I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2015, 11:31 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2015 11:45 AM by Leo.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 11:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 11:05 AM)Leo Wrote:  Hey dipshit I was asking the hour of Jebus crucifixion.

I was not talking about the hour of his faked death. I know Jesus was supposed to die in the 9th hour or 3pm according to the gospel of Mark , Luke and Matthew.

Hey dumbass, how about just wiping the dust off of your Bible and READDDD. Mark said the crucifixion began at the third hour (Mk 15:25)...no other Gospel states when it BEGAN...but they all state (except John) that there was darkness from the sixth hour to the ninth hour, which would seem to suggest, as I use common sense to decipher the narratives, that Jesus was on the cross from the third hour, to the ninth hour when he breathed his last breath.

See that, it is called "reading comprehension". Try it.

Hey dumbass according to the gospel of John Jesus was sentenced to death about the sixth hour or noon . So Jebus can't be crucified at the third hour like Mark says and being sentenced to death at noon like John says at the same time . Impossible dipshit. So again at what hour was Jesus crucified third hour or sixth hour ?

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 11:54 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 11:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Doing your best to stay away from the ISIS analogy, huh Yes Could you just find a way to make it a little less obvious??

(15-02-2015 11:15 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Ah, yes, the Blind Watchmaker analogy,

A question and one point and that should suffice in showing just how preposterous this analogy is.

1. Are cars biological, living things? (hopefully you’ll say no but with you there’s no telling what craziness will come next).

2. We’re done here. Thumbsup

Foolishness. This is the fallacy of begging the question, as you are assuming that biological, living things are able to produce life from nonlife, and consciousness from unconsciousness, when that is exactly what HASN'T been proven as of yet..so to appeal to it when it hasn't been proven is, well...fallacious.

But I am not surprised....I mean, taking fallacious arguments away from atheists would be like trying to take the wet from the water...you just can't do it.

Every person alive developed consciousness from unconsciousness. So, there's that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
15-02-2015, 12:17 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Hey Wildebeest Smile I've got bad gnus for you...

Tongue Just couldn't resist...

But seriously dude, the only contact you've had with the all-father is a miracle with a McDonald's sign. I dunno how you translate that into "all science is silly and I am right" but... it doesn't exactly convince us logical, no-nonsense, sexy and cheerful atheist guys and girls. We're perfectly happy without God McMuppet.

Have a nice day Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
15-02-2015, 12:18 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 11:01 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 09:35 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  hey dipshit, I balance multiple real world items at the same time, during my 5 hours I had to jump up and make breakfast for the family, take the dogs out, assist my wife multiple times on her Master's level papers, deal with the kids...not all of us have nothing to do but sit in our bedroom trying to figure out which thumb feels better when buried in our own ass and making baseless assertions of our belief in something without evidence on an atheist forum. You haven't made one single validated, substantiated point yet. Go to post 8 Timmy, and click it where it says snip, read, think, and maybe you can actually evolve. I have forgotten more about your religion than you will most likely every understand. I don't have the time to stop my life and get on a chat board with you, sorry, my family and real world obligations have far too much value to me then to ignore them, for you.

Here because I pity your knowledge level, I will give you an extra credit question since you are unable to provide any credible response to my posits thus far...

I have a small question...what happened on easter? I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)
The conditions of the question are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away. Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This question could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.
Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

I ask this question in all seriousness, because it astounds me how people can believe in something so important and with such passion, yet not have actually looked at what it is they are celebrating/believing in.
You will find that the trip from A-Z via the gospels will lead you in 4 different paths.

Dude, you have more excuses than a black man going to jail (and that is a lot). You still had time to type the above encyclopedia that you typed...you had time to type that, but you can't have a real time discussion with me? Not buying it...anyone that wants to have a serious discussion on the Resurrection, holla at me.

my child my child, I have been at this probably before you were born, I have massive files, by subject, cited with full references at a click away. That is under my file "easter debunked". The reason it took me 5 hours yesterday to reply was I was juggling multiple real life things at the same time, and had to strap on my speech recognition program to quickly type up information from a handful of books in order to clearly substantiate what I was saying. The rest was samplings from my various files. You think you are the first xtian to say "duh...disprove jesus" and that I, as a consistent debater of religion don't have the answers already identified, validated and ready for delivery? lol I thought you "lived for this!" You are a rank amateur. Your inability to articulate an individual thought, substantiate your worldview, or prove any of your musings is not my problem.

