"I understand what you're saying" is like believer code for "I didn't listen to a word, I've just been waiting here impatiently so I can start talking again."
Howard Canaway You can't be serious. You don't understand that "priceless" was a figure of speech to describe how I felt. And not meaning "it has no price". Isn't english your first language?
Taking a Gideon Bible from your hotel room: $0 Reading it from cover to cover while tanning on the beach with a margarita: $8 Claiming to know that the Christian god is real based on that book: Priceless :)
"What would you call a being who is hidden, silent, invisible and mysterious? That sounds a whole lot like 'nonexistent' to me." from Julia Sweeney's stage show, "God said Ha."(paraphrase) I love this! Thanks Julia.
Pat Doyle May I conversate with you? You see I'm so much of a balloon 🎈 that I can't begin to understand reality,but BAHOOU! Excuse me I'm having a bit of a BAHOOU schnorrtt! Schlurpp! Ah you just don't get it b'cos, BAHOOU hahhh? Hahhh? Maybe this poor fellow ought to sign up Hahhh? To Jo'burg Uni where the problem-children go for degrees in truthology Hahhh?!?! BAHOOU...
I am an MD. I've already had two patients who were pastors and whom I diagnosed of diabetes. They decided that they were going to pray their diabetes away, with no treatment. They both died in a couple of years from diabetes complications.
John Stover Clarification: No, sorry. I had been up far too long. I was making a dumb joke. Converse + ate... talking + over dinner... But on your topic, the one that gets my notice is orientation. And we orient ourselves. Or orientate. English is weird, man.
People like Danny can vote and 2 Dannys will have exactly twice as many votes as one Matt.. That's maybe something to think about... I mean next time...
And... THAT's the problem! This dude represents everything that stands in the way of christians and reality: an asinine mind pre-focused on a dellusion, for wich no amount of basic logic is medication enough.
@• The problem here is not using the right tool for the job and *still* call it the right job. Would you go to a dentist that used *mechanic* pliers? Didn't think you would. Then why do you listen to people who deal with logic while using other disciplines? Logic is 1+1=2 (good luck proving that wrong) and needs to be dealt within the realm of logic itself. Some discuss logic using Philosophy (already mechanic pliers for a dentist's job) and, as we all know, philosophers can manage to smartass their way out of any problem. They just don't have the solutions in the *real world,* where they would be most useful.
@• Fantastic, so everytime a debater has no reason against his adversary all he needs to say is "there's no such thing as logic and science backs me up on that!". Therefore *nobody* can lose a debate no matter how dumb he is (including *me,* so don't yell victory) and you have just deemed ALL arguments in the History of mankind pointless, my friend! We can all pack up and leave this thing called humanity. because there's no telling who's right or wrong anymore. It's all one big paradox. Let's just give up.
@• But i wasn't the one who raised a debate, it was you. If it isn't about being right or wrong, then what did i say to start with that was so dumb? Was it that christians don't listen? It's a fact.
The epic double facepalm by Matt at 16:04 pretty much sums up this entire call and attempts to argue with hardcore theists in general. It's an uphill battle, but they continue to fight it, and I salute them. I couldn't have the kind of patience that even Matt exhibits during some of these calls, much less the kind of patience that Don or Tracy show.
"Just because you haven't seen him doesn't mean he doesn't exist" is equivalently, "just because you haven't seen the ethereal pink unicorn in your backyard (that happens to be invisible to all forms of electromagnetic radiation and physical interaction), doesn't mean it doesn't exist." That's absolute nonsense. While yes that does mean that it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, it adds nothing to the argument, other than a justification for not completely ruling it out. There are things that we haven't seen, but do exist, and the only thing is, we're not going to claim with certainty that they exist until there is sufficient evidence to do so.
If you think your headache went away because you prayed for God to take it away, then you got your headache from trying to figure out how to open the refrigerator door.
Why would any supposedly beneficial deity cure an adult of cancer and NOT cure a toddler of agonizing bone cancer? If Jesus "loves the little children of the world", then why do we see starving babies in Yemen on the news every night? I got in trouble as a kid for asking my Sunday school teacher that question. Never did get a believable answer.
You have a special gift. Your ability to use so many words to say so little is impressive. The answer to your question, if we remove the shameful words 'each step of *creation* towards perfection', is quite simply, yes. Your inability to imagine something that isn't following a planned route, isn't *designed* for a purpose or isn't conjured up by an invisible god of special pleading, is holding you back.
That is some fantastic special pleading you have there. That is one of my biggest problems with the 'god" concept. Your proposal is that there is a being outside of the rules that makes the rules. To be perfectly fair it is a condition that is beyond proof. Given that, faith is the divide I cannot cross.
I wish Matt would had said how many other patent also prayed to be heal but weren't cured and died. What makes one person so special that god cured her but no someone else.
