I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2015, 08:16 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
[Image: giphy.gif]

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
01-03-2015, 08:25 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 07:56 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 09:31 AM)natachan Wrote:  Had to look this up. Will get back to you but this still seems like a non-starter to me. My problems with the ontological argument as classically put forward still stand.

EDIT: So looked this up. And yep, a non-starter for me. Falls apart pretty spectacularly.

Baseless assertion...didn't even ATTEMPT to raise an objection Laugh out load
Why should I? It's bullshit and if you want to simply define your god into existence that doesn't make it so. But perhaps you think it does, I don't try to wonder what goes on in the mind of a tarsier. (I apologize to any other tarsiers on here.)

(01-03-2015 07:56 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 09:31 AM)natachan Wrote:  This has been done. If you refuse to accept or are too stupid to understand that it's not my issue.

Who has done it?? Oh wait, you think that every single thing your peers say and post on here is the truth, huh??? You don't even bother to check things out for yourself? Just follow after everyone else' lead huh??? Must be that damn gullible.

Apparently you are to stupid too understand the Modal Ontological argument, because if you were, I would expect you to give me something to work with as far as a meaningful objection, but apparently not.

I hate to use this argument, because I think it's weak, but I currently hold 136 credit hours of college credit. A typical undergraduate degree is 120-140. By the time I finish I will have well over 210 credit hours (I switched majors over halfway through, changing schools as well. NONE of my credits transferred). This means not only do I have a great deal of knowledge in my own field, but that I have a deal of knowledge in a bunch of other things.

I happen to know about consciousness and the brain because I have STUDIED these things. I happen to know about the evolution of consciousness because I have STUDIED this.

You, on the other hand, haven't passed 9th grade biology.

As to the modal ontological, I hadn't heard of it until you mentioned it. Why then would you think I was "too stupid to understand" things I hadn't known about? Am I supposed to know everything about every possible subject? Well I think that's a might bit unreasonable, as well as silly and childish.

But then again, you do have cartilage for brains Tongue
(01-03-2015 07:56 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 09:31 AM)natachan Wrote:  I don't accept those premises. And my reasons have to do with my study of physics. I've already stated that.

You can state it as many times as you like, but you haven't given me anything to work with as far as refutations...so go ahead and keep your "reasons" to yourself, or tell me the reasons and simply get them exposed just like any other crap you've spewed thus far.

If you really want, you could do a search through the rest of the forums and FIND my reasons. I post them rather openly. Perhaps I did it on AF, I'm not sure. It was a long post, and has yet to be refuted or addressed properly. But regardless, someone on this thread has already posted something very close to my reasons, and I find no reason to do so again. Answer him if you wish.
(01-03-2015 07:56 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 09:31 AM)natachan Wrote:  I know how smart I am, and I have a fairly good guess of how smart YOU are. Let's just say, there is a difference. And if you think any of those arguments are valid arguments for your god in addition to your previous utterances then you are pants-on-head retarded.

Less rhetoric, more substance.

Why? I'm having more fun mocking. And if I DID go get you an intelligent, researched post you'd either ignore it or make a post that shows your complete and utter stupidity. I didn't miss how you skipped over the example I gave in your next post.

Pants-on-head retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
The mods give these trolls way too much time, this one should have been put down over 100 pages ago.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
01-03-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  So there is no such thing as gradual changes over time, but you don't deny that changes occur over time?

No, I don't.

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Say's who?

Says the experience and observation of man, ever since he has been lucky enough to inhabit the earth with animals. Hell, there have been more people in history that claimed to see God than they claimed to see reptile-bird type transformations Big Grin

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  "This thing that takes millions of years is not happening right before my eyes instantly and thus it's wrong."

This is a fallacious begging of the question. The THEORY is that it takes millions of years...that isn't the proven fact.

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The fact that evolution is not doing what it's not supposed to do is not evidence against it.

That's funny, because it has never been observed to even do what it is "supposed" to do Laugh out load

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  "Kind" is not a recognized term and unless you give a definition I'm gonna delete it from your responses when I answer them. Right in the middle of sentences. They will make no less sense and that should tell you something. But it won't.