You realize how many have come before you claiming to know god’s inner desires and demands for humanity? Lets pretend it is all real…god wanted robots. The ultimatum and pretense of choice when you say, “worship me, or spend eternity in hell” is no choice, and thus he truly does want robots. Why did he even start this in the first place? Bored much? Hmmmm I want to create EVERYTHING, and then 6 billion little people, and since I am all knowing, I knew when I planted the tree of knowledge and gave them choice they would partake, and then I would be mad, and demand this eternal sin/debt to be paid, and then eventually slice off part of myself to implant into a woman, to raise as my son on earth to fulfill the incarnation and atonement, which is me satisfying my own ego and demand for justice…and then each person born after them would upon birth be saddled with this slavery contract….worship me or spend eternity in hell…all a ridiculous egocentric immature murderous selfish piece of shit of a diety…and we should worship him? lol….you surely see how made up this all sounds, only man could have come up with such a ridiculous posit. No world creating diety would be so ……..immature and selfish, and if so, does not deserve worship. A moot point, as it is all made up, much like your crazy fucking perspective.

Once we as a global society figure out that we need to treat religion like we did racism, and make it a negative stigma, so that when someone professes to believe in such nonsense people look at you in shock, as we do when some tool uses a racist/sexist etc type comment...we have to stop putting people who call themselves reverend/father/preacher/saint etc up on a pedestal, they should be embarrassed to say, "I believe in a man made delusion designed to calm and subjugate the masses." Only then can we progress as a society.

Society doesn't need religion to be moral, this is easily proven. Secular societies are better for everyone. Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, crime rates, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

Now let’s look at Saudi Arabian countries, a few come to mind, they are most likely the most devout religious people on the planet...it isn't a past time for them, or a moderate belief, they are willing to die for their beliefs...and they subsequently have the lowest rankings for quality of life, schooling etc.

You have blinders on, there is much you do not know, you cling to faith like a stripper to her favorite shiny pole. I know, you are scared, and need your spiritual security blanky like a 3 yo grips his favorite teddy bear at night when there is a clang in the pipes. Be not afraid, research, READ your favorite fable, the bible, research how that was put together and by who and why...and no, god isnt the answer to that one. Life is short, to go through it blind clinging to a fairy tale about a magical genie who wiggled his fifth appendage and created everything is just...ridiculous. Surely as an adult you realize this?

Whether you wish to discuss the mythical fable called the bible, the bigfoot of the biblical era called jesus, or the existence of the creator, I am fluent in all of it. Preconditions of intelligibility? Cosmological argument? Argument from design/complexity? etc etc, this is what I do. It doesnt take much pulling at the plethora of strings hanging off the story to make the whole thing unravel afterall.

Faith is the delusion, belief without evidence. Faith is pretending to know things that you dont know. To say "I have faith in god" really means "I pretend to know things I don't know about god"....THINK about it, you dont know, you HOPE.

I think it is very anthropocentric of you to posit that we are the center of everything, that the bible (based on myth and full of pseudepigrapha) is proof of anything. it is a great show of hubris on your part to think you have any credibility when referencing the bible on any subject, and then you have the audacity to challenge my position..get some education on the subject and get back to me in a few years.

because you are clearly, "Not in this life" to use your words, you can't even spell debate..continue to wave aside the truckload of substantiated facts we and I have poured upon you, my little ineducable tyro (go look it up), cling to your faith like the blind, close minded, illogical dipshit that you are.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
15-02-2015, 12:20 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2015 12:37 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 12:18 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 11:01 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dude, you have more excuses than a black man going to jail (and that is a lot). You still had time to type the above encyclopedia that you typed...you had time to type that, but you can't have a real time discussion with me? Not buying it...anyone that wants to have a serious discussion on the Resurrection, holla at me.

my child my child, I have been at this probably before you were born, I have massive files, by subject, cited with full references at a click away. That is under my file "easter debunked". The reason it took me 5 hours yesterday to reply was I was juggling multiple real life things at the same time, and had to strap on my speech recognition program to quickly type up information from a handful of books in order to clearly substantiate what I was saying. The rest was samplings from my various files. You think you are the first xtian to say "duh...disprove jesus" and that I, as a consistent debater of religion don't have the answers already identified, validated and ready for delivery? lol I thought you "lived for this!" You are a rank amateur. Your inability to articulate an individual thought, substantiate your worldview, or prove any of your musings is not my problem.

You realize how many have come before you claiming to know god’s inner desires and demands for humanity? Lets pretend it is all real…god wanted robots. The ultimatum and pretense of choice when you say, “worship me, or spend eternity in hell” is no choice, and thus he truly does want robots. Why did he even start this in the first place? Bored much? Hmmmm I want to create EVERYTHING, and then 6 billion little people, and since I am all knowing, I knew when I planted the tree of knowledge and gave them choice they would partake, and then I would be mad, and demand this eternal sin/debt to be paid, and then eventually slice off part of myself to implant into a woman, to raise as my son on earth to fulfill the incarnation and atonement, which is me satisfying my own ego and demand for justice…and then each person born after them would upon birth be saddled with this slavery contract….worship me or spend eternity in hell…all a ridiculous egocentric immature murderous selfish piece of shit of a diety…and we should worship him? lol….you surely see how made up this all sounds, only man could have come up with such a ridiculous posit. No world creating diety would be so ……..immature and selfish, and if so, does not deserve worship. A moot point, as it is all made up, much like your crazy fucking perspective.

Once we as a global society figure out that we need to treat religion like we did racism, and make it a negative stigma, so that when someone professes to believe in such nonsense people look at you in shock, as we do when some tool uses a racist/sexist etc type comment...we have to stop putting people who call themselves reverend/father/preacher/saint etc up on a pedestal, they should be embarrassed to say, "I believe in a man made delusion designed to calm and subjugate the masses." Only then can we progress as a society.

Society doesn't need religion to be moral, this is easily proven. Secular societies are better for everyone. Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, crime rates, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

Now let’s look at Saudi Arabian countries, a few come to mind, they are most likely the most devout religious people on the planet...it isn't a past time for them, or a moderate belief, they are willing to die for their beliefs...and they subsequently have the lowest rankings for quality of life, schooling etc.

You have blinders on, there is much you do not know, you cling to faith like a stripper to her favorite shiny pole. I know, you are scared, and need your spiritual security blanky like a 3 yo grips his favorite teddy bear at night when there is a clang in the pipes. Be not afraid, research, READ your favorite fable, the bible, research how that was put together and by who and why...and no, god isnt the answer to that one. Life is short, to go through it blind clinging to a fairy tale about a magical genie who wiggled his fifth appendage and created everything is just...ridiculous. Surely as an adult you realize this?

Whether you wish to discuss the mythical fable called the bible, the bigfoot of the biblical era called jesus, or the existence of the creator, I am fluent in all of it. Preconditions of intelligibility? Cosmological argument? Argument from design/complexity? etc etc, this is what I do. It doesnt take much pulling at the plethora of strings hanging off the story to make the whole thing unravel afterall.

Faith is the delusion, belief without evidence. Faith is pretending to know things that you dont know. To say "I have faith in god" really means "I pretend to know things I don't know about god"....THINK about it, you dont know, you HOPE.

I think it is very anthropocentric of you to posit that we are the center of everything, that the bible (based on myth and full of pseudepigrapha) is proof of anything. it is a great show of hubris on your part to think you have any credibility when referencing the bible on any subject, and then you have the audacity to challenge my position..get some education on the subject and get back to me in a few years.

because you are clearly, "Not in this life" to use your words, you can't even spell debate..continue to wave aside the truckload of substantiated facts we and I have poured upon you, my little ineducable tyro (go look it up), cling to your faith like the blind, close minded, illogical dipshit that you are.

*points* that took me 3 minutes to put together, again, you think you are the first person I have debated? This is what I do my misinformed, delusional child.

Speaking of delusion:

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

If you go to our boxing ring debate, and go to post #20, I have made a simple counter to your gospel authorship claim. After reading my post 8 counters, please go to post 20, read and counter as you see fit. It is a short assertion and a better sized debate chunk. You can phone a friend or pray for assistance if needed.

Now back to my paper writing.

