Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Hollie]

I don't find it convincing that you promote your gods with 100% certainty of their existence while supplying 0% facts.

I've supplied my reasoned logical basis for God many times.
If you don't read it or can't understand that's not my fault. By the way, you call the idea of God nonsense and
a fairy tale. Where is your proof for that?
If you KNOW God does not exist you have yet to provide that knowledge.So while you were bloviating and pontificating you forgot and let your hypocrisy show to all.

Also, I wasn't aware your gods manage the cosmos. That sounds a lot like the Greek versions of gods where various gods managed various elements of our existence. With floods, tornadoes, fires and other acts of the gods killing humanity, I might suggest your gods are rather incompetent managers.

God regulates the universe through
orderly, systematic physical laws and principles that exist all throughout the universe. It is these laws that convinced Albert Einstein that God exists.
But I guess your insights are better than his....right?

As far as fires, floods and the like they serve practical purposes and benefit the ecosystem. I guess in your godless world such things never happen.

What reasoned, rational basis have you made for magic and supernaturalism?

Somehow, you don’t see the absurdity of a rational claim needing irrational appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

Yes, dead people are a benefit to the ecosystem.

Super!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

What reasoned, rational basis have you made for magic and supernaturalism?

Try reading my posts.
The Cliff Notes version is something created our universe...God is the only thing capable of such creation.
I hope that didn't overwhelm you.

Somehow, you don’t see the absurdity of a rational claim needing irrational appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

If it pleases you to think of things in this cartoonish way, so be it.

Yes, dead people are a benefit to the ecosystem.

Super!

Stay stupid and uninformed. The Ecological Benefits of Forest Fires
I promise you it doesn't bother me.

 

[diver52]

Your A statement, however, could be true or false.

But, when A is false, the conditional statement is always true, regardless of the truth value of expression B. In these cases, the truth value of the conditiinal statement is dependent only the truth value of expression A.

This isn't my opinion, or a problem to be solved. This a definition that is one of the rules of logic.

But your A hasn't been shown to be false. I also disagree with your definition of the rule. My understanding is for the statement to be true, the sides must either both be true or both be false. But I could be wrong. Care to share your source?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But your A hasn't been shown to be false.

For the example, it is assumed that "dolphins build skyscrapers" is a false statement.

 

[Hollie]

What reasoned, rational basis have you made for magic and supernaturalism?

Try reading my posts.
The Cliff Notes version is something created our universe...God is the only thing capable of such creation.
I hope that didn't overwhelm you.

Somehow, you don’t see the absurdity of a rational claim needing irrational appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

If it pleases you to think of things in this cartoonish way, so be it.

Yes, dead people are a benefit to the ecosystem.

Super!

Stay stupid and uninformed. The Ecological Benefits of Forest Fires
I promise you it doesn't bother me.

Nothing that we know about the universe requires the gods (to include your version of the god as well as other versions). That claim is completely unsupported and relies entirely on appeals to magic and supernaturalism. It really is remarkable that you think others are gullible enough to accept your "..... because I say so" claim.

There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in a peculiar, sectarian version of god(s). You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.

That's lovely you appreciate the ecological benefits of forest fires. Does that appreciation also extended to people dying from floods, tornadoes, hurricanes?

That humanity wiping biblical flood must have been the greatest benefit to mankind.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Nothing that we know about the universe requires the gods (to include your version of the god as well as other versions). That claim is completely unsupported and relies entirely on appeals to magic and supernaturalism. It really is remarkable that you think others are gullible enough to accept your "..... because I say so" claim.

This is your knee jerk formulaic reply. But unfortunately for you it's bullshit!
Go slowly over the steps again...the universe exists (true or not?).
Something put it here. Nothing comes from nothing (true or not?)
Our universe is not eternal. Scientist have deduced it's approximate age at 14.6 billion years.
Only God is capable of such an act of creation. Come up with a likely alternative explanation, if you can.

Again all this is true not because I say so. I say so because it's all true.

There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in a peculiar, sectarian version of god(s). You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.

