Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

'Atheists' say the darndest things!

IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:13:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

Dun did gra-gee-ate college did ya? you's so smart.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:20:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

I guess I just don't see how that is getting 'owned'.

When the question of asking what science couldn't explain, the argument shifts from the reason for God's creation (fear, anxiety, explanation) to religions own presuppositions, and that which doesn't need a God to exist in the first place.

Or is absurd at face value. The opposition argument was 'brain in a jar' and 'very very very very young earth with appearance of age'. Is that really what devotees of religion really want to hang their hat on?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:21:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:13:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

Dun did gra-gee-ate college did ya? you's so smart.

You've demonstrated here that you don't even understand how a court works. You can eff off if you think you're more intelligent than me.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:22:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:20:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.


I guess I just don't see how that is getting 'owned'.

When the question of asking what science couldn't explain, the argument shifts from the reason for God's creation (fear, anxiety, explanation) to religions own presuppositions, and that which doesn't need a God to exist in the first place.

Or is absurd at face value. The opposition argument was 'brain in a jar' and 'very very very very young earth with appearance of age'. Is that really what devotees of religion really want to hang their hat on?

What brilliant strawman yo create. Pope Richard Dawkins I has educated you well.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:25:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:21:42 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:13:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

Dun did gra-gee-ate college did ya? you's so smart.

You've demonstrated here that you don't even understand how a court works. You can eff off if you think you're more intelligent than me.

is you talkn' bout one of dems tennis courts? I'll leaves that up to yous and does udder grad-gee-ates cuz us uneducated folks don't know about tennis and such.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:26:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:22:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:20:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.


I guess I just don't see how that is getting 'owned'.

When the question of asking what science couldn't explain, the argument shifts from the reason for God's creation (fear, anxiety, explanation) to religions own presuppositions, and that which doesn't need a God to exist in the first place.

Or is absurd at face value. The opposition argument was 'brain in a jar' and 'very very very very young earth with appearance of age'. Is that really what devotees of religion really want to hang their hat on?

What brilliant strawman yo create. Pope Richard Dawkins I has educated you well.

Is not a straw man, that was LITERALLY THE EXAMPLES POSED. What if the Earth was created five minutes ago with the illusion of age. o.o -.- o.o

How to justify one's senses/existence to other people. (brain in a jar).

Using science to prove itself is circular while disregarding its success, there fore (some how) God.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:29:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

I don't understand the concept therefore it's wrong! Rabelrabelrabel!
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:29:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:25:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:21:42 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:13:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

Dun did gra-gee-ate college did ya? you's so smart.

You've demonstrated here that you don't even understand how a court works. You can eff off if you think you're more intelligent than me.

is you talkn' bout one of dems tennis courts? I'll leaves that up to yous and does udder grad-gee-ates cuz us uneducated folks don't know about tennis and such.

I don't think you understand anything of what I've said in this topic. Unsurprising, given the relationship between asocial personality disorders and atheism, that you wouldn't comprehend colloquialisms.

You best take your Ritalin and go to bed now before you wake mommy up. LOL.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:32:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:26:38 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:22:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:20:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.


I guess I just don't see how that is getting 'owned'.

When the question of asking what science couldn't explain, the argument shifts from the reason for God's creation (fear, anxiety, explanation) to religions own presuppositions, and that which doesn't need a God to exist in the first place.

Or is absurd at face value. The opposition argument was 'brain in a jar' and 'very very very very young earth with appearance of age'. Is that really what devotees of religion really want to hang their hat on?

What brilliant strawman yo create. Pope Richard Dawkins I has educated you well.

Is not a straw man, that was LITERALLY THE EXAMPLES POSED. What if the Earth was created five minutes ago with the illusion of age. o.o -.- o.o

How to justify one's senses/existence to other people. (brain in a jar).

No, not really, that's a strawman of Craig's position.

Using science to prove itself is circular while disregarding its success, there fore (some how) God.