"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
15-02-2015, 12:50 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  First off, I could care less about your over-the-top emotionally charged angry rants.
Christian Debate Tactic #1: Accuse your advisory of being emotion, despite his arguments being based on sound logic and evidence and yours are not, then accuse him of being angry grrrr.Rolleyes

Your gonna have to try a lot harder then that little troll to get under my skin, you amateur.
I'm not angry, my attacks are not emotional but firmly rooted in good reason, and if demolishing your idiocy is considered a rant these days fine..but I went point by point in a controlled and deliberate manner..which is known as you know...the opposite of a rant.

That said even if it was an emotional, angry, over the top, bombastic rant.....that does not prevent it from being right. It's still accurate and you're still wrong. So very very wrong.



(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, my belief may appear weird to unbelievers. I believe that God sent his son to die for the sins of mankind, and whoever believes in him won't perish, but have everlasting life. No doubt, it is weird, dumb, stupid, retarded, and anything else you'd like to add.

That is what I believe.
Good for you, I largely could care less what you believe. You have provided no evidence that there is a god. No evidence he had a son. No evidence of any collective "sin" for an entire species. No testable methodology to demonstrate the a bloody and torturous human sacrifice could in anyway remove this, again undemonstrated, "sin" from the species. No demonstration of the process or mechanic which allows consciousness, an emergent process of a biological brain, can exist outside the brain in any capacity what so ever. There are DOZENS of other things you still need to do.

Until you can go past merely asserting things and into providing testable, demonstrable, and falsifiable evidence then these things are considered to not exist. Your assertions are not authoritative, not a display of knowledge, and have no real world value.

While it's true that believing in things without or against good evidence as you do is "weird, dumb, stupid, retarded" I think the bigger issue at hand is not that the BELIEF is "weird, dumb, stupid, retarded" but that you are "weird, dumb, stupid, retarded" which is why you believe in the first place.
A smart rational man that believes the stupid nonsense you do can be talked and reasoned out of it. You, obviously, can not.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But here is what you believe...
Christian Debate tactic #2: Tell other people what they think or believe, as if you had some way of knowing their mind better then they do.

Ugh. Such rampant arrogance, and willful ignorance. You will notice, boy, that no one here is trying to tell you what you believe. we allow you to state your belief and then we dismantle it based on it's flawed reasoning, fallacious nature, and lack of evidence.

What you are doing is telling other people what they think and then attacking a strawman of your own construction which in no way resembles the position actually held by the person.

We might hurt your lil' feelings but your the one being a dishonest, lecherous, and frankly unoriginal cunt.


(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  you believe that a MINDLESS process, gave you INTELLIGENCE. It didn't KNOW anything, but it gave you intelligence. This process also couldn't see, but it gave you vision. So it couldn't see what it was doing, yet it gave you two eyes, so that you could see Laugh out load

It couldn't ear anything...so on top of giving you two eyes when it can't see, it also gave you two ears so that you could hear Laugh out load
When I accuse you of having not a shred of basic understanding of Evolutionary Biology and it's supporting fields of study such as, Taxonomy, Genetics, Paleontology, Embryology, Molecular Biology, and many others ALL OF WHICH SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ENTIRELY you then go out and write several sentences that PROVE you have no basic understanding of it. That does not make you a good debate partner but it does make you one of the most helpful.Laughat



(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, you can believe that garbage all you want to, but for you to sit there and be so content with naturalism and make it seem like your beliefs are so damn coherent and/or logically plausible, and my questions are so damn out-of-this world is flat out disingenuous.
Again, now your just being an idiot for the sake of ruffling feathers. That "garbage" is proven. It's PROVEN, it's not a guess, it's not speculation it's proven. The process by which humanity came to have a m ind eyes, ears, fingers and toes is proven. Proooooooveeeeeeen.There is no debate over weather human beings are a part of nature and evolved via the same process as the rest of nature.

So no it is in fact not disingenuous to say that my stance, which is proven and backed by dozens of relevant fields of knowledge is superior to yours, a stance held in the absence of any evidence, supported by exactly zero fields of related science, and built on a foundation of the total failure to even comprehend my position and it's complexities.

