Re: My Reply To The Atheist Video Clip

Reply to Greg Solomon

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• god
• christianity
• atheism
• christian
• atheist
• isaacasimov
• thomasedison
• noamchomsky
• carlsagan
• blog
• vlog

[gklr]

theevilpimp and prince of autumn,

I did not see this debate until today. I have as yet not read it all, but I will for sure make a video on it as I can see by skimming it that logical fallacies are raised. I will review this debate and make a video and thank you both!

Greg

[munky99999]

Well I give more credit to the actual experts who do the NUMEROUS translations to placing that word as FOOL. Not some christ puncher who is clearly biased with an agenda. I also double checked with hebrew-english dictionary and the crap he was spewing is absolutely wrong.

[gklr]

So do I and I am glad to see that many atheists looked it up. What I took "on faith" didn't pan out: a lesson.

[StormCommander]

ok... I had a comment that was too big for one post, so I split it into two. I don't know where the first part went... maybe it'll show up... but oh well, just don't blame me if something I said didn't make sense.

[gklr]

I've nearly given up on these messages and stopped using it.

[StormCommander]

(...continued) To be a Christian, should the person beleive in the other Chritian beleifs? I think yes. For example, one would ask God to forgive them if they had sinned. However these... "un-true Christians" would not care about this. Infact, they probably don't care what religion they have, as long as they fit in with the people they know. I don't beleive it is right for someone to claim they are a certain religion without that person even knowing what it means to have those beliefs.

[gklr]

In a reply, the limitation is the first comments I am replying to. Defining what a christian is, could be turned back on my claim there is no "true christian" as it would seem that is what I was defining. There needs to be some clarification in my opinion. It requires a cleanup to say the least.

[ulipika]

very well done.

thank you.

i've just subscribed to your channel and i look forward to hearing more of your ideas.

[flyinhigh17]

That's a good fair video, you don't demean anyone in your video, you just refute in the areas of concern with civilty. A far cry from many of your peers. Btw, Ockham's Razor is spelled with a K

[fodsaks]

You're a very intelligent and eloquent guy.

Thanks for this.

[thaevilpimp]

And I already pointed that out, but God is not a hypothesis. Stop trying to make it look scientific. God is not properly defined and not in the least consistent in any model. Religion is a DOGMA (some call it fairy tale), and that is the beginning and end of all the problems. It cannot be verified or refuted, because it simply isn't open for discussion. It is FAITH based! And I mean that in the worst way

[thaevilpimp]

hahaha, you are not only confused by posting this shit in the wrong thread, you are also totally ocnfused about what I said. Your retarded a->b, b->c, a->c would be a correct syllogism. I was pointing out to you the fallacy of false authority that you committed in the other thread. Again, foiled distortion of yours! I am not going to respond to any posts, if you fail to even post them in the correct thread

[thaevilpimp]

And before I get flooded with another barrage of your ignorant responses. I am not interested in the historical accuracy of the bible. If something was accurate, then it would be accurate, whether it was written in the bible or not. So the discussion ends right here. If you can prove any accuracy in the bible, it still doesn't make the bible a part of the proof or else it is a CIRCLE PROOF

[thaevilpimp]

Funny thing about comments sections in videos is, you can scroll up and see what I said. I said RELYING ON THE BIBLE AS PROOF FOR ANYTHING is ridiculous. I said TWICE before. So for you to say, you took it to mean what it said and then to falsely claim, I said anything about ONLY the historical accuracy of the bible, once again makes you look like an idiot. Guess you can't help it

[thaevilpimp]

Ok dipshit, Let ME break down something for YOU. I am not interested in God. The God of your bible is totally random, fabricated bullshit, not properly defined, and used to argue any manipulative brainfart of yours. I don't give a shit about this God, and I am not worried about rotting in hell in the LEAST. Nice try, but it didn't work, fearmonger

[princeofautumn]

Oh, and it's not b->a therefore b explains c. No wonder your struggling with your logic; your leaving stuff out. The correct format is:

a->b B->c a->c