Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[ding]

So you can't be human here?

Give me a break.

I don't know what that question even means...

If someone gives me a reason to take care in how I comment to them...I usually oblige.
If someone is a twat to me, I'll usually stay in return fire mode until they become conciliatory.
If someone is ambiguous and I'm not sure about them, I sometimes react correctly and sometimes react incorrectly.

but in none of those cases...with very few exceptions because I HAVE made a few actual connections here...do I bother to expend emotions.


"parties and bullshit" is a song...but its title is really cutting-edge. This site is that title...and when it isn't, there might be some underlying issues and maybe I'm rash in moments when I can't be bothered to treat you like an actual human being - but mostly, all the benefits of all the doubts you've been given have led to more doubts...

& I am able to sit back and observe others' interactions with you turn out the same way...with you becoming a preachy kvnt and professing your love of trolling and such.

Sorry - you're just unlikable, at least through text. I offer other channels shall you care to change my mind...but my advice is..dont care.

You see things how you want to see them, GT.

Do what you gotta do and I'll do the same.

I don't suffer fools ding, and from every angle and out that I've ever attempted to give you...you've proven a fool. You're too hung up on appearances and digging for a gotchya, declaring this or that as motivations...and that's why you're not able to see through the weeds. There's fundie traits within each person who's unable to say the words, "I don't know," and you demonstrate every single one of them.

Ding, you don't know...but don't let that feel like a diss. Nobody does.

I don't need your origin story, GT.

What are you trying to accomplish anyway?

You're not a party or a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...so don't be curious about it. I can reveal one thing: you could BECOME a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...but I'm pretty well-schooled in odds.

lol!

I meant in this conversation. What are you trying to accomplish in this conversation with me?

 

[G.T.]

I don't know what that question even means...

If someone gives me a reason to take care in how I comment to them...I usually oblige.
If someone is a twat to me, I'll usually stay in return fire mode until they become conciliatory.
If someone is ambiguous and I'm not sure about them, I sometimes react correctly and sometimes react incorrectly.

but in none of those cases...with very few exceptions because I HAVE made a few actual connections here...do I bother to expend emotions.


"parties and bullshit" is a song...but its title is really cutting-edge. This site is that title...and when it isn't, there might be some underlying issues and maybe I'm rash in moments when I can't be bothered to treat you like an actual human being - but mostly, all the benefits of all the doubts you've been given have led to more doubts...

& I am able to sit back and observe others' interactions with you turn out the same way...with you becoming a preachy kvnt and professing your love of trolling and such.

Sorry - you're just unlikable, at least through text. I offer other channels shall you care to change my mind...but my advice is..dont care.

You see things how you want to see them, GT.

Do what you gotta do and I'll do the same.

I don't suffer fools ding, and from every angle and out that I've ever attempted to give you...you've proven a fool. You're too hung up on appearances and digging for a gotchya, declaring this or that as motivations...and that's why you're not able to see through the weeds. There's fundie traits within each person who's unable to say the words, "I don't know," and you demonstrate every single one of them.

Ding, you don't know...but don't let that feel like a diss. Nobody does.

I don't need your origin story, GT.

What are you trying to accomplish anyway?

You're not a party or a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...so don't be curious about it. I can reveal one thing: you could BECOME a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...but I'm pretty well-schooled in odds.

lol!

I meant in this conversation. What are you trying to accomplish in this conversation with me?

I'd be reluctant to call it a conversation, first of all. I'm reading the board while I listen to some theoretical physics on YouTube, and when you respond to me, I get a red flash.

"alert! alert!"

I don't have a goal with you, ding...you're like a side effect of reading the board or something if you want an accurate answer. I'd take you more seriously if I respected your "text" personality...I dont...

There would be a consolation prize, too...I'd take you seriously also if I respected your intellect...I dont...

That's it! Sorry it wasn't bells and whistles.

 

[ding]

You see things how you want to see them, GT.

Do what you gotta do and I'll do the same.