Get an education.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And I really hate to keep using the "If I bet you a million dollars" analogies, but I think it is the best way I can drive home the point.
Considering it's a false analogy, full of stupid comparisons, fallacies, and again a total failure to comprehend how the evolutionary process works.....yes I do believe you think that's the best way to make your point. Which is why I keep calling you a rank amateur.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If I had you blindfold me and place me in a parking lot, and in that parking lot there is a car with the hood popped, and on the ground is the parts of the car that belong inside of the hood...and the task is for me, blindfolded, to take all of the car parts and place them inside of the hood in perfect configuration in efforts to get the car running, and I bet you a million dollars that I can do it, and if I can't, I will pay you a million dollars...would you take the bet? Now keep in mind, I am blindfolded, I can't see shit...would you take the bet?
You are basically making the, shockingly even less sophisticated, tired and already refuted "Tornado Junkyard" argument.

Your analogy is flawed because it makes the assumption that evolution is trying to create a preimagined or predefined finished product. It's not. Evolution is not trying to fit pieces together to create something it has envisioned ahead of time.
You really don't understand Evolutionary Biology and until you do you need to stop making bad analogies. You are welcome to ignore it and not believe in it but you don't have the intelligence or the education needed to comment on it. You are making so many fundamental errors my brothers grade 3 science textbook is beating you. That's not an insult, it actually is. I checked.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If you wouldn't take the bet, you are STUPID...but if you would take the bet, that is because you would realize how improbable it would be for me to accomplish such a thing.
Good thing that's not how evolution works at all then. I'd take that bet just to watch you bumblefuck your way into locking yourself in the boot.Drinking Beverage While it's not really relevant, if you asked me to assemble the engine of a 1969 Chevy Impala while blindfolded I actually could.Tongue

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yet, when you open up the stomach of a human being (or any living organism), you will see all of these different parts that are all configured in a certain way inside of the stomach, with each part having a given function (just like the damn car)...you are going to sit there and tell me that you believe that a mindless and blind process could have pulled that off, but you wouldn't bet an intelligent human being with no vision to be able to pull it off???
Facepalm
Another false analogy and display of your staggering ignorance of how evolution, and hey now even biology, works. You have this belief that evolution has an end game in mind of what a human is supposed to look like and it does not.

You don't have even the basics of the theory down, how did you even graduate highschool?


(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am the best at what I do, and I prove it by doing it.

Uh-huh.
"Nature does not have ears to hear so how can humans have ears? lol checkmate"

You are the best at what you do only if what you are doing is actively trying to fail. You also are suffering from Dunning–Kruger a thing you have repeatedly displayed by believing you are qualified to rebut Evolution what simultaneously not even understanding the basics.

As I said your not even a good poe, you need to tighten up your game first. Honestly you're not even getting better at it, you seem to be getting worse. You are not even the best theist we have had here this month.Laughat

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  This is the typical semantic babble that is common within atheism.
I'm sorry that you want to take a word, apply it falsely, to undermine an opposing view and bring it down to your level and that i won't let you. Insisting that you use a word fucking correctly is not semantics, it's just good English.


(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  On judgment day, God will make no distinction between atheists and agnostics. And if he doesn't make the distinction, neither will I.
You still have not made a demonstration that there is a god or a judgment day so if you want to not be viewed as a stubborn, uneducated cunt who has to play word games in order to make a point you will make the bloody distinction.

That said you actually failed to understand my criticism princess, it had nothing to do with atheism or agnosticism (which by the way are not entirely separate things, you can be both and neither in fact) but with your dishonest and slimy attempt to misuse a word to make a idiotic and wrong point.


(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Until you can go in a lab and demonstrate how life came from nonlife, the origins of the universe, and where the hell consciousness came from, then spare me of the "all know evidence support this, and this is testable and predictable" babble.

A.) I don't need to prove abiogenesis, the origin of the universe, the origin of consciousness, to ridicule your failure to understand and accept evolution. Evolution is still a proven fact even if we never explain any of the others. Evolution would still be a fact if I couldn't explain the basics of gravity. The process we call Evolution would still be a fact in nature even if we couldn't explain it at all. Evolution is a fact, and you're an idiot for arguing against it and the other questions we have yet to answer have no bearing on that in anyway.