Delete it then. You ain't hurting me Laugh out load

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  And they are not the same "kind", but of the same family: Canidae. See we actually have REAL and RECOGNIZED terms for this shit, maybe go out and learn them.

Hey, I already told you...you can use whatever term you feel you need to, if it makes you feel more like a biologist because you replace "kind", with "family" or "Canidae", go right ahead...doesn't matter to me...the fact of the matter is, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, bears produce bears. Until you see anything contrary to what you, I, and any other person in history has ever observed, then you are presupposing shit.

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Oh and Modern dogs and modern cats have a shared ancestor in the Eocene from which they have both evolved, one branch into caniforms (dogs) and the other into feliforms (cats). Not that you believe that, but that makes no impact on the fact it's been proven.

Thanks for sharing with me your religion. I will share you mines...in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, the animals, the moon, the suns, and the stars. There, you told me yours, and I told you mines.

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Reality. The word you are looking for what scientists want to show us is reality. Evolution is a reality.

No, the reality is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. That is the reality. If you want to believe that long ago, when no one was around to see it, that animals were magically transforming into something DIFFERENT than what they were when they were born, then fine...you are free to believe whatever the hell you want. I believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and salvation is through him alone.

It is wonderful to be able to share our different beliefs with each other. Yes

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Tell me why exactly that the only people who seem to have a problem with the science of evolution are those, like yourself, with a woeful lack of scientific education and a whole lot of religion?

First off, since when did evolution become a science?? It has never been observed (macroevolution), no experiment has ever proved it (macroevolution), and no prediction has ever been accurately foretold regarding it (macroevolution)...so how is that science? Now sure, it may be ASSOCIATED with science for obvious presuppositional reasons....but hot dogs are ASSOCIATED with baseball, but hot dogs are not part of the game and hot dogs don't become athletic by association Laugh out load

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Yes I'm sure it's the geniuses with years and years of scientific education and training getting it wrong and not the highschool drop out waving around a book of fairytale on an internet forum lying his ass off and dismissing evidence he does not even understand or has even read who's got it right. Sounds legit. Drinking Beverage

Hey, I am not knocking the credentials of any scientist...I am just saying that this is one particular aspect of "science" that I can't buy. Just like you atheists have been running around for centuries talking about how "there is no evidence for God" and blah blah blah, despite the fact that I believe the evidence for God is OVERWHELMING....well, I don't believe that there is any evidence for macroevolution, kinda like how you don't believe there is sufficient evidence for God.

Same shit.

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  It's this little thing called "evidence", I know you have heard of it even if you try your damnedest to avoid shaking hands with it personally.

Evidence? *Looks around desperately* where, where??? *Looks under the bed* is it there? *Looks in the drawer* or maybe it is hiding in here. Ahhhh *snaps finger* the closet....*looks in the closet*

Wait a minute, I thought you said there was evidence? Laugh out load

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Let me ask you a question: If new species don't arise from old species where did the new species that have only existed in the last 50 million years (like caniforms) come from seeing as there were none before that?

First off, the only way you can determine what was here first and when it was here, you have to use some kind of dating method, and some of the methods used for dating shit is subjective as best.

Second, I would need you to give me an example of a "species" using modern day animals, because if you are talking specifically about speciation, then that is not macroevolution, because a dog, coyote, and a wolf are all different species, but it is obvious that they are the same kind of animal and I will even say that they are all "dogs". Different kind of dogs. That is variations within the kind.

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  They were not a part of "creation" from the start so where did they come from?

Assuming that the dating methods are accurate.

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Does "god" create new species incrementally at the exact right time so as to make it look indistinguishable from evolution? Why are we not seeing new species pop up from nothingness all the time? Were they hiding on the moon the whole time, a race of Moon foxes?

Um, again...speciation is only a variation WITHIN the kind...God made an original kind of every animal...now, the answer to how many "original" kinds did God make, no one knows...but there was at least one original kind of every animal, and God either created the origin kind with the genetic capability to make every and all variations within that kind, or God created multiple original kinds from the beginning.

