 10 replies for each round, where 9 replies are ad hominems calling me ignorant and 1 reply address the actual content of Craig and his argument, your reasons for actually believing me to be ignorant (con)
-
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 [his logic is rife with glaring errors.]
Ok buddy that's another declarative statement as usual, now back it up by showing WHAT logic is rife with WHAT errors and I'll defend it. If you're not gonna do that you can stop replying to me.
[reduce denial and willful ignorance, improve maturity and education]
Weren't you the guy who complained that I regurgitated everything you said? Well here you are, imitating my way of talking. (con)
Says that when dawkins talks about philosophy he is only a laymen. Well then your a laymen to scientific questions. When was the last time I saw your physics degree WLC? Be consistent at the very least.
Valk0010iv 2 days ago 4
@MoonwalkerWorshiper "these sandbox kindergarten insults aren't arguments"
Which is precisely why I don't claim your personal stupidity and ignorance have anything to do with Craig's arguments being fallacious. You still don't seem to have figured out the difference between an ad hominem argument and a regular insult. I call Craig what I do for the same reason I call a crow a bird: they both fit the description.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 2 days ago