Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[ding]

I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.

I'm sure that all made sense in your head anyway when the idea first rattled around like dried beans inside some cheap flea market maracas. There is just one God by definition.
There can be no other supreme being.

Because you say so? By definition?

There’s no reason why there couldn’t be a multitude of gods with your gods being just minor players in a vast hierarchy of gods.

You mean other than unnecessary complexity?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Because you say so? By definition?

There’s no reason why there couldn’t be a multitude of gods with your gods being just minor players in a vast hierarchy of gods.

You don't believe in even one God let alone a pack of others. Your attempts to blow smoke around are comical.
As I said, God is a supreme being (supreme...meaning preeminent and with no superior).

I have no Gods plural. Only the one singular.

 

[Hollie]

Because you say so? By definition?

There’s no reason why there couldn’t be a multitude of gods with your gods being just minor players in a vast hierarchy of gods.

You don't believe in even one God let alone a pack of others. Your attempts to blow smoke around are comical.
As I said, God is a supreme being (supreme...meaning preeminent and with no superior).

I have no Gods plural. Only the one singular.

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

There is simply no practical way to come from a rational perspective and assert an irrational one as the foundation. The gods are not only described by their worshippers as irrational (outside of reason), but even as a concept are outside of reason. Claims to supernatural realms inhabited by supernatural gods is entirely irrational.

However, we do live in a reality of some kind-- so in order to decipher what that reality is, we need to put aside claims to supernaturalism and work from a rational point forward. None of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to supernatural gods. If you or any supernaturalists have evidence that something shows signs of being designed by a supernatural gods, (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. Never in human history has any supernatural event ever been substantiated. Supernaturalists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims

Therefore, the collective use of perception and the sciences can be harnessed to make sense of our environment, and as humans continue to explore and learn, they show a clear trend towards doing precisely that.

 

[ding]

That Hollie is one true believer.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

 

[ding]

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

 

[BreezeWood]

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

.

- even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error.

as attested by the false religions of the middle east and particularly by their fraudulent scripts.

 

[Hollie]

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

Don’t let your hurt feelings cause you such angst. There has never been a logical, rational and empirical case for your gods or anyone’s else’s gods because there is nothing logical, rational and empirical about supernatural entities. You have actually proved the point that no logical, rational and empirical case can be made for supernaturalism and harmful superstitions.

There’s no need to vent your anger and hatred because others don’t accept your baseless arguments. I under you may need to proselytize, but your being a failed salesman for your religion is not my problem.

 

[ding]

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

.

- even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error.

as attested by the false religions of the middle east and particularly by their fraudulent scripts.

View attachment 286325

I wouldn’t expect a secular humanist to see it any other way.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

So, faith, which is the belief in something with no proof, "...confirms and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of the truth", which could be reworded to say that faith, which is the absence of proof, is proof?

 

[ding]

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

So, faith, which is the belief in something with no proof, "...confirms and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of the truth", which could be reworded to say that faith, which is the absence of proof, is proof?

I don’t see it that way.

Faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I don’t put complete trust in something or someone without good reason.

Apparently the Catholic Church agrees with me as they believe that faith confirms reason. And that’s exactly how it worked for me.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

So, faith, which is the belief in something with no proof, "...confirms and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of the truth", which could be reworded to say that faith, which is the absence of proof, is proof?

I don’t see it that way.

Faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I don’t put complete trust in something or someone without good reason.

Apparently the Catholic Church agrees with me as they believe that faith confirms reason. And that’s exactly how it worked for me.

I am sure that the Catholic Church does agree with you. They also believe in Papal infallibility, that it is a sin against god to use birth control, and back in the 1960's they believed that my wife's baby which died in the womb, could not be buried in sacred soil because she was never baptized.

 

[BreezeWood]

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

So, faith, which is the belief in something with no proof, "...confirms and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of the truth", which could be reworded to say that faith, which is the absence of proof, is proof?

.

- which could be reworded to say that faith, which is the absence of proof, is proof?

or faith without attaining the stated goal is without merit.

 

[ding]

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

So, faith, which is the belief in something with no proof, "...confirms and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of the truth", which could be reworded to say that faith, which is the absence of proof, is proof?

I don’t see it that way.

Faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I don’t put complete trust in something or someone without good reason.

Apparently the Catholic Church agrees with me as they believe that faith confirms reason. And that’s exactly how it worked for me.

I am sure that the Catholic Church does agree with you. They also believe in Papal infallibility, that it is a sin against god to use birth control, and back in the 1960's they believed that my wife's baby which died in the womb, could not be buried in sacred soil because she was never baptized.

Sorry to hear for your loss.

Not sure what any of that has to do with my belief which was arrived at independently of the Church’s.

 

[ding]

The problem with your claims to gods is that like others who make claims to competing versions of gods, none of your gods or anyone else's gods have ever been shown to be anything but specious claims.

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

So, faith, which is the belief in something with no proof, "...confirms and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of the truth", which could be reworded to say that faith, which is the absence of proof, is proof?

.

- which could be reworded to say that faith, which is the absence of proof, is proof?

or faith without attaining the stated goal is without merit.

The goal is a journey. I’m on it. It has merit all by itself.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Don’t let your hurt feelings cause you such angst. There has never been a logical, rational and empirical case for your gods or anyone’s else’s gods because there is nothing logical, rational and empirical about supernatural entities. You have actually proved the point that no logical, rational and empirical case can be made for supernaturalism and harmful superstitions.