I don't suffer fools ding, and from every angle and out that I've ever attempted to give you...you've proven a fool. You're too hung up on appearances and digging for a gotchya, declaring this or that as motivations...and that's why you're not able to see through the weeds. There's fundie traits within each person who's unable to say the words, "I don't know," and you demonstrate every single one of them.

Ding, you don't know...but don't let that feel like a diss. Nobody does.

I don't need your origin story, GT.

What are you trying to accomplish anyway?

You're not a party or a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...so don't be curious about it. I can reveal one thing: you could BECOME a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...but I'm pretty well-schooled in odds.

lol!

I meant in this conversation. What are you trying to accomplish in this conversation with me?

I'd be reluctant to call it a conversation, first of all. I'm reading the board while I listen to some theoretical physics on YouTube, and when you respond to me, I get a red flash.

"alert! alert!"

I don't have a goal with you, ding...you're like a side effect of reading the board or something if you want an accurate answer. I'd take you more seriously if I respected your "text" personality...I dont...

There would be a consolation prize, too...I'd take you seriously also if I respected your intellect...I dont...

That's it! Sorry it wasn't bells and whistles.

So no real objective. Good.

We done?

 

[G.T.]

I don't suffer fools ding, and from every angle and out that I've ever attempted to give you...you've proven a fool. You're too hung up on appearances and digging for a gotchya, declaring this or that as motivations...and that's why you're not able to see through the weeds. There's fundie traits within each person who's unable to say the words, "I don't know," and you demonstrate every single one of them.

Ding, you don't know...but don't let that feel like a diss. Nobody does.

I don't need your origin story, GT.

What are you trying to accomplish anyway?

You're not a party or a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...so don't be curious about it. I can reveal one thing: you could BECOME a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...but I'm pretty well-schooled in odds.

lol!

I meant in this conversation. What are you trying to accomplish in this conversation with me?

I'd be reluctant to call it a conversation, first of all. I'm reading the board while I listen to some theoretical physics on YouTube, and when you respond to me, I get a red flash.

"alert! alert!"

I don't have a goal with you, ding...you're like a side effect of reading the board or something if you want an accurate answer. I'd take you more seriously if I respected your "text" personality...I dont...

There would be a consolation prize, too...I'd take you seriously also if I respected your intellect...I dont...

That's it! Sorry it wasn't bells and whistles.

So no real objective. Good.

We done?

What's your favorite color?

 

[Ringtone]

Atheism is as mad as theism. Your arguments only convince you. Unless you perform lobotomies, you won't change anyone's mind.

Why is theism mad? Why are you shifting the goalposts? I didn't say anything about convincing folks. I didn't say anything about folks admitting the truth. Take you, for example, you're lying to yourself and me right now, pretending not to understand the point. In fact, you're not making a lick of sense.

What's the psychology behind that? Weird.

 

[ding]

I don't need your origin story, GT.

What are you trying to accomplish anyway?

You're not a party or a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...so don't be curious about it. I can reveal one thing: you could BECOME a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...but I'm pretty well-schooled in odds.

lol!

I meant in this conversation. What are you trying to accomplish in this conversation with me?

I'd be reluctant to call it a conversation, first of all. I'm reading the board while I listen to some theoretical physics on YouTube, and when you respond to me, I get a red flash.

"alert! alert!"

I don't have a goal with you, ding...you're like a side effect of reading the board or something if you want an accurate answer. I'd take you more seriously if I respected your "text" personality...I dont...

There would be a consolation prize, too...I'd take you seriously also if I respected your intellect...I dont...

That's it! Sorry it wasn't bells and whistles.

So no real objective. Good.

We done?

What's your favorite color?

Yellow. I have a bright and sunny disposition.

Please feel free to question my intellect and character and ignore the content. That's not how I roll. I'm not a fake. I'm authentic.

 

[G.T.]

You're not a party or a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...so don't be curious about it. I can reveal one thing: you could BECOME a factor in what I'm trying to accomplish...but I'm pretty well-schooled in odds.

lol!

I meant in this conversation. What are you trying to accomplish in this conversation with me?

I'd be reluctant to call it a conversation, first of all. I'm reading the board while I listen to some theoretical physics on YouTube, and when you respond to me, I get a red flash.

"alert! alert!"

I don't have a goal with you, ding...you're like a side effect of reading the board or something if you want an accurate answer. I'd take you more seriously if I respected your "text" personality...I dont...

There would be a consolation prize, too...I'd take you seriously also if I respected your intellect...I dont...

That's it! Sorry it wasn't bells and whistles.

So no real objective. Good.

We done?

What's your favorite color?

Yellow. I have a bright and sunny disposition.

Please feel free to question my intellect and character and ignore the content. That's not how I roll. I'm not a fake. I'm authentic.

Well, credit where its due...you might be the first human or bot to have answered that with yellow!

 

[Third Party]

Atheism is as mad as theism. Your arguments only convince you. Unless you perform lobotomies, you won't change anyone's mind.

Why is theism mad? Why are you shifting the goalposts? I didn't say anything about convincing folks. I didn't say anything about folks admitting the truth. Take you, for example, you're lying to yourself and me right now, pretending not to understand the point. In fact, you're not making a lick of sense.

What's the psychology behind that? Weird.

Ad hominem, ad hominem! This is about saying God exists-I believe that-so am I lying to myself? Or shifting goalposts-or guideposts? Theism is as mad as atheism because they are two sides of the same coin-belief in something that can't be proved. Just let people believe the way they want.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That’s not logic. That’s gibberish. Logic is based upon observations and facts.

False. It is not only logic, it is valid logic. Logic is simply a set of rules. Ding, you should probably shut up, now. You really, really do not know what you are talking about.

 

[G.T.]

https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

 

[BreezeWood]

Next is-your argument is not compelling-some atheist is lining up to shoot it down. Take a day of rest.

Nope! Hasn't happened yet. The only way it can be countered is by a coherent explication of how an actual infinite is possible or how existence could arise from nonexistence. The fact of what would actually constitute a direct refutation of the cosmological argument should tell one something very important. It has not been debunked. It cannot be debunked. To deny its cogency is to either straw-man it or to deny the veracity of the imperatives of logic while contradictorily attempting to use the same to counter it. Absurdity!

Atheism is madness.

Atheism is as mad as theism. Your arguments only convince you. Unless you perform lobotomies, you won't change anyone's mind.

.

Atheism is as mad as theism. Your arguments only convince you. Unless you perform lobotomies, you won't change anyone's mind.

Nope! Hasn't happened yet. The only way it can be countered is by ...

mad theists are by nature irrational the opposite of factual atheist. the ism's are the difference.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Ad hominem, ad hominem! This is about saying God exists-I believe that-so am I lying to myself? Or shifting goalposts-or guideposts? Theism is as mad as atheism because they are two sides of the same coin-belief in something that can't be proved. Just let people believe the way they want.

Theism cannot be proved but it can be rationally reasoned, inferred by empirical evidence and deduced by logically based
intuition.
Atheism, on the other hand, is purely a psychologically based reaction to reason. It is NO as a belief system.

If we didn't have the micro and macro universes all around us with their governing laws and physical principles that
have caused some of the most brilliant minds the human race has ever produced to intuit and posit God then atheists
might have a point, though they would still have to account for the universe which they freely admit they cannot do.

 

[Synthaholic]

Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.

That is why He gave us the Bible, right?

Maybe he was just re-gifting a book he didn’t want?

 

[Synthaholic]

Speak for yourself-you asked a question about others, I answered and you ignored it.If you don't want to hear what others have to say, don't ask.

Again, what's with the attitude? The OP regards the fine-tuning problem and the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle. The universe's physical constants and initial conditions are not contingent on the laws of physics. The odds of them being what they are for the first and only universe to have ever existed by sheer chance are astronomically improbable! The issue of the universe's physical constants and initial conditions have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or adaptation of life to the conditions of the extant universe as GMS, an atheist, stupidly thinks. He doesn't grasp the scientific issue at all, let alone the theological issue. Once again, from the OP:

[T]he finely tuned argument does not go to the occurrence or evolution of life in any given habitable environment after the fact; it goes to the apparent fact that the astronomical structures and systems, and the elemental diversity that are necessary for any kind of life at all to occur or evolve wouldn't exist in the first place if any one of the physical constants or initial conditions were significantly different in this universe or in any other. Indeed, according to the standard model, if the strength of the cosmic inflation of the Big Bang had varied by 1 part in 10^60 the universe would have never reached the expansion phase at all, but would have collapsed back onto itself faster than you can say lickety-split!
​

Presumably, you're a theist! What problem could you possibly have with that observation? In any event, you're the one who brought up the issue of knowing God's mind, and all I told you in that wise is that we can know those contents of his mind that he has shared with us. To which you hysterically respond: "YOU flippin arrogant bastard! you are saying you ARE God if you know God's mind."

LOL

As I told Breezewood, this is what I'm talking about:

[T]he fundamental laws of logic—the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, the law of the excluded middle—as well as the principle of sufficient reason, which is sometimes referred to as the fourth fundamental law of logic—because of x, y; symbolically, x —> y—are, collectively, the eternal, uncreated logic of God bestowed on us. Behold the logical imperatives of God's mind! And the first principles of ontology and epistemology immediately extrapolated by those who bring them to bear on the problems of being, morality and truth? These are also the contents of God's mind!​

The way you word things is unclear-it sounded like YOU KNOW GOD's MIND. If that is true, I disagree. Strongly!

Yeah, you may as well claim to know what’s in Superman’s mind. Can’t be done.

 

[Synthaholic]

I have a problem with people who say they know what God wants.

I have a problem with people who say they know that there is a God.

 

[ding]

That’s not logic. That’s gibberish. Logic is based upon observations and facts.

False. It is not only logic, it is valid logic. Logic is simply a set of rules. Ding, you should probably shut up, now. You really, really do not know what you are talking about.

Keep telling yourself that while arguing unicorns, ice cream and the 6th dimension.

You do not know what logic is if you believe you used valid logic in your unicorn argument.

What is it you do for a living again?

 

[ding]

I have a problem with people who say they know what God wants.

I have a problem with people who say they know that there is a God.

I guess you have a problem with me then.

 

[ding]

Next is-your argument is not compelling-some atheist is lining up to shoot it down. Take a day of rest.

Nope! Hasn't happened yet. The only way it can be countered is by a coherent explication of how an actual infinite is possible or how existence could arise from nonexistence. The fact of what would actually constitute a direct refutation of the cosmological argument should tell one something very important. It has not been debunked. It cannot be debunked. To deny its cogency is to either straw-man it or to deny the veracity of the imperatives of logic while contradictorily attempting to use the same to counter it. Absurdity!

Atheism is madness.

Atheism is as mad as theism. Your arguments only convince you. Unless you perform lobotomies, you won't change anyone's mind.

.

Atheism is as mad as theism. Your arguments only convince you. Unless you perform lobotomies, you won't change anyone's mind.

Nope! Hasn't happened yet. The only way it can be countered is by ...

mad theists are by nature irrational the opposite of factual atheist. the ism's are the difference.

Mad theists? Factual atheists?

You want some facts? The universe literally popped into existence out of nothing 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

How’s that for facts?

 

[Synthaholic]

I have a problem with people who say they know what God wants.

I have a problem with people who say they know that there is a God.

I guess you have a problem with me then.

If you say “I know there is a god” instead of “I believe there is a god”, yes I do have a problem with you. Because you’re clearly lying. Or delusional.

 

[ding]

I have a problem with people who say they know what God wants.

I have a problem with people who say they know that there is a God.

I guess you have a problem with me then.

If you say “I know there is a god” instead of “I believe there is a god”, yes I do have a problem with you. Because you’re clearly lying. Or delusional.

Or have his spirit inside of me.

If you were to say you know you were in love, how would you know? How could you prove it?