Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Eric Arthur Blair]

They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.

It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.

It's a cheap cowardly cop out. What atheists really want is a way to deny God but since that's beyond them they conflate God with man's flawed religions. That's far from "rational".

 

[JimBowie1958]

They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.

It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.

The typical atheist does not have the Mental capacity to grasp the idea of what the Creator actually is, much less attack the concept.

 

[BreezeWood]

I concur. I can’t see how it could be any other way.
You do realize that the ones arguing against this can’t separate God from religion, right?

Yes. There is some mental disconnect there and I've mentioned how the two are linked but not synonymous many times.
Still they persist.
I wouldn't say they have a screw loose but there is some psychological component, I believe, and they cannot seem
to catch on.

They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.

Religion has a bad rap these days that is completely undeserved.

We have had only one major ideology that is explicitly based in part on atheism, and that is Marxist Leninism.

I'll take religion over that any day of the week.

.

Religion has a bad rap these days that is completely undeserved.

these days - not religion, the religions of evil. bowie.

I'll take religion over that any day of the week.

triumph over evil - for some is a messy affair others do the best they can.

 

[BreezeWood]

They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.

It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.

It's a cheap cowardly cop out. What atheists really want is a way to deny God but since that's beyond them they conflate God with man's flawed religions. That's far from "rational".

.

It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.

It's a cheap cowardly cop out. What atheists really want is a way to deny God but since that's beyond them they conflate God with man's flawed religions. That's far from "rational".

the false desert religions have always been an assault on the prescribed religion of the Almighty that prevails to this day as the stalwart defense of their evil ideologies. and the dissolution of religion that is their anterior motives. the religions of inclusion.

 

[Hollie]

They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.

It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.

It's a cheap cowardly cop out. What atheists really want is a way to deny God but since that's beyond them they conflate God with man's flawed religions. That's far from "rational".

There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods. Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.

Overwhelmingly, people's perceptions of their gods come from holy books that describe those gods. Have you chosen to create your own, customized, new-fangled designer gods?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods.

And no reason to call me angry and emotive. It's deceitful and one has to assume you have no argument so you must resort to mistruths instead.
Right off the bat you paint yourself as not trustworthy.

Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.

More lies and regurgitated falsehoods.

Overwhelmingly, people's perceptions of their gods come from holy books that describe those gods. Have you chosen to create your own, customized, new-fangled designer gods?

I assume the question is facetious and requires no reply.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We have had only one major ideology that is explicitly based in part on atheism, and that is Marxist Leninism.

Then you are very ignorant. This nation was founded on secular government and classical liberalism, neither of which pay any mind to any magical gods.

 

[Hollie]

There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods.

And no reason to call me angry and emotive. It's deceitful and one has to assume you have no argument so you must resort to mistruths instead.
Right off the bat you paint yourself as not trustworthy.

Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.

More lies and regurgitated falsehoods.

Overwhelmingly, people's perceptions of their gods come from holy books that describe those gods. Have you chosen to create your own, customized, new-fangled designer gods?

I assume the question is facetious and requires no reply.

You're angry and emotive, unless your hurling of the "moron" label was a term of endearment.

Take a look and see for yourself the percentages of people who call Hinduism and Buddhism their religion. So yes, large swaths of the planet don't believe in your gods.

I assume your non-response was a drop ten and punt.

Here's some advise. When you post on a public message board, you should assume others will read your comments and not everyone will agree with your opinions.

When you insist with 100% certainty, (supported by 0% facts), that your partisan gods are true to the exclusion of claims by others of their gods, don't get angry and emotive when people challenge such specious opinions.

If you're not emotionally and intellectually prepared to defend a claim that you make while offering zero supportable evidence for same you willingly post, consider not participating.

 

[Ringtone]

There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods.

And no reason to call me angry and emotive. It's deceitful and one has to assume you have no argument so you must resort to mistruths instead.

Right off the bat you paint yourself as not trustworthy.

Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.

More lies and regurgitated falsehoods.

Overwhelmingly, people's perceptions of their gods come from holy books that describe those gods. Have you chosen to create your own, customized, new-fangled designer gods?

I assume the question is facetious and requires no reply.

Of course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.

That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.

The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).​

What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.

 

[Hollie]

There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods.

And no reason to call me angry and emotive. It's deceitful and one has to assume you have no argument so you must resort to mistruths instead.

Right off the bat you paint yourself as not trustworthy.

Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.

More lies and regurgitated falsehoods.