B.) Until you can go into a lab and prove god caused the origin of consciousness, the universe, and the origin of life I guess you can shut your fucking dick holster can'tcha? It goes both ways idiot.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
15-02-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Have you ever observed a reptile-bird kind of change within a organism? No, you haven't. So basically, you are relying on the unseen. Sounds like, religion.
It's nothing like religion and the only people who say that are the religious trying to justify their own delusions. I'm sorry that your not versed in Microbiology, Taxonomy, and Genetics but your ignorance is not an excuse. Evolution is a fact, your attempts to discredit it is childlike in it's idiocy.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  We know about the workings of evolutionary biology with regards to microevolution. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, snakes produce snakes...reptiles produce...birds??? Sorry Charlie, never happened.
Yup, sorry it has. Genetics alone proves it, we really don't even need any other field to confirm this but we have dozens. Lucky us. Your ignorance of the evidence is not a compelling counter argument.


(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Of course, there is a lot of technical babble that is thrown in there, but here is the jest of things...here is what you believe
Actually I'm gonna cut you off right here, you have lost your right to tell me what i think because every single time you try you are both wrong about what i believe and you demonstrate a total lack of understanding in the subject matter. From this point forward you can make a point if you like, or are able for that matter, but if you attempt to tell me what I believe I'm going to dismiss your entire argument, on the grounds you don't have the relevant data on my belief, and cordially invite you to form an intimate relationship with your own face.

Are we clear kid?

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  See, the changes take oh so longggg to occur, that no human was around to see it back then, and no human alive today will be around when the next big thing happen, but if you stick around for a few hundred million years, you will see it.
You act as if because humans were not around to see it then no evidence exists, which is just patently false. Again....fucking hell...again Genetics alone would be enough to prove evolution and common ancestry but we have dozens of fields of science all of which are in universal agreement as to evolutionary Biology being the process by which life diversifies and changes.

This is a fact, and your scientific ignorance is not a counter argument.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If you don't see the con in that, I don't what to tell you...you've been duped, my friend. You've either been duped by the guys in the white lab coats, or you've duped yourself...but either way, you've been duped.

You claim Ive been duped by clear and accurate data, by demonstrable evidence, by accurate predictive power and the overlapping conclusions of dozens of fields of science but that you a person who claims belief in things he can't prove, with no data, no corroborating evidence of any kind, and exactly zero fields of actual science in agreement with him is the one who is not being coned.

Uh huh, just keep putting that money in the collection plate Jesus should be back any second now (give or take 2000+ years)...any second...aaaaaany second....

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will put it to you like this...if you go in a pet store and you ask for a dog, but you are brought out a snake, would you accept this? If you wouldn't, then you are realizing that the "kind" you asked for is different than the "kind" that you were given. It is just that simple.
That's not a definition of a Kind. What is the clear and logically consistent definition of a Kind. If your not going to answer the question honestly just don't answer it. Now.... define it, because at the moment your "kind" seems to be weasel.Drinking Beverage

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Birds are descendants from reptiles? Ok, and King David was a great-ancestor of Jesus. You've told me your religious views, and I told you mines.
Not a religious view, it's a fact and has been proven. Yours have not. They are not equal claims, you lying dishonest cunt. Try again. Drinking Beverage


(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...doesn't like the idea of people using common sense to determine that a mindless and blind process can't create intelligence and vision.
lol common sense. I'm not going to go over, again for like a 6th time, that your ignorance of the science is not an argument.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 01:11 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Arguments from personal incredulity.

Bullshit. My beliefs are based on what I believe to be the best explanation, and things like the origin of life, the universe, and consciousness are, in my opinion, best explained by a higher power.
Which is literally an argument from personal incredulity.Facepalm I don't know how it works so therefore god is not just personal incredulity it's a textbook TEXTBOOK example of a god of the gaps argument. seriously you are terrible at this.

Also it's not an explanation of how this came about it's an assertion of how they did. An assertion is not an explanation. Your religion gives no explanations, it gives assertions and then never provide evidence. They are hollow.


(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You can disagree all you'd like, but science sure as hell isn't helping you in either of these three cases, so I have every right to look elsewhere for answers when science can't help me with these questions.
Again textbook god of the gaps: science does not know so therefor god. If science does not have the answer the intellectually honest thing to do is say i don't know, not go and use the most fantastical myth you can as mortar to fill your ignorance.