Another strawman, he never said "there fore (that word should actually be spelled therefore) God". He merely explained how scientism fails.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:36:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:29:45 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:25:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:21:42 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:13:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

Dun did gra-gee-ate college did ya? you's so smart.

You've demonstrated here that you don't even understand how a court works. You can eff off if you think you're more intelligent than me.

is you talkn' bout one of dems tennis courts? I'll leaves that up to yous and does udder grad-gee-ates cuz us uneducated folks don't know about tennis and such.

I don't think you understand anything of what I've said in this topic. Unsurprising, given the relationship between asocial personality disorders and atheism, that you wouldn't comprehend colloquialisms.

Source?
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:38:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:36:45 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:29:45 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:25:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:21:42 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:13:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

Dun did gra-gee-ate college did ya? you's so smart.

You've demonstrated here that you don't even understand how a court works. You can eff off if you think you're more intelligent than me.

is you talkn' bout one of dems tennis courts? I'll leaves that up to yous and does udder grad-gee-ates cuz us uneducated folks don't know about tennis and such.

I don't think you understand anything of what I've said in this topic. Unsurprising, given the relationship between asocial personality disorders and atheism, that you wouldn't comprehend colloquialisms.

Source?

http://www.psychologytoday.com....
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:42:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:32:31 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:26:38 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:22:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:20:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.


I guess I just don't see how that is getting 'owned'.

When the question of asking what science couldn't explain, the argument shifts from the reason for God's creation (fear, anxiety, explanation) to religions own presuppositions, and that which doesn't need a God to exist in the first place.

Or is absurd at face value. The opposition argument was 'brain in a jar' and 'very very very very young earth with appearance of age'. Is that really what devotees of religion really want to hang their hat on?

What brilliant strawman yo create. Pope Richard Dawkins I has educated you well.

Is not a straw man, that was LITERALLY THE EXAMPLES POSED. What if the Earth was created five minutes ago with the illusion of age. o.o -.- o.o

How to justify one's senses/existence to other people. (brain in a jar).

No, not really, that's a strawman of Craig's position.

Sure, champ.

Using science to prove itself is circular while disregarding its success, there fore (some how) God.

Another strawman, he never said "there fore (that word should actually be spelled therefore) God". He merely explained how scientism fails.

When applied to philosophical constructs, which at its core was incredibly disingenuous to the argument posed regarding the reason for God's existence. The question on the table was clearly pointed in a different direction, but got taken into things that science not only has no use in, no purpose for being in. Its not science's domain to tell you how bad smacking a baby is, but that REALLY (some how) disproves science is good for discerning things, and that God must (some how) be that arbiter.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:47:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think you understand anything of what I've said in this topic. Unsurprising, given the relationship between asocial personality disorders and atheism, that you wouldn't comprehend colloquialisms.

Source?

http://www.psychologytoday.com....

Interesting article.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:51:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:38:52 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:36:45 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:29:45 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:25:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:21:42 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:13:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

Dun did gra-gee-ate college did ya? you's so smart.

You've demonstrated here that you don't even understand how a court works. You can eff off if you think you're more intelligent than me.

is you talkn' bout one of dems tennis courts? I'll leaves that up to yous and does udder grad-gee-ates cuz us uneducated folks don't know about tennis and such.

I don't think you understand anything of what I've said in this topic. Unsurprising, given the relationship between asocial personality disorders and atheism, that you wouldn't comprehend colloquialisms.

Source?

http://www.psychologytoday.com....

Lol wow. Does Autism lead to atheism?? Just wow. So are you trying to say all atheists are autistic? ha ha. Did you read the article? Even an autistic atheist has a better understanding of reality than a theist. "When people see an event as divine intervention, or a result of intelligent design, they"re just letting their teleological bias run amok. They"re attributing purpose where there is none."
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:52:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How to justify one's senses/existence to other people. (brain in a jar).

No, not really, that's a strawman of Craig's position.

Sure, champ.

I've learned a few simple things from a some long, drawn out arguments with FaustianJustice, and one of them is this:

Whenever he says something like "sure, champ," he's conceding the argument while trying to appear as though he's not under the guise of supposed sarcasm. He really knows he's beaten, which is why he won't offer up anything else.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:56:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lol wow. Does Autism lead to atheism?? Just wow. So are you trying to say all atheists are autistic? ha ha. Did you read the article? Even an autistic atheist has a better understanding of reality than a theist. "When people see an event as divine intervention, or a result of intelligent design, they"re just letting their teleological bias run amok. They"re attributing purpose where there is none."

Yet the article clearly states the difference between items with a purpose and those without a purpose, even providing examples.

Seeing purpose where purpose does, in fact, exist is simply being rational.
Zylorarchy
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 3:58:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

Another arrogant prejudice theist, great...
"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 4:00:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:52:10 PM, zoinks wrote:
How to justify one's senses/existence to other people. (brain in a jar).

No, not really, that's a strawman of Craig's position.

Sure, champ.

I've learned a few simple things from a some long, drawn out arguments with FaustianJustice, and one of them is this:

Whenever he says something like "sure, champ," he's conceding the argument while trying to appear as though he's not under the guise of supposed sarcasm. He really knows he's beaten, which is why he won't offer up anything else.

The accusation was made, the source was quoted to demonstrate the accusation as baseless. If you would like to disagree that those were the examples used in the video as to why science 'fails', even though the scope was changed in the answer from the question, feel free.

The relation to quoting the examples that I made reference to as not being a straw man was 'nuh uh! It was because I say it was'.

There is no point in continuing a dialogue. The reason why you got so many 'Sure, Champ's, was because my patience for seeing the long winded version of 'Nuh Uh!" had reached its upper limit.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 4:02:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 3:56:40 PM, zoinks wrote:
Lol wow. Does Autism lead to atheism?? Just wow. So are you trying to say all atheists are autistic? ha ha. Did you read the article? Even an autistic atheist has a better understanding of reality than a theist. "When people see an event as divine intervention, or a result of intelligent design, they"re just letting their teleological bias run amok. They"re attributing purpose where there is none."

Yet the article clearly states the difference between items with a purpose and those without a purpose, even providing examples.

Seeing purpose where purpose does, in fact, exist is simply being rational.

So then what is the point of the article? Atheists are not nonbelievers because they are autistic. And seeing purpose where there is none is irrational. What's the point being made here?
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 6:31:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 4:00:47 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:52:10 PM, zoinks wrote:
How to justify one's senses/existence to other people. (brain in a jar).

No, not really, that's a strawman of Craig's position.

Sure, champ.

I've learned a few simple things from a some long, drawn out arguments with FaustianJustice, and one of them is this:

Whenever he says something like "sure, champ," he's conceding the argument while trying to appear as though he's not under the guise of supposed sarcasm. He really knows he's beaten, which is why he won't offer up anything else.


There is no point in continuing a dialogue. The reason why you got so many 'Sure, Champ's, was because my patience for seeing the long winded version of 'Nuh Uh!" had reached its upper limit.

I got so many "sure, champ" responses because it's your "go to" response when you don't have any kind of real argument left. You can't just walk away from the argument, and you certainly can't admit you lost it, so you resort to that.

You were frustrated because you met someone who wouldn't fall for your bag of tricks and refused to bow to your fallacies, so after multiple unsuccessful attempts, you finally gave up - just as you did here.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 6:37:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yet the article clearly states the difference between items with a purpose and those without a purpose, even providing examples.

Seeing purpose where purpose does, in fact, exist is simply being rational.

So then what is the point of the article? Atheists are not nonbelievers because they are autistic.

The article appears to be showing that individuals with high-functioning autism rarely see purpose in anything - even that which clearly has purpose to others.

If we extrapolate this idea out, it is possible that some atheists also fail to see purpose in places theists do indeed see purpose.

The question then becomes, who is "correct" in those situations.

If the atheists are correct, the theists are irrational for seeing purpose where there is none.

If the theists are correct, then the atheists simply lack the ability to see purpose, much the same way these high-functioning autistic individuals fail to see purpose.