No requirement for a creator?
Everything has a source. The universe itself is no different. Once more, prove me wrong.

I'm not interested in Hindu, Egyptian, Pygmy, Eskimo etc. creation stories. Everything I say is ontologically, philosophically, scientifically, empiracally and logically certified.
You aren't even sharp enough to be embarrassed by your reflexive dimwitted denials, which by the way, you have yet to justify yourself! Pull your head out of your anal orifice and explain your utter lack of substance!

That's lovely you appreciate the ecological benefits of forest fires. Does that appreciation also extended to people dying from floods, tornadoes, hurricanes?

Desperate are you?
One thing has nothing to do with the other. People die in all sorts of ways. If someone dies in a hurricane it makes that no more "evil" than the Toyota Corolla someone flipped over and killed him/herself in after a night of drinking.

That humanity wiping biblical flood must have been the greatest benefit to mankind.

The bible is filled with all sorts of stories trying to explain the world. That's one of them and science has verified a geological era in which massive floods inundated much of the world.
Are you more stupid because you believe Old Testament tales or because you think I do?

 

[Hollie]

Nothing that we know about the universe requires the gods (to include your version of the god as well as other versions). That claim is completely unsupported and relies entirely on appeals to magic and supernaturalism. It really is remarkable that you think others are gullible enough to accept your "..... because I say so" claim.

This is your knee jerk formulaic reply. But unfortunately for you it's bullshit!
Go slowly over the steps again...the universe exists (true or not?).
Something put it here. Nothing comes from nothing (true or not?)
Our universe is not eternal. Scientist have deduced it's approximate age at 14.6 billion years.
Only God is capable of such an act of creation. Come up with a likely alternative explanation, if you can.

Again all this is true not because I say so. I say so because it's all true.

There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in a peculiar, sectarian version of god(s). You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.

No requirement for a creator?
Everything has a source. The universe itself is no different. Once more, prove me wrong.

I'm not interested in Hindu, Egyptian, Pygmy, Eskimo etc. creation stories. Everything I say is ontologically, philosophically, scientifically, empiracally and logically certified.
You aren't even sharp enough to be embarrassed by your reflexive dimwitted denials, which by the way, you have yet to justify yourself! Pull your head out of your anal orifice and explain your utter lack of substance!

That's lovely you appreciate the ecological benefits of forest fires. Does that appreciation also extended to people dying from floods, tornadoes, hurricanes?

Desperate are you?
One thing has nothing to do with the other. People die in all sorts of ways. If someone dies in a hurricane it makes that no more "evil" than the Toyota Corolla someone flipped over and killed him/herself in after a night of drinking.

That humanity wiping biblical flood must have been the greatest benefit to mankind.

The bible is filled with all sorts of stories trying to explain the world. That's one of them and science has verified a geological era in which massive floods inundated much of the world.
Are you more stupid because you believe Old Testament tales or because you think I do?

No reason to be angry and emotive. You're offering nothing more than the stereotypical "...because I say so" to insist your gods are responsible for all of creation. That's ridiculous. You make melodramatic claims and assume others are supposed to accept baseless pronouncements.

It's clear that since reason can't support an irrational claim (i.e., supernatural beings being real, not fictional), supernaturalists are forced into creating baseless arguments by which they make their claims. Enter faith, theistically defined as the substance of things "hoped for"; the evidence of things not demonstrated. I "hope for" a number of things-- but "hoping" is not enough-- there has to be evidence, and not evidence that is unavailable.

There's no reason to go into the biblical flood nonsense. Your bible tales and fables are not going to survive in the rational world of evidence and demonstration.

 

[diver52]

But your A hasn't been shown to be false.

For the example, it is assumed that "dolphins build skyscrapers" is a false statement.

Well, it wasn't an example. It was a question and the answer could not be reached by assuming.

Let me say as well that your definition is wrong. In fact, it makes no sense. What you are saying is that the B side of the statement is irrelevant. If that is the case, we can simply ignore it and it does beg the question - why is it there at all? It plays no part. So we are left with only the A side which, according to you, if it is true it is false and if it is false it is true. Interesting but pointless.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No reason to be angry and emotive. You're offering nothing more than the stereotypical "...because I say so" to insist your gods are responsible for all of creation. That's ridiculous. You make melodramatic claims and assume others are supposed to accept baseless pronouncements.

Is this a cut and paste from all your other posts? Because it's exactly the same as so many others.

It's clear that since reason can't support an irrational claim (i.e., supernatural beings being real, not fictional), supernaturalists are forced into creating baseless arguments by which they make their claims. Enter faith, theistically defined as the substance of things "hoped for"; the evidence of things not demonstrated. I "hope for" a number of things-- but "hoping" is not enough-- there has to be evidence, and not evidence that is unavailable.

You "forgot" to mention how you know a supreme being is just fictional nonsense. That's okay. You can answer it now.

There's no reason to go into the biblical flood nonsense. Your bible tales and fables are not going to survive in the rational world of evidence and demonstration.

You brought up the subject, idiot!
And I said myself I didn't buy the story. So that makes you doubly idiotic!

Jesus (no play on words intended)! You are a fool.

 

[Hollie]

No reason to be angry and emotive. You're offering nothing more than the stereotypical "...because I say so" to insist your gods are responsible for all of creation. That's ridiculous. You make melodramatic claims and assume others are supposed to accept baseless pronouncements.

Is this a cut and paste from all your other posts? Because it's exactly the same as so many others.

It's clear that since reason can't support an irrational claim (i.e., supernatural beings being real, not fictional), supernaturalists are forced into creating baseless arguments by which they make their claims. Enter faith, theistically defined as the substance of things "hoped for"; the evidence of things not demonstrated. I "hope for" a number of things-- but "hoping" is not enough-- there has to be evidence, and not evidence that is unavailable.

You "forgot" to mention how you know a supreme being is just fictional nonsense. That's okay. You can answer it now.

There's no reason to go into the biblical flood nonsense. Your bible tales and fables are not going to survive in the rational world of evidence and demonstration.

You brought up the subject, idiot!
And I said myself I didn't buy the story. So that makes you doubly idiotic!

Jesus (no play on words intended)! You are a fool.

You're again hurling insults as an alternate to actually supporting your argument.

I've never made any positive claim about the non-existence of any of the gods. You may have missed it but I have consistently challenged you to support your specific claim to unique gods being responsible for the existence of the universe.

You still refuse to provide support for your claim

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You're again hurling insults as an alternate to actually supporting your argument.

I've never made any positive claim about the non-existence of any of the gods. You may have missed it but I have consistently challenged you to support your specific claim to unique gods being responsible for the existence of the universe.

You still refuse to provide support for your claim

Never made any positive claims about the non existence of God?

You don't consider your often repeated claim in every single post you make here that "gods", as you put it, are supernatural magical figments of weak minded people?
That doesn't strain credulity....it snaps it in two! Get a better story.

As for my claims about God being responsible for the existence of the universe I just repeated myself once again only a few posts ago explaining my position once more (#666). You must be joking.
You must be mistaking my rational for God with your wish for a post that didn't credibly posit a supreme creator.

Sorry. Can't help you out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, it wasn't an example.

The conditional statement was the example. I asked a question about it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let me say as well that your definition is wrong.

No, sorry, it is correct. You can look it up. And you can say it doesn't make sense, and you can hate it. But if you want your arguments to follow the rules of logic, you will observe the rule. If you want to pass your math tests, you will observe the rule.

 

[badger2]

You can bitch and moan, though the thread is worthy of existence because it should be clear to some by now that it's not a beneficial thing to leave theology to theists. We're not surprised that OP invokes infantilism. The first problematic comes up at timepoint 0:41 in the video with the puddle analogy, because if that's excepted, everything that follows may make perfectly good sense.

'The First Shackle: Analogy of Judgment. As its place near the top of Porphyry's tree (figure 3.1) suggests, the fetter Deleuze calls "analogy of judgment" has a special theological relevance. Its function in the chain is to mediate the relation between the transcendent One beyond differentiation ) in Neo-Platonism), or the eternal and immutable Father of all (in Christian doctrine), and the immanent differentiated genera and species of real experience (existing entities). This is a tricky business, because such a mediator must somehow hold these two realities together while maintaining an absolute distinction between them. Classical Christian theology was characterized by debates about the value of emanative and creationist concepts in the depiction of the causal relation between a transcendent moralistic Entity and the immanent existing entities of actual axiological engagement. However, nearly everyone in the debate assumed that the relation between divine and human being is mediated (analogically [italics]).'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, pp. 75-6)

 

[Hollie]

You're again hurling insults as an alternate to actually supporting your argument.

I've never made any positive claim about the non-existence of any of the gods. You may have missed it but I have consistently challenged you to support your specific claim to unique gods being responsible for the existence of the universe.

You still refuse to provide support for your claim

Never made any positive claims about the non existence of God?

You don't consider your often repeated claim in every single post you make here that "gods", as you put it, are supernatural magical figments of weak minded people?
That doesn't strain credulity....it snaps it in two! Get a better story.

As for my claims about God being responsible for the existence of the universe I just repeated myself once again only a few posts ago explaining my position once more (#666). You must be joking.
You must be mistaking my rational for God with your wish for a post that didn't credibly posit a supreme creator.

Sorry. Can't help you out.

I never posted the comment you falsely attributed to me;

"supernatural magical figments of weak minded people?"

So, why not provide some evidence that your gods are responsible for all of creation?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I never posted the comment you falsely attributed to me;

"supernatural magical figments of weak minded people?"

You mean you never said those exact words in that exact order? What a pathetic sniveling coward you are.

So, why not provide some evidence that your gods are responsible for all of creation?

Why not first tell me how you know God does not exist? I've explicitly asked you several times now.

You are teetering on the brink of being officially ignored now. I won't have someone lie to my face and insult my intelligence.
You are doing both.

 

[Hollie]

I never posted the comment you falsely attributed to me;

"supernatural magical figments of weak minded people?"

You mean you never said those exact words in that exact order? What a pathetic sniveling coward you are.

So, why not provide some evidence that your gods are responsible for all of creation?

Why not first tell me how you know God does not exist? I've explicitly asked you several times now.

You are teetering on the brink of being officially ignored now. I won't have someone lie to my face and insult my intelligence.
You are doing both.

I can see you're really, really angry, frustrated and emotive. As you're prone to making false claims, provide the exact citation where I have used the term: supernatural magical figments of weak minded people?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I can see you're really, really angry, frustrated and emotive. As you're prone to making false claims, provide the exact citation where I have used the term: supernatural magical figments of weak minded people?

Did you see any quotation marks around that comment? It was a paraphrase of something you have claimed over and over
and over again. I'm very sure others will back me up.

And I'm equally sure they will be sickened, as I am, by your attempts to squirm away from your often repeated comments.

It's one thing to be a closed minded religious bigot. It's another to be like a cowardly cornered rat when you have been identified.

When do you think you will tell everyone how you know God does not exist?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"That claim is completely unsupported and relies entirely on appeals to magic and supernaturalism. It really is remarkable that you think others are gullible enough to accept your "..... because I say so" claim."
You in post #665 doing what you claim to have never done. And you do it in virtually every post you make.

 

[Hollie]

I can see you're really, really angry, frustrated and emotive. As you're prone to making false claims, provide the exact citation where I have used the term: supernatural magical figments of weak minded people?

Did you see any quotation marks around that comment? It was a paraphrase of something you have claimed over and over
and over again. I'm very sure others will back me up.

And I'm equally sure they will be sickened, as I am, by your attempts to squirm away from your often repeated comments.

It's one thing to be a closed minded religious bigot. It's another to be like a cowardly cornered rat when you have been identified.

When do you think you will tell everyone how you know God does not exist?

You’re doing quite the dishonest backtrack. You falsely attributed a comment to me I never made and now you’re trying to sidestep your dishonest attribution.

Nicely done. How very Christian of you.