Also we know where consciousness comes from, how to alter it, and how to end it but nice try cupcake maybe join this century as the 19th which you seem to be stuck in is a little outta date.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 01:11 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Arguments from personal experience.

Bullshit. I was asked a question, and I gave an answer based on a personal experience.
Which if you are using it as corroboration for your claims.....is....an argument...from....personal...experience....you bloody idiot.

Your personal experiences are not evidence of any kind. They are unique to you, and as you are both delusional and dishonest I have no reason to believe you are not making the story up out of whole cloth.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 01:11 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Strawman arguments.

Bullshit. I never attacked a position that someone doesn't hold too.
You did it twice in your response to me you fucking moron. The fact you don't understand evolution does not mean your misrepresentation of it in debate is not a strawman.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 01:11 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Arguments from popularity.

Bullshit. I never said nor implied that since x amount of people believe it, therefore, it is true.
Uh-huh. You made the argument, repeatedly I might add, that because the vast majority of biblical scholars believe that Jesus existed therefor it's likely he did.

Try again.


(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 01:11 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Confirmation bias, and boat loads of it.

Bullshit. Assuming you are talking about me ignoring the times that my prayers weren't answered, I already responded to this.
You responded to this dishonestly by lying about what you had written. You are engaged in confirmation bias even if you don't want to think you are. You are counting the hits, and ignoring the misses.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 01:11 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Arguments from authority.

Unless you call appealing to the Bible an argument from authority, then I am guilty as charged. Other than that, bullshit.
The Bible is a collection of heavily fabricated stories and myths I would hardly consider it an authority, though you seem to, mistaken, think that it is and use it as an authority. You have also used characters from the bible independently as an authority on various subjects.

I could go on. Drinking Beverage


(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am a Christian theist, and I've done nothing on here but defend my faith and expose the limitations of science.
You have done nothing of the sort.
A.) To defend your faith you would have to provide some evidence or data to show that it is has even a basis for legitimacy. You have not done that ....at all..not even a little bit. You have made assertions, when asked to prove them you dishonestly make excuses and then follow them up with MORE assertions. Your defense has been next to nonexistent and when it has has been fallacious and has born the mark, repeatedly, of the uneducated and scientifically illiterate.

You want to defend your religion? Fine: provide a testable, demonstrable, logically consistent, and falsifiable mechanism for ascertaining the difference between a delusion born of your mind and an actual god which exists in reality.

B.) You have shown exactly zero limitations of science. You don't even display a competent understanding of the basics of science. Am I supposed to view a lack of a current answer on some topics as a limitation of science? 'Cause it aint kid.


(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That has nothing to do with lunacy, that has to do with truth. But hey, I know that some atheists have this false notion that they are so smart, and believers are so dumb Laugh out load Nothing can be further from the truth.
And here is your thinking in a nut shell: That you have the truth and the fact you can not give a single bit of proof or justification for your truth should be considered irrelevant.

Any man, like yourself, who claims to have truth but refuses or is unable to prove it has only hollow assertions and personal delusions.

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will leave it there, because I already gave you more time than you deserve...and I will never get that time that I spent responding to you back No
Uh-huh. I guess if we take your mode of thinking given that you can't provide answers to half of my criticisms I can assert that you don't have them and thus I have exposed your limitations as a debater. Drinking Beverage

You know...I'm trying to help you but your not going to become a better lier or a better troll if you try LESS hard each time you make shit up. Drinking Beverage

Twat.

2/10

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
15-02-2015, 12:53 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 08:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I have to vent. With all due respect, I just can't buy the "scheduling" and "I am busy" sob stories. There are 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week....so, 168 hours in an entire week...and all you would need to do is put aside one hour of the 168 total to discuss these same subjects that you are quick to jump on these forums to discuss.

lolz

(15-02-2015 08:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will leave it there, because I already gave you more time than you deserve...and I will never get that time that I spent responding to you back No

Hypocritical lil' bitch.LaughatLaughat

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
15-02-2015, 01:02 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 11:01 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dude, you have more excuses than a black man going to jail (and that is a lot).

Woooooow. Some racism thrown in for good measure, how classy. Hobo

How about you go back to the formal debate you agreed to and try to answer his criticisms instead of trying to change the format to one you can gish gallop in with impunity.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
15-02-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
[Image: mcjesus1.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: