Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

scmike2's Intellectually Honest Readers...

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 4:14:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

" A worldview is a theory of the world, used for living in the world. A world view is a mental model of reality " a framework of ideas & attitudes about the world, ourselves, and life, a comprehensive system of beliefs " with answers for a wide range of questions

A person's worldview is affected by many factors " by their inherited characteristics, background experiences and life situations, the values, attitudes, and habits they have developed, and more " and these vary from one person to another. Therefore, even though some parts of a worldview are shared by many people in a community, other parts differ for individuals. "


scmike2 has no worldview based on this definition.

http://asa3.org...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!

Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 4:56:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 4:56:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:56:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:53:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:56:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

Why SHOULD anyone actually worship God, even if He exists?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:56:39 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 11:53:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:56:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

Why SHOULD anyone actually worship God, even if He exists?

Because he was flayed to a point where he was un-recognizable, had to drag a really freakin' heavy wood t later to be nailed to it so he would die of exaustion.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 12:00:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 11:56:39 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:53:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:56:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

Why SHOULD anyone actually worship God, even if He exists?

Because he was flayed to a point where he was un-recognizable, had to drag a really freakin' heavy wood t later to be nailed to it so he would die of exaustion.

So because some one had a horrible awful rotten really bad no good day, I should worship some other entity? That makes no sense.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 12:10:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 12:00:52 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:56:39 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:53:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:56:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

Why SHOULD anyone actually worship God, even if He exists?

Because he was flayed to a point where he was un-recognizable, had to drag a really freakin' heavy wood t later to be nailed to it so he would die of exaustion.

So because some one had a horrible awful rotten really bad no good day, I should worship some other entity? That makes no sense.

That was to prove his love.

And it was volentary.

You freakin' owe him and all you have to do to live forever in heaven is call him the lord of your life and go to church.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 12:13:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

Why SHOULD anyone actually worship God, even if He exists?

Because he was flayed to a point where he was un-recognizable, had to drag a really freakin' heavy wood t later to be nailed to it so he would die of exaustion.

So because some one had a horrible awful rotten really bad no good day, I should worship some other entity? That makes no sense.

That was to prove his love. And it was volentary.

You freakin' owe him and all you have to do to live forever in heaven is call him the lord of your life and go to church.

I "owe" Him. That is why I "should" do such. I owe this character something, even though whatever is cannot be seen touched or felt, traded as a commodity, and yet He "died" for it, that being an immortal entity with unfathomable power "died".

For three days. But then got better.

I owe him for what, then exactly? 3 days?

You still aren't answering "should". Why -should- I owe Him for that? (if you find this line of question absurd, take a stroll back through this post and see whom uses it for argumentation.)
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 12:22:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 12:13:19 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

Why SHOULD anyone actually worship God, even if He exists?

Because he was flayed to a point where he was un-recognizable, had to drag a really freakin' heavy wood t later to be nailed to it so he would die of exaustion.

So because some one had a horrible awful rotten really bad no good day, I should worship some other entity? That makes no sense.

That was to prove his love. And it was volentary.

You freakin' owe him and all you have to do to live forever in heaven is call him the lord of your life and go to church.

I "owe" Him. That is why I "should" do such. I owe this character something, even though whatever is cannot be seen touched or felt, traded as a commodity, and yet He "died" for it, that being an immortal entity with unfathomable power "died".

For three days. But then got better.

I owe him for what, then exactly? 3 days?

You still aren't answering "should". Why -should- I owe Him for that? (if you find this line of question absurd, take a stroll back through this post and see whom uses it for argumentation.)

Assuming for one moment that Jesus existed, and he was god, he healed the sick and raised the dead, why would he have to feel the pain of torture and execution?
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 12:23:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 12:13:19 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

Why SHOULD anyone actually worship God, even if He exists?

Because he was flayed to a point where he was un-recognizable, had to drag a really freakin' heavy wood t later to be nailed to it so he would die of exaustion.

So because some one had a horrible awful rotten really bad no good day, I should worship some other entity? That makes no sense.

That was to prove his love. And it was volentary.

You freakin' owe him and all you have to do to live forever in heaven is call him the lord of your life and go to church.

I "owe" Him. That is why I "should" do such. I owe this character something, even though whatever is cannot be seen touched or felt, traded as a commodity, and yet He "died" for it, that being an immortal entity with unfathomable power "died".