There’s no need to vent your anger and hatred because others don’t accept your baseless arguments. I under you may need to proselytize, but your being a failed salesman for your religion is not my problem.

Could you please repost your proof for the non existence of God? I think I missed it before and I want to see how you reason everything out. Thanks.

 

[Vandalshandle]

A logical, rational and empirical case for God has been made so many times here and not once have you even tried to refute it. Your entire case is God doesn't exist. Period! End of discussion. No explanations needed.
You don't deserve any respect or an answer, really. You are simply a cowardly intellectually deprived one note song
played endlessly.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

So, faith, which is the belief in something with no proof, "...confirms and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of the truth", which could be reworded to say that faith, which is the absence of proof, is proof?

I don’t see it that way.

Faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I don’t put complete trust in something or someone without good reason.

Apparently the Catholic Church agrees with me as they believe that faith confirms reason. And that’s exactly how it worked for me.

I am sure that the Catholic Church does agree with you. They also believe in Papal infallibility, that it is a sin against god to use birth control, and back in the 1960's they believed that my wife's baby which died in the womb, could not be buried in sacred soil because she was never baptized.

Sorry to hear for your loss.

Not sure what any of that has to do with my belief which was arrived at independently of the Church’s.

It involved my wife and her first husband, not me. But is was cold and harsh, especially when the priest told her that she would never be together with her baby in the afterlife, since the baby would be in Limbo. She walked out of the church and never returned. I understand that this is no longer the teaching in the Catholic Church. As for me, I have always an agnostic, until I became an ashiest.

 

[Hollie]

Don’t let your hurt feelings cause you such angst. There has never been a logical, rational and empirical case for your gods or anyone’s else’s gods because there is nothing logical, rational and empirical about supernatural entities. You have actually proved the point that no logical, rational and empirical case can be made for supernaturalism and harmful superstitions.

There’s no need to vent your anger and hatred because others don’t accept your baseless arguments. I under you may need to proselytize, but your being a failed salesman for your religion is not my problem.

Could you please repost your proof for the non existence of God? I think I missed it before and I want to see how you reason everything out. Thanks.

Why would I spend time posting proofs for the non-existence of your gods or any other supernatural entity? I have no interest in posting disproofs of the Easter Bunny. Your claim to the existence of the Easter Bunny doesn't actually make the Easter Bunnny extant until disproven.

For example, I do in fact have proof for the non-existence of the supernatural entities you insist are true.

Provide you disproof.

You're making claims to partisan gods yet you fail to offer the most basic evidences.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Why would I spend time posting proofs for the non-existence of your gods or any other supernatural entity?

Presumably so it's obvious you aren't spouting out bullshit that you cannot possibly justify.
Most people are afraid of being seen as frauds and liars. I guess that doesn't bother you.

I have no interest in posting disproofs of the Easter Bunny. Your claim to the existence of the Easter Bunny doesn't actually make the Easter Bunnny extant until disproven.

Yeah, I have no interest in that either.
And no one cares or asks you prove or disprove the existence of the Easter bunny.
But you consistently just deny the existence of God purely on your own say so and insistent blather even after having been asked to provide a rationale for your knee jerk blanket denials.

It's intellectually cowardly and extremely dishonest. If you are certain there is no God you must be basing your intransigent view on something other than an emotionally dug in mind set. So what is it?

For example, I do in fact have proof for the non-existence of the supernatural entities you insist are true.

Provide you disproof.

You're making claims to partisan gods yet you fail to offer the most basic evidences.

Now you try to
turn around the question on myself. That is what a miserable coward and know nothing does when she is cornered.
I've given my reasoning for God many times. And I've also provided supporting comment like this that sum up my view:

"Co-founder of string field theory and physicist Michio Kaku made waves last year — or at least seemed to — when it was reported that he’d proven the existence of God. The Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies quoted Kaku as saying, "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."

 

[Hollie]

Why would I spend time posting proofs for the non-existence of your gods or any other supernatural entity?

Presumably so it's obvious you aren't spouting out bullshit that you cannot possibly justify.
Most people are afraid of being seen as frauds and liars. I guess that doesn't bother you.

I have no interest in posting disproofs of the Easter Bunny. Your claim to the existence of the Easter Bunny doesn't actually make the Easter Bunnny extant until disproven.

Yeah, I have no interest in that either.
And no one cares or asks you prove or disprove the existence of the Easter bunny.
But you consistently just deny the existence of God purely on your own say so and insistent blather even after having been asked to provide a rationale for your knee jerk blanket denials.

It's intellectually cowardly and extremely dishonest. If you are certain there is no God you must be basing your intransigent view on something other than an emotionally dug in mind set. So what is it?

For example, I do in fact have proof for the non-existence of the supernatural entities you insist are true.

Provide you disproof.

You're making claims to partisan gods yet you fail to offer the most basic evidences.

Now you try to
turn around the question on myself. That is what a miserable coward and know nothing does when she is cornered.
I've given my reasoning for God many times. And I've also provided supporting comment like this that sum up my view:

"Co-founder of string field theory and physicist Michio Kaku made waves last year — or at least seemed to — when it was reported that he’d proven the existence of God. The Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies quoted Kaku as saying, "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."

The angry xtian act is rather clownisn. I've never made the absolute statement that one or more gods don't exist. I've left it up to the bible thumpers who insist their gods are true to support their claims with evidence to the supernatural.

Prior to launching into your usual, juvenile tirades, why not offer something to support frantic claims to your gods?

Cutting and pasting an opinion by Kaku is a failed tactic you tried before. Could you have Kaku offer his proof of the gods? You certainly can't.