(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Nope, wrong again. How would you even know there is evidence for it or not when you have already admitted to rejecting evidence before you even know what it is or have reviewed it?
You are wrong, sorry little kid but you are.

I do know the evidence...but there is a different between understanding, and accepting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 01:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  10/10 on the ass beating scale. Well done Whiskey BowingBowingBowing

Whiskey couldn't "beat" his meat at a porn shop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 09:05 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 01:36 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I could ask why, if god created this kinda bird in the beginning when he created all animals, it does not show up at all with the earliest fossils. I could but instead I'm gonna say the reason god could not have created birds with teeth and claws back in the day is because neither your god or the act of creation is real.

Glad we could clear that up. Drinking Beverage

Birds with teeth could have been an offspring of the original birds that were created...either way, the scriptures say that every animal "produced after their kind". A reptile producing a bird wouldn't be an animal producing after its kind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 09:08 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 09:05 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 01:36 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I could ask why, if god created this kinda bird in the beginning when he created all animals, it does not show up at all with the earliest fossils. I could but instead I'm gonna say the reason god could not have created birds with teeth and claws back in the day is because neither your god or the act of creation is real.

Glad we could clear that up. Drinking Beverage

Birds with teeth could have been an offspring of the original birds that were created...either way, the scriptures say that every animal "produced after their kind". A reptile producing a bird wouldn't be an animal producing after its kind.

[Image: crocoduck1.jpg]

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
01-03-2015, 09:17 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2015 09:36 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
I do enjoy watching you make a complete ass out of yourself on a daily basis, all of those guests watching who are on the fence can see the fallacious nature of your ridiculous assertions, so in the end.... you are doing more to create more atheists than I could ever do by posting well thought out, researched and substantiated posts disproving the faith...so on behalf of atheists everywhere, thank you for being so incapable in articulating your faith, and disproving your own point of view with each and every post...nicely done, please stick around so the deconversion rates will continue to rise.

I do hate to see someone mired in such ignorance though, and can't encourage you enough to go take some classes, I HIGHLY recommend evolution SCI 115 from SLU...you see, it isn't voodoo, it isn't our opinions, they will layout for you the evidence for you to contemplate, and learn from, it is impossible to view that information, and continue to cling to the childish belief that evolution isn't true....well, not impossible, there are always a few who prefer to lick windows and surf the net for knowledge..don't be a window licker COTW.

[Image: 2aa0s4k.jpg]

Disclaimer: I am in no way making fun of the mentally disabled by using the term window licker, and if COTW is riding the short bus or is WC's room-mate, then perhaps we should lower our expectations for his ability to ever comprehend science 101, logic 101, or heck even religion 101.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
01-03-2015, 09:29 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 08:25 AM)natachan Wrote:  ...
I hate to use this argument, because I think it's weak, but I currently hold 136 credit hours of college credit. A typical undergraduate degree is 120-140. By the time I finish I will have well over 210 credit hours (I switched majors over halfway through, changing schools as well. NONE of my credits transferred). This means not only do I have a great deal of knowledge in my own field, but that I have a deal of knowledge in a bunch of other things.

I happen to know about consciousness and the brain because I have STUDIED these things. I happen to know about the evolution of consciousness because I have STUDIED this.

You, on the other hand, haven't passed 9th grade biology.
...

In defense of those of us who do get it but were educational-deprived (or in my case, just lazy), those of us who never took one single biology class... ever! I'd like to say that all one needs is a little self-awareness and a willingness for self improvement.

So, yeah ... weak argument.

Tongue

(01-03-2015 09:00 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  The mods give these trolls way too much time, this one should have been put down over 100 pages ago.

I was going to explain but ... no need now ...

(01-03-2015 09:17 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  ...
you are doing more to create more atheists than I could ever do by posting well thought out, researched and substantiated posts disproving the faith
...

Cheers there, GWoG.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
01-03-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Anyone else keep getting flashbacks of that awful Wendy Wright video while reading cotw's responses? Facepalm

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like evenheathen's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: