Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620697 May 1, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text>
What scientific evidence do you base your belief on?
Another ridiculous question. You're good at those. Oh, you're parroting that from known huckster Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. Bwahahaha. Really, that is your go to guy? A man who'd couldn't find any rubes in Australia so he set sail for Kentucky, where the jernt is loaded with them. The taxpayers built a highway for him to enrich himself on the backs of the easily conned. Why wasn't that pork protested by the cogniscenti? The Creation Museum? Bwahahaha. A ridiculous theme park that is starting to hemorrhage money as even thickly-syruped Christians realize how ridiculous it is. Don't forget to exit through the gift shop. You can buy a tiny torture device or a homage to planet-wide genocide with cute, little stuffed animals to teach children that mass murder is A OK.

You really need to get to smarter thieves than Ham and Slick. They are making you look foolish. Or, keep going. You're providing a service.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620699 May 1, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasting time RR. They are unable to account for Laws of Logic in their world view.
First they would have to admit that...well let's wait for someone to refute my claim, then I will show you...
Perhaps one day you will have a revelation that attempting to offer "logical absolutes" as evidence for your culturally-conditioned divine master is useless, as it does nothing to define whichever god it is that you are imagining. Any hard questions to answer don't lead to, Boom! Therefore God! As time has irrevocably passed, the explanations for things once attributed to a god or gods are continually revealed to be not dependent on a transcendent "mind" or power. The gaps are shrinking. The gods are waning, melting like the Wicked Witch of the West. Your argument from ignorance is a failure.

I know you are unable to define truth and absolutes. Matt Slick can't do it and won't, because it is bad for business, so I won't even ask you to do so. Just the way you phrase this question proves you don't even really understand it and are just parroting a professional shill.

The term “Logical Absolutes” is an oxymoron invented by Matt Slick. This terminology is nowhere to be found in academia, including the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Why? Because logic is not absolute. Logic is concerned with the patterns in reason that can help tell us if a proposition is true or not. However, logic does not deal with truth in the absolute sense. Logicians use formal languages to express the truths which they are concerned with, and as such there is only truth under some interpretation or truth within some logical system. Logic is always systemic and within the context of a pre-defined system of axioms. Logic has its limitations. Axiomatic rules are pre-defined by humans for use in a specific context and can never be absolute. There are hundreds of systems of logic which are independent of each other and not absolute, like: Classical, Fuzzy, Intuitionist, Quantum, Mathematics, et al.

Please do some reading so you don't appear to be just another duped rube, the flotsam and jetsam that your religion has produced for many years.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620700 May 1, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>So true. Sadly it seems to be a common theme on these threads. Certain people proclaiming themselves "free-thinkers" yet claim to know absolute truth and condemn any who challenges their views or behaviors.
Bwahahaha. Unintentionally ironic post of the day. Are you asserting a positive god claim and consider it the absolute truth, like "Expert" tries to ridiculously do with the malleable axioms of logic? That is so rich.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620701 May 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's a direct response to your inquiry of:
"Does this work for you? Let's say you live your entire life without ever hearing of God, you die, and you are tortured for an eternity. Where was the justice in that?"
You are wrong. I just showed you that.
There is no justice in torturing someone for eternity for a finite thought crime, either, but you've swallowed that concept hook, like, and "stinker".
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620702 May 1, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>What was he wrong about?
Was it his claim that it's not justice or was he wrong about those who haven't heard of your Jesus going straight to hell?
When he obfuscates, it's easier to backpedal.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620703 May 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
How could you? The bible directly refutes it.
Oh ya, how could I forget? Your confirmation bias won't allow you to see any other way than yours.
Actually, you claim it does while the self-anointed "Expert" claims it doesn't. Which spokeswhore is rights.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620704 May 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot counter it. Your bias is established. Even Gid sitting next to you wouldn't convince you, what can I do? Nothin.
Perhaps you should think about the laws if thought, they present principles first, then reasoning.
I remember you arguing before that the supernatural could not be quantified by the natural. Since your divine master vacillates between natural and supernatural, and now you claim it could spider poof, eyeing up my curds and whey, which is it. Is it natural or supernatural? If it is natural, it is testable, falsifiable, and repeatable. If it is supernatural, it might as well not exist. Care to buy some Jesus toast?

If you were born in Islamabad and your divine master came to you in a vision, which version would that be?

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#620705 May 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, you claim it does while the self-anointed "Expert" claims it doesn't. Which spokeswhore is rights.
I only see you posting and talking to yourselves?
are you ok? on your Top??
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620706 May 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, "consciousness" is a collection of mental traits, resulting in the awareness of the self. Most mammals exhibit this "consciousness" all the time.
What if this life was merely the Matrix? What if we were all living in a computer simulation? How would knowing how the "outside" universe help us to survive "inside?" Would knowing the speed of light in another universe help us to develop communications equipment in this world? Would knowing how electricity works in another universe help us to develop computers and light bulbs in this world? Think on those.
Is it solopsistic in here or is it just me?

“I suppose that one reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with 'you' in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me.”
&#8213; Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir

“Any theory which causes solipsism to seem just as likely an explanation for the phenomena it seeks to describe ought to be held in the utmost suspicion.”
&#8213; Iain M. Banks

“The worst mockery God can make of a moralist is that He compels him to be a
solipsist.”
&#8213; Kedar Joshi

“You can find me in the frozen mood section.”
&#8213; Henry Rollins, Solipsist
Expert in all things

Redding, CA

#620707 May 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>I remember you arguing before that the supernatural could not be quantified by the natural. Since your divine master vacillates between natural and supernatural, and now you claim it could spider poof, eyeing up my curds and whey, which is it. Is it natural or supernatural? If it is natural, it is testable, falsifiable, and repeatable. If it is supernatural, it might as well not exist. Care to buy some Jesus toast?
If you were born in Islamabad and your divine master came to you in a vision, which version would that be?
Can't help but notice that you have not tried to refute any arguments but only offer personal attacks. Are you trying to compensate for having a small pecker?
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620708 May 1, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The doctrine of eternal punishment is in perfect harmony with the savagery of the men who made the orthodox creeds. It is in harmony with torture, with flaying alive, and with burnings. The men who burned their fellow-men for a moment, believed that God would burn his enemies forever."— Robert Green Ingersoll, "Crumbling Creeds."
Ingersoll was awesome. A true Enlightenment scribe. An atheist, responsible for things like the 40 hour work week and the demise of the company store. A true humanitarian. A learned intellectual. A man who had thousands come to hear him speak, his eloquence a beacon to theists and atheists alike.

Ingersoll was beloved by outstanding people in all walks of life. Among his admirers were president James Garfield, poet Walt Whitman, President Ulysses S. Grant, industrialist-philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, inventor Thomas Edison, preacher Henry Ward Beecher, and women's rights pioneer Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Ingersoll especially impressed Mark Twain. After hearing Ingersoll speak, he wrote his wife: "He poured molten silver from his lips. What an organ is human speech when it is employed by a master!"

Some notable quotations:
· A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.
· Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.
· Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself.
· Happiness is not a reward - it is a consequence. Suffering is not a punishment - it is a result.
· Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.
· If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New Testament, he would be insane.
· It is a blessed thing that in every age someone has had the individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions.
· It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense.
· Surely there is grandeur in knowing that in the realm of thought, at least, you are without a chain; that you have the right to explore all heights and depth; that there are no walls nor fences, nor prohibited places, nor sacred corners in all the vast expanse of thought...
· The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.'
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620709 May 1, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have, but not through your eyes and mind set. I set and gaze at the beauty that springs forth this time of year, and in the fall with all its colors as well. And just try to comprehend the power and force and the love and compassion He has for us, that he would Create such a beautiful place for us to dwell in for a short time.
<quoted text>
Your choice, your right.
<quoted text>
Happy trails..
Yeah, we'll, you're missing a major step, there is no evidence that any of this was "created." Tide goes in, tide goes out, eh, Bill?
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620710 May 1, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't help but notice that you have not tried to refute any arguments but only offer personal attacks. Are you trying to compensate for having a small pecker?
I haven't attacked you, at all. If you haven't noticed the refutation, it is because you are willfully ignoring it. It is there in several posts. You do yourself a disservice with this approach. Keep going. It is very helpful.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620711 May 1, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't help but notice that you have not tried to refute any arguments but only offer personal attacks. Are you trying to compensate for having a small pecker?
Where was the personal attack in that post which was not even an answer to you, hmmmm?
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620712 May 1, 2013
BIBLE TRUE JEHOVA wrote:
<quoted text>
I only see you posting and talking to yourselves?
are you ok? on your Top??
"Myselves"? Could you repeat this post in "Engrish"?
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620713 May 1, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't help but notice that you have not tried to refute any arguments but only offer personal attacks. Are you trying to compensate for having a small pecker?
Perhaps one day you will have a revelation that attempting to offer "logical absolutes" as evidence for your culturally-conditioned divine master is useless, as it does nothing to define whichever god it is that you are imagining. Any hard questions to answer don't lead to, Boom! Therefore God! As time has irrevocably passed, the explanations for things once attributed to a god or gods are continually revealed to be not dependent on a transcendent "mind" or power. The gaps are shrinking. The gods are waning, melting like the Wicked Witch of the West. Your argument from ignorance is a failure.

I know you are unable to define truth and absolutes. Matt Slick can't do it and won't, because it is bad for business, so I won't even ask you to do so. Just the way you phrase this question proves you don't even really understand it and are just parroting a professional shill.

The term “Logical Absolutes” is an oxymoron invented by Matt Slick. This terminology is nowhere to be found in academia, including the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Why? Because logic is not absolute. Logic is concerned with the patterns in reason that can help tell us if a proposition is true or not. However, logic does not deal with truth in the absolute sense. Logicians use formal languages to express the truths which they are concerned with, and as such there is only truth under some interpretation or truth within some logical system. Logic is always systemic and within the context of a pre-defined system of axioms. Logic has its limitations. Axiomatic rules are pre-defined by humans for use in a specific context and can never be absolute. There are hundreds of systems of logic which are independent of each other and not absolute, like: Classical, Fuzzy, Intuitionist, Quantum, Mathematics, et al.

Please do some reading so you don't appear to be just another duped rube, the flotsam and jetsam that your religion has produced for many years.

Chomp, chomp.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620714 May 1, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't help but notice that you have not tried to refute any arguments but only offer personal attacks. Are you trying to compensate for having a small pecker?
Oh, and you haven't really offered anything to refute. Logical absolutes is an oxymoron, one you clearly don't understand, which you parrot from known hucksters like Adam and Slick. Those aren't personal attacks. Those are just the facts, ma'am.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620715 May 1, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't help but notice that you have not tried to refute any arguments but only offer personal attacks. Are you trying to compensate for having a small pecker?
What is most obvious is that you are unable to tackle anything I have presented to you so you try this approach on a post that wasn't even addressed to you. Fail. Epic fail.

Logic!(Waves arms!). Therefore, Vediovis!

Here you go, the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God!

Logical absolutes cannot be absolutes if they are subjective by being God-based. God could simply ignore the number 7 or believe that killing children is good (He's been there and done that, no tshirt) and the logical absolutes would change. Therefore, they would not be logical absolutes or objectively true but rather subject to the whims of God.

This is why "Biblical morality" is not objective but subjective, as per the Euthypro Dilemma.

"Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?"

Morality by fiat, which transmogrifies often at the whim of the divine commander is ridiculous.

"The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good."
— Why I Am Not a Christian
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620716 May 1, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't help but notice that you have not tried to refute any arguments but only offer personal attacks. Are you trying to compensate for having a small pecker?
Wait, I missed that last line when I first read this ridiculous post. You Topix Christians are a very strange lot. Thank you for the concession speech and admitting that I have eviscerated your ridiculous attempt to parrot Slick and Ham. By the way, I don't have a pecker, at all, but my clitoris is marvelous. Why are you obsessed with penis?
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#620717 May 1, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't help but notice that you have not tried to refute any arguments but only offer personal attacks. Are you trying to compensate for having a small pecker?
If the classical laws of logic depend upon God for their existence, then the classical laws of logic must not apply to God. If they did, this would be like a mother giving birth to her mother, a ceiling supporting itself in the air, or an effect causing itself or the cause of its parent cause.

Since the law of the excluded middle would not apply to God: any statement about God, as well as its negation, may both be true. So,“God exists,” and “God does not exist,” may both be true. Demonstrating “God exists,” would fail to imply that “God does not exist,” is false.

Since the law of non-contradiction would not apply to God: contradictory statements about God may be true.

Therefore,“God exists and does not exist,” may be true.

Since the law of identity would not apply to God: God may be other than, or not, God.

If this variant of the transcendental argument for the existence of God is accurate, any attempt to think rationally about God proves itself absurd. This, of course, includes any and all logical arguments for the existence of God, including this variant of the transcendental argument for the existence of God. It would also render all other claims made concerning God meaningless.

You're dismissed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 min onemale 265,428
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min June VanDerMark 560,423
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 14 min Peace_Warrior 605,321
Gay snapchat names 21 min Sammy 169
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 36 min DIVINAX1X 96,850
Porn sites that will not get block from Parenta... (Jul '12) 37 min DIVINAX1X 24
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 55 min Anti-Christ 441,819
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 9 hr yon 4,875
More from around the web