Overwhelmingly, people's perceptions of their gods come from holy books that describe those gods. Have you chosen to create your own, customized, new-fangled designer gods?

I assume the question is facetious and requires no reply.

Of course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.

That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.

The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).​

What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.

And he's back. Stuttering and mumbling with his usual cliches.

Cutting and pasting of your tired, tedious slogans is pointless.

There's a standard by which we judge the veracity of claims; the standards of proof, of course. Your silly tirades wherein your breathless, run-on sentences become incoherent rambling do nothing to offer support for your various gods.

Bible thumpers need to understand that using their bibles as "pwoof" of their gods is nonsensical.

Thanks.

 

[BreezeWood]

There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods.

And no reason to call me angry and emotive. It's deceitful and one has to assume you have no argument so you must resort to mistruths instead.

Right off the bat you paint yourself as not trustworthy.

Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.

More lies and regurgitated falsehoods.

Overwhelmingly, people's perceptions of their gods come from holy books that describe those gods. Have you chosen to create your own, customized, new-fangled designer gods?

I assume the question is facetious and requires no reply.

Of course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.

That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.

The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).​

What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.

.

The Bible is uniquely riddled ...

tombstone answers

- with forgeries and misconceptions made unique by its true purpose being a political document disguised as a religion, written during the extent of the 4th century culminating in its last decade. not withstanding the most egregious of errors claiming for the innocents to worship a falsely interpreted messiah it claims admonishes their sins only for them to participate in their most deceptive of crimes.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Of course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.

That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.

The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.

Yes. I have to say her act as grown old and tiresome already. And it doesn't even have anything of intellectual merit
to recommend it. It is pure trollery.

And she so wants someone to pay attention to her. Such a shame.

 

[Hollie]

Of course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.

That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.

The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.

Yes. I have to say her act as grown old and tiresome already. And it doesn't even have anything of intellectual merit
to recommend it. It is pure trollery.

And she so wants someone to pay attention to her. Such a shame.

I think it's comical when the thumpers console each other to assuage their failures to put forth a coherent argument.

I thought it was comical when "Ringtone" was feverishly cutting and pasting his slogans to include "one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence"

He then went on to cut and paste from the bibles, obviously appealing to the bibles as a means to support his argument that one doesn't need to appeal to a religious system to support their gods... by way of cutting snd pasting bible verses.

 

[ding]

I concur. I can’t see how it could be any other way.
You do realize that the ones arguing against this can’t separate God from religion, right?

Yes. There is some mental disconnect there and I've mentioned how the two are linked but not synonymous many times.
Still they persist.
I wouldn't say they have a screw loose but there is some psychological component, I believe, and they cannot seem
to catch on.

They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.

Religion has a bad rap these days that is completely undeserved.

We have had only one major ideology that is explicitly based in part on atheism, and that is Marxist Leninism.

I'll take religion over that any day of the week.

Agreed. The weak are the first to turn.

 

[ding]

Of course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.

That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.

The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.

Yes. I have to say her act as grown old and tiresome already. And it doesn't even have anything of intellectual merit
to recommend it. It is pure trollery.

And she so wants someone to pay attention to her. Such a shame.

She’s a big poster in the Israel / Palestine threads.

She’s very pro Israel.

 

[ding]

Of course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.

That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.

The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.

Yes. I have to say her act as grown old and tiresome already. And it doesn't even have anything of intellectual merit
to recommend it. It is pure trollery.

And she so wants someone to pay attention to her. Such a shame.

I think it's comical when the thumpers console each other to assuage their failures to put forth a coherent argument.

I thought it was comical when "Ringtone" was feverishly cutting and pasting his slogans to include "one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence"

He then went on to cut and paste from the bibles, obviously appealing to the bibles as a means to support his argument that one doesn't need to appeal to a religious system to support their gods... by way of cutting snd pasting bible verses.

Palestine called. They want you to keep helping Israel.

 

[ding]

They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.

It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.

It's a cheap cowardly cop out. What atheists really want is a way to deny God but since that's beyond them they conflate God with man's flawed religions. That's far from "rational".

I couldn’t agree more. I see it over and over again.

 

[Hollie]

Of course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.

That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.

The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.

Yes. I have to say her act as grown old and tiresome already. And it doesn't even have anything of intellectual merit
to recommend it. It is pure trollery.

And she so wants someone to pay attention to her. Such a shame.

You thumpers have a real obsession with me. You just can't help but seek comfort in each other's whining.

 

[ding]

She starting to make me sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

I wonder if she is a Palestinian double agent.

 

[ding]

Drop




















mike