For three days. But then got better.

I owe him for what, then exactly? 3 days?

You still aren't answering "should". Why -should- I owe Him for that? (if you find this line of question absurd, take a stroll back through this post and see whom uses it for argumentation.)

Dank memes...

Good one.

This is why the old testament didn't work.

But you would get heaven as a reward.

And will either cease to exist or go to hell if you don't.

(assuming he exists)

But is it really so bad to be a christian?

But still good point....

But because he wants you to?

That seems legit.

Or that like a parent he wants the best for you.

But this parent is perfectly righteous.

And what this entity would want for
you is the absolute best thing for you.

But you still have free will.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 3:18:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:56:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

To affirm the only basis for believing in and utilizing objective moral standards like that.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 3:52:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 3:18:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:56:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

To affirm the only basis for believing in and utilizing objective moral standards like that.

But why SHOULD anyone affirm such?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 5:58:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 3:52:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:18:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:56:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

To affirm the only basis for believing in and utilizing objective moral standards like that.

But why SHOULD anyone affirm such?

Because of what happens when one denies the truth of abstract, universal, invariant standards. For instance:

I previously said: As such, EVERYTHING that you claim to know could turn out to be completely false (such that the very opposite of those claims could even be true), absent an avenue for reasonable absolute certainty in your worldview.

You conceded: It could, sure. (# 427)

I then asked: Laws of logic are true in your worldview aren't they? (Yes? No? Maybe?)

You replied: "There ya go, yes"

Here: http://www.debate.org......

And here: http://www.debate.org......

Given that, I see no reason why we shouldn't leave this exchange here for those intellectually honest readers who may happen across it to see. Any reason you can think of why we shouldn't do so?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 6:03:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 5:58:07 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:52:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:18:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:56:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:36:58 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:57:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:08:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 loves to brag about how you all read his posts and see just how all of his challengers are blatantly demonstrating the inconsistency and absurdity of their worldviews... Please stand up and show us all that you are not imaginary.

*Sits back and waits for this thread to fade into loneliness for all eternity...*

Wow, Double_R, I'm flattered by all the attention here! I mean, to begin with that's two separate posts you've put up about me in the same day---definitely a first for me here!!

Then there's the fact that it's all because you didn't want to deal with my challenges to your position here:

http://www.debate.org...

After all, what else should intellectual honesty force one to make of such elaborate evasion other than it being the sure sign of a very weak, logically deficient position? Priceless!


Probably to clear it off another OP, and thank you for (finally) getting the hint on that.

Why should anyone believe that conclusion about D.R.'s elaborate evasion instead of the one I proposed above?

Because you claim ultimate authority, asked a series of why should questions, then acquiesced to the requests made of you.

By what rational authority SHOULD one arbitrarily engage in elaborate evasion of ultimate authority claims and 'why should' questions about their position, or shouldn't they?

And thank you that. Not some weird concession or what not about your position, but acting like a decent forum-ite and going where its appropriate.

'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

To affirm the only basis for believing in and utilizing objective moral standards like that.

But why SHOULD anyone affirm such?

Because of what happens when one denies the truth of abstract, universal, invariant standards. For instance:


I previously said: As such, EVERYTHING that you claim to know could turn out to be completely false (such that the very opposite of those claims could even be true), absent an avenue for reasonable absolute certainty in your worldview.

You conceded: It could, sure. (# 427)

I then asked: Laws of logic are true in your worldview aren't they? (Yes? No? Maybe?)

You replied: "There ya go, yes"



Here: http://www.debate.org......

And here: http://www.debate.org......

Given that, I see no reason why we shouldn't leave this exchange here for those intellectually honest readers who may happen across it to see. Any reason you can think of why we shouldn't do so?

But why SHOULD people act in a consistent or rational manner?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 1:41:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 5:58:07 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:52:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:18:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

To affirm the only basis for believing in and utilizing objective moral standards like that.

But why SHOULD anyone affirm such?

Because of what happens when one denies the truth of abstract, universal, invariant standards. For instance:


I previously said: As such, EVERYTHING that you claim to know could turn out to be completely false (such that the very opposite of those claims could even be true), absent an avenue for reasonable absolute certainty in your worldview.

You conceded: It could, sure. (# 427)

I then asked: Laws of logic are true in your worldview aren't they? (Yes? No? Maybe?)

You replied: "There ya go, yes"

Ok, so he replied "yes"... So what? Why SHOULD anyone care that this is what happens?
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:23:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 1:41:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:58:07 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:52:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:18:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

To affirm the only basis for believing in and utilizing objective moral standards like that.

But why SHOULD anyone affirm such?

Because of what happens when one denies the truth of abstract, universal, invariant standards. For instance:


I previously said: As such, EVERYTHING that you claim to know could turn out to be completely false (such that the very opposite of those claims could even be true), absent an avenue for reasonable absolute certainty in your worldview.

You conceded: It could, sure. (# 427)

I then asked: Laws of logic are true in your worldview aren't they? (Yes? No? Maybe?)

You replied: "There ya go, yes"

Ok, so he replied "yes"... So what? Why SHOULD anyone care that this is what happens?

That's the question I SHOULD be asking you given what has transpired above and this other thread here:

http://www.debate.org...

So, why SHOULD anyone care that atheists have no rational objective basis for any logical or moral pronouncements (or SHOULDN'T they)? No need to answer at this point, though, since the impossibility of atheism as a logically tenable position has been (once again) soundly confirmed.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:04:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:23:42 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 1:41:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:58:07 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:52:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:18:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

To affirm the only basis for believing in and utilizing objective moral standards like that.

But why SHOULD anyone affirm such?

Because of what happens when one denies the truth of abstract, universal, invariant standards. For instance:


I previously said: As such, EVERYTHING that you claim to know could turn out to be completely false (such that the very opposite of those claims could even be true), absent an avenue for reasonable absolute certainty in your worldview.

You conceded: It could, sure. (# 427)

I then asked: Laws of logic are true in your worldview aren't they? (Yes? No? Maybe?)

You replied: "There ya go, yes"

Ok, so he replied "yes"... So what? Why SHOULD anyone care that this is what happens?

That's the question I SHOULD be asking you given what has transpired above and this other thread here:

http://www.debate.org...

So, why SHOULD anyone care that atheists have no rational objective basis for any logical or moral pronouncements (or SHOULDN'T they)? No need to answer at this point, though, since the impossibility of atheism as a logically tenable position has been (once again) soundly confirmed.

I asked you why anyone SHOULD care that the scenario you laid out is what happens. You did not answer it, instead you just posed more questions.

It's clear that you cannot answer it, which is obvious given the frequent demonstrations you've provided for how incoherent your worldview is and especially considering the impossibility of the existence of a God. I guess we'll just leave this here for all the intellectually honest readers to see (you know, the ones that never seem to want to chime in. Oh well). Take care!
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:26:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:04:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/21/2016 4:23:42 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 1:41:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:58:07 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:52:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:18:14 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:52:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:09:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
'Decent' and 'appropriate' according to whom? Why SHOULD their standard necessarily apply to me, or shouldn't it?

Why SHOULD anyone answer your questions?

To affirm the only basis for believing in and utilizing objective moral standards like that.

But why SHOULD anyone affirm such?

Because of what happens when one denies the truth of abstract, universal, invariant standards. For instance:


I previously said: As such, EVERYTHING that you claim to know could turn out to be completely false (such that the very opposite of those claims could even be true), absent an avenue for reasonable absolute certainty in your worldview.

You conceded: It could, sure. (# 427)

I then asked: Laws of logic are true in your worldview aren't they? (Yes? No? Maybe?)

You replied: "There ya go, yes"

Ok, so he replied "yes"... So what? Why SHOULD anyone care that this is what happens?

That's the question I SHOULD be asking you given what has transpired above and this other thread here:

http://www.debate.org...

So, why SHOULD anyone care that atheists have no rational objective basis for any logical or moral pronouncements (or SHOULDN'T they)? No need to answer at this point, though, since the impossibility of atheism as a logically tenable position has been (once again) soundly confirmed.

I asked you why anyone SHOULD care that the scenario you laid out is what happens. You did not answer it, instead you just posed more questions.

Again, why SHOULD anyone care how one responds to someone else who obviously assumes the truth of objective moral and logical standards while arguing against the very basis of objective moral and logical standards? After all, what makes any response more valid (better) than another in a worldview with no rational basis for the existence of logical or moral imperatives---your arbitrary say so?

It's clear that you cannot answer it, which is obvious given the frequent demonstrations you've provided for how incoherent your worldview is and especially considering the impossibility of the existence of a God.

Why SHOULD anyone accept THAT as true, though, especially when (1) I have presented the God of the Bible as my foundation for the existence of objective, universal truths (both here and elsewhere) and you have already made these concessions regarding that proposition:

"Your proposition is logically possible". #181

"I have stated that his proposition that a God could reveal something to us such that we could be certain is logically possible, and it would be silly to claim otherwise." #419

Here: http://www.debate.org...

(2) you have no basis of your own for objective, universal truths in your worldview, apart from the God of the Bible.

I guess we'll just leave this here for all the intellectually honest readers to see (you know, the ones that never seem to want to chime in. Oh well).

Perhaps if you had given a meaningful reason why they SHOULD chime in? As of right now, I see no need for them to do so, especially given the spectacular job you and faustian have done defeating atheism and promoting the truth of Christianity here all by yourselves. Indeed, I am very pleased to leave this here for all to see.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:40:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:26:08 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:04:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I asked you why anyone SHOULD care that the scenario you laid out is what happens. You did not answer it, instead you just posed more questions.

Again, why SHOULD anyone care how one responds to someone else who obviously assumes the truth of objective moral and logical standards while arguing against the very basis of objective moral and logical standards? After all, what makes any response more valid (better) than another in a worldview with no rational basis for the existence of logical or moral imperatives---your arbitrary say so?

Still don't have an answer to my question I see. Noted.

It's clear that you cannot answer it, which is obvious given the frequent demonstrations you've provided for how incoherent your worldview is and especially considering the impossibility of the existence of a God.

Why SHOULD anyone accept THAT as true, though,

More questions. gee, what a shock...

especially when (1) I have presented the God of the Bible as my foundation for the existence of objective, universal truths

Is that true? How do you know?

(both here and elsewhere) and you have already made these concessions regarding that proposition:

"Your proposition is logically possible". #181

lol you still do not know what the term "logically possible" means I see. Try reading sometime and just maybe you'll get a sense of just how embarrassed you should be by constantly quoting this.

(2) you have no basis of your own for objective, universal truths in your worldview, apart from the God of the Bible.

You mean apart from your own personal interpretation of God of the bible that you gained by reading a book with your own eyes and using your own reasoning skills to figure out what the words meant?

I guess we'll just leave this here for all the intellectually honest readers to see (you know, the ones that never seem to want to chime in. Oh well).

Perhaps if you had given a meaningful reason why they SHOULD chime in? As of right now, I see no need for them to do so,

lol keep making excuses for why no one on this site takes you seriously.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 11:48:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:40:20 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:26:08 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:04:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I asked you why anyone SHOULD care that the scenario you laid out is what happens. You did not answer it, instead you just posed more questions.

Again, why SHOULD anyone care how one responds to someone else who obviously assumes the truth of objective moral and logical standards while arguing against the very basis of objective moral and logical standards? After all, what makes any response more valid (better) than another in a worldview with no rational basis for the existence of logical or moral imperatives---your arbitrary say so?

Still don't have an answer to my question I see. Noted.

It's clear that you cannot answer it, which is obvious given the frequent demonstrations you've provided for how incoherent your worldview is and especially considering the impossibility of the existence of a God.

Why SHOULD anyone accept THAT as true, though,

More questions. gee, what a shock...

especially when (1) I have presented the God of the Bible as my foundation for the existence of objective, universal truths

Is that true? How do you know?

(both here and elsewhere) and you have already made these concessions regarding that proposition:

"Your proposition is logically possible". #181

lol you still do not know what the term "logically possible" means I see. Try reading sometime and just maybe you'll get a sense of just how embarrassed you should be by constantly quoting this.

Actually, the cause for embarrassment here belongs solely to those who continue to appeal to objective, universal standards while attempting to undermine/deny them at the same time and who also continue to assert the impossibility of the existence of God as the basis for such standards AFTER conceding the possibility of the existence of God as the basis for such standards. I'm sure that intellectually honest readers will agree.

lol keep making excuses for why no one on this site takes you seriously.

How ironic, considering the serious attention you and faustian have been paying to me as of late (I mean, two threads put up by you devoted entirely to me on the very same day even). Not to mention the fact that even Ruv sees the world of hurt that YOUR position is in. Here: http://www.debate.org...

Boy, he really called that 'three kinds of holes' thing, too. Pricelessness! : D
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 12:00:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 11:48:25 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:40:20 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:26:08 PM, scmike2 wrote:
especially when (1) I have presented the God of the Bible as my foundation for the existence of objective, universal truths

Is that true? How do you know?

(both here and elsewhere) and you have already made these concessions regarding that proposition:

"Your proposition is logically possible". #181

lol you still do not know what the term "logically possible" means I see. Try reading sometime and just maybe you'll get a sense of just how embarrassed you should be by constantly quoting this.

Actually, the cause for embarrassment here belongs solely to those who continue to appeal to objective, universal standards while attempting to undermine/deny them at the same time and who also continue to assert the impossibility of the existence of God as the basis for such standards AFTER conceding the possibility of the existence of God as the basis for such standards.

No, the cause for embarrassment is what I just said, not what you just made up. Would you care to explain to all of your intellectually honest readers what the term "logically possible" means now, or just keep declaring that I have conceded something meaningful about your argument because you say so even though you have no idea why and have demonstrated that time and time again?

I'm sure that intellectually honest readers will agree.

You mean the ones who have yet to chime in on our discussions... ever? lol

lol keep making excuses for why no one on this site takes you seriously.

How ironic, considering the serious attention you and faustian have been paying to me as of late (I mean, two threads put up by you devoted entirely to me on the very same day even).

lol is right. Creating a thread is something members do when they take one seriously, or something members do precisely because they don't take someone seriously. Can you guess which one applies here?

Not to mention the fact that even Ruv sees the world of hurt that YOUR position is in. Here: http://www.debate.org...

Did you even read that discussion? We hold the exact same position with regards to morality in the context that you are talking about.

Why do I even ask, I forgot, you don't read. Just like how you don't answer anything, you just ask questions over and over and over again like my 5 year old nephew. Perhaps one day you'll grow out of that.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 12:23:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 11:48:25 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:40:20 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:26:08 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:04:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I asked you why anyone SHOULD care that the scenario you laid out is what happens. You did not answer it, instead you just posed more questions.

Again, why SHOULD anyone care how one responds to someone else who obviously assumes the truth of objective moral and logical standards while arguing against the very basis of objective moral and logical standards? After all, what makes any response more valid (better) than another in a worldview with no rational basis for the existence of logical or moral imperatives---your arbitrary say so?

Still don't have an answer to my question I see. Noted.

It's clear that you cannot answer it, which is obvious given the frequent demonstrations you've provided for how incoherent your worldview is and especially considering the impossibility of the existence of a God.

Why SHOULD anyone accept THAT as true, though,

More questions. gee, what a shock...

especially when (1) I have presented the God of the Bible as my foundation for the existence of objective, universal truths

Is that true? How do you know?

(both here and elsewhere) and you have already made these concessions regarding that proposition:

"Your proposition is logically possible". #181

lol you still do not know what the term "logically possible" means I see. Try reading sometime and just maybe you'll get a sense of just how embarrassed you should be by constantly quoting this.

Actually, the cause for embarrassment here belongs solely to those who continue to appeal to objective, universal standards while attempting to undermine/deny them at the same time and who also continue to assert the impossibility of the existence of God as the basis for such standards AFTER conceding the possibility of the existence of God as the basis for such standards. I'm sure that intellectually honest readers will agree.

lol keep making excuses for why no one on this site takes you seriously.

How ironic, considering the serious attention you and faustian have been paying to me as of late (I mean, two threads put up by you devoted entirely to me on the very same day even). Not to mention the fact that even Ruv sees the world of hurt that YOUR position is in. Here: http://www.debate.org...

Boy, he really called that 'three kinds of holes' thing, too. Pricelessness! : D

Here scmike, if you want to have a possible dialog here is a thread you seem to have missed...

http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 3:19:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 12:00:03 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:48:25 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:40:20 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:26:08 PM, scmike2 wrote:
especially when (1) I have presented the God of the Bible as my foundation for the existence of objective, universal truths

Is that true? How do you know?

(both here and elsewhere) and you have already made these concessions regarding that proposition:

"Your proposition is logically possible". #181

lol you still do not know what the term "logically possible" means I see. Try reading sometime and just maybe you'll get a sense of just how embarrassed you should be by constantly quoting this.

Actually, the cause for embarrassment here belongs solely to those who continue to appeal to objective, universal standards while attempting to undermine/deny them at the same time and who also continue to assert the impossibility of the existence of God as the basis for such standards AFTER conceding the possibility of the existence of God as the basis for such standards.

No, the cause for embarrassment is what I just said,

BINGO!! And what you just said ultimately amounts to you appealing to objective, universal standards while at the same time rejecting the existence of objective, universal standards AND that you believe something can be possibly true (a logical possibility) and also not possibly true (impossible) at the same time and in the same way. Doesn't get any more embarrassing than that, I'm afraid. Shameful, really.

I'm sure that intellectually honest readers will agree.

You mean the ones who have yet to chime in on our discussions... ever? lol

Sure, unless you'd like to argue that 'chiming in' is somehow a prequisite for being a 'reader'. Try to keep up.

lol keep making excuses for why no one on this site takes you seriously.

How ironic, considering the serious attention you and faustian have been paying to me as of late (I mean, two threads put up by you devoted entirely to me on the very same day even).

lol is right. Creating a thread is something members do when they take one seriously, or something members do precisely because they don't take someone seriously. Can you guess which one applies here?

Don't need to guess, the serious attention speaks for itself. It's a little creepy, actually now that I think about it.

Not to mention the fact that even Ruv sees the world of hurt that YOUR position is in. Here: http://www.debate.org...

Did you even read that discussion? We hold the exact same position with regards to morality in the context that you are talking about.

Yep, I did. So, you also argue against your own position with others besides me? Good to know. Color me surprised. ; )

Why do I even ask, I forgot, you don't read. Just like how you don't answer anything, you just ask questions over and over and over again like my 5 year old nephew. Perhaps one day you'll grow out of that.

Well, if your inconsistency is as consistent and prevelant in your conversations with him as it is here, then can't say I blame him. In fact, I hope he never grows out of questioning that kind of reasoning, even if Uncle_R tries really hard to get him to do so. Good for him!
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 3:59:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 12:23:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:48:25 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:40:20 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:26:08 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:04:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
I asked you why anyone SHOULD care that the scenario you laid out is what happens. You did not answer it, instead you just posed more questions.

Again, why SHOULD anyone care how one responds to someone else who obviously assumes the truth of objective moral and logical standards while arguing against the very basis of objective moral and logical standards? After all, what makes any response more valid (better) than another in a worldview with no rational basis for the existence of logical or moral imperatives---your arbitrary say so?

Still don't have an answer to my question I see. Noted.

It's clear that you cannot answer it, which is obvious given the frequent demonstrations you've provided for how incoherent your worldview is and especially considering the impossibility of the existence of a God.

Why SHOULD anyone accept THAT as true, though,

More questions. gee, what a shock...

especially when (1) I have presented the God of the Bible as my foundation for the existence of objective, universal truths

Is that true? How do you know?

(both here and elsewhere) and you have already made these concessions regarding that proposition:

"Your proposition is logically possible". #181

lol you still do not know what the term "logically possible" means I see. Try reading sometime and just maybe you'll get a sense of just how embarrassed you should be by constantly quoting this.

Actually, the cause for embarrassment here belongs solely to those who continue to appeal to objective, universal standards while attempting to undermine/deny them at the same time and who also continue to assert the impossibility of the existence of God as the basis for such standards AFTER conceding the possibility of the existence of God as the basis for such standards. I'm sure that intellectually honest readers will agree.

lol keep making excuses for why no one on this site takes you seriously.

How ironic, considering the serious attention you and faustian have been paying to me as of late (I mean, two threads put up by you devoted entirely to me on the very same day even). Not to mention the fact that even Ruv sees the world of hurt that YOUR position is in. Here: http://www.debate.org...

Boy, he really called that 'three kinds of holes' thing, too. Pricelessness! : D

Here scmike, if you want to have a possible dialog here is a thread you seem to have missed...

http://www.debate.org...

No, I saw it and meant to posit the same quotes from you at the very end of it as I have posited here (along with some other very revealing ones), but forgot. Was there some rational reason for bringing it up now, though?

The more I think about it, it might not be a bad thing for me to revisit those plans now that you've reminded me. People should see exactly what atheism ultimately amounts to, after all. Surely you'd have no problem with me letting folks know what you, faustian, and the gang really believe regarding logic, truth, morality, the reliability of your senses and reasoning, etc. in your own words, no? I mean, we're already off to a really good start here with faustian's claim that laws of logic might be false and your position of both affirming and denying the possibility of God's existence as the basis for objective, universal standards and all.