And seeing purpose where there is none is irrational. What's the point being made here?

See directly above.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:22:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 6:31:52 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:00:47 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/15/2014 3:52:10 PM, zoinks wrote:
How to justify one's senses/existence to other people. (brain in a jar).

No, not really, that's a strawman of Craig's position.

Sure, champ.

I've learned a few simple things from a some long, drawn out arguments with FaustianJustice, and one of them is this:

Whenever he says something like "sure, champ," he's conceding the argument while trying to appear as though he's not under the guise of supposed sarcasm. He really knows he's beaten, which is why he won't offer up anything else.


There is no point in continuing a dialogue. The reason why you got so many 'Sure, Champ's, was because my patience for seeing the long winded version of 'Nuh Uh!" had reached its upper limit.

I got so many "sure, champ" responses because it's your "go to" response when you don't have any kind of real argument left. You can't just walk away from the argument, and you certainly can't admit you lost it, so you resort to that.

You were frustrated because you met someone who wouldn't fall for your bag of tricks and refused to bow to your fallacies, so after multiple unsuccessful attempts, you finally gave up - just as you did here.

Sure, Champ.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:26:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

I hope that the new president of Debate.Org will get rid of useless topics like these.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:55:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 8:26:13 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:48:43 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
I posted a short video where Anti-Cardinal Richard Dawkins embarrassed himself despite arguing against a mentally inferior Catholic Archbish (though he should count himself as mentally inferior since he is agnostic). So I've decided to post Peter Atkins (another atheist Cardinal) getting owned by a Christian! https://www.youtube.com....

It's always so amusing to me and many other college-graduates that atheists even pretend their world-view has the intellectual muscles to defend itself in intelligent discussions.

I hope that the new president of Debate.Org will get rid of useless topics like these.

The root cause in some cases is the people behind the posts. That would be difficult to fix. The new president will do what he can but don't be disappointed if he can't change the way people think.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:59:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why do theists consider Richard Dawkins a god?
Very strange, me thinks.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:05:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 8:59:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
Why do theists consider Richard Dawkins a god?
Very strange, me thinks.

Because they're theists and they believe in gods. Why not Dawkins too? ;)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:18:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 9:05:18 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:59:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
Why do theists consider Richard Dawkins a god?
Very strange, me thinks.

Because they're theists and they believe in gods. Why not Dawkins too? ;)

The first rule of debate if you want to lower people to your level. Call Dawkins a Cardinal, Pope, even a God, because these are derogatory terms. Accuse atheists of having a religion, having blind belief in science, and worshipping their scientific high priests. Because religiosity, faith and worship are ridiculous things. Oh, the irony. Oh, the projection.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:26:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 9:18:02 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/15/2014 9:05:18 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:59:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
Why do theists consider Richard Dawkins a god?
Very strange, me thinks.

Because they're theists and they believe in gods. Why not Dawkins too? ;)

The first rule of debate if you want to lower people to your level. Call Dawkins a Cardinal, Pope, even a God, because these are derogatory terms. Accuse atheists of having a religion, having blind belief in science, and worshipping their scientific high priests. Because religiosity, faith and worship are ridiculous things. Oh, the irony. Oh, the projection.

Of course.
You atheists have your own religion, you must be stupid to believe in a religion.

Ummmmmm yeah ok.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:30:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 9:26:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/15/2014 9:18:02 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/15/2014 9:05:18 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/15/2014 8:59:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
Why do theists consider Richard Dawkins a god?
Very strange, me thinks.

Because they're theists and they believe in gods. Why not Dawkins too? ;)

The first rule of debate if you want to lower people to your level. Call Dawkins a Cardinal, Pope, even a God, because these are derogatory terms. Accuse atheists of having a religion, having blind belief in science, and worshipping their scientific high priests. Because religiosity, faith and worship are ridiculous things. Oh, the irony. Oh, the projection.

Of course.
You atheists have your own religion, you must be stupid to believe in a religion.

Ummmmmm yeah ok.

Damn. As usual, you said it better and more succinctly.