He really just answered yes to a headache going away being God. That right there should've ended the conversation because you have your answer right there why he believes fairytale fantasy bullshit. He believes his sky daddy is the only way for a headache to go away. He doesn't even understand a 2 answer multiple choice or a simple true or false question. Expecting him to understand science is silly
now that was one of the more painful callers to listen to - why is it so difficult for some of these christians to answer a simple question? right at the end there was really nothing more to do but cut him off.
Because they are not as stupid as some atheists accuse them of being. They have a core belief that they are unwilling to part with. When you start to walk them down the logical path that shows the belief to be nonsense, they (consciously, or subconsciously) see that a straightforward answer will take them further down a path that they are unwilling to take. It is avoidance. I can understand this. A couple of years ago, I was having symptoms that were very indicative of lung cancer, and my two best friends (highly experience clinical nurses) told me to get to an oncologist ASAP. It took me two weeks to accept the logic of what they were saying emotionally, so that I could act on it, because I did not want to believe I had cancer. Fortunately, I did not, but still the intelligent thing would have been to do would have been to immediately act. When my friend said to me, "If you don't have cancer, you've got nothing to worry about, and if you do, you need to know as soon as possible - wouldn't you agree?" I dodged that question like Danny dodged these. For many theists, this is life and death shit - or maybe afterlife and death shit. Big shit either way.
Pat Doyle Very well said. I always argue that while I like to think of myself as rational and a critical thinker, I, like you, have instances when I refuse to accept the logical course of action until my emotions "subside". We rationalize, minimize, distort, distract or outright avoid in certain situations. To me, the fact that I recognize that I do this is half the battle. Goooooo Joe! ;)
Matt is completely wrong about what antitheism is. It IS under the Atheist umbrella terminology. Antitheists ARE atheists. Antitheism is also NOT the assertion that “god doesn’t exist”. Antitheism is more in the realm of believing that theism and religion are generally harmful and should be opposed. Asserting that god or gods do not exist IS atheism. I’m an atheist. I believe/know that god or gods do not exist. I’m also an antitheist because I believe it’s all wacky bullshit and is doing serious damage to mental development. Facts are facts, not Matt facts.
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 I’m an atheist/anti-theist. My point is that antitheism is NOT an assertion that god doesn’t exist. My disagreement is with the fact that antitheism IS atheism. Antitheists ARE atheists. I am the proof
“Asserting that god or gods do not exist IS atheism” No it isn’t. It’s a lack of belief in Theistic claims, it is not the assertion that those claims are false.
I'd love to see a prayer study where a matter gets prayed over by two people of different religions with different deities, both prayers being for the same outcome. Ignore any outcome that the result is not what is prayed for, and for any outcome that is what is prayed for ask the two prayers, or their religions theological experts, to demonstrate it was their deity that provided the result, then sit back and enjoy the laughs.
What I meant was, there's a difference between teaching religion and teaching *about* religion. There's a difference between "Keep your spiritual heart light or the Ammit will eat it and you will be no more!" and "The ancient Egyptians believed in X gods with Y traits, and afterlife Z in which... To appease their gods, they did ritual Q and went to war against..." Good: "Christmas began with the customs of... and later incorporated beliefs of..." Not good: "Be good or Santa gives you coal!"
In the description, I could be seeing it wrong, but you say Matt tries to educate Paul. The caller is Danny so is Matt trying to educate the writings of Paulor was that a screw up?I haven't watched the video yet
Good grief, this caller was difficult to listen to. I'm not sure I'd have the patience to have a similar length discussion with them about anything. The constant interruptions of "Mhm, correct, true, you right, mhm, mhm, yeah" and then immediately launching into "I get what you're saying BUT..." every time he had a chance to talk, without even acknowledging a single thing that the hosts just brought to the table drove me nuts.
"But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?" who ever said that?
Danny is no different to the nutbags hollering and screeching in the middle of the town square with a cardboard sign and a megaphone. These folks shouldn't be allowed to leave their cells.
So whatever I believe that disagrees with you has to be faith according to you? Fine, don't "replay" to it. In the end, the only one you are harming is yourself.
That doesn't change anything, though. I am saying that strictly speaking, words don't mean anything unless we give them meaning. So a word like 'finish' might be agreed to mean something, but you can't use it incorrectly because it doesn't actually mean anything until you give it meaning and you can change it, re-structure it, etc. Sorry if I am being unclear. Does what I say make sense? Am I being irrational? I appreciate your participation thus far, please write back! :)
No, no, and no. I wholly disagree. 1) I have a point because what I am saying is that incomprehensible is used subjective to make a point about consistency, which is wrong and a nice example of false equivocation. 2) How does your misunderstanding of my argument demonstrate that I have no idea what I'm talking about? I am saying that you are missing the goddamn point of my argument. This demonstrates to me that you fail to understand my point, so it's /inconsistent/, eh?
Matter doesn't "decree" physical laws, they obey the physical laws, such as gravity, that naturally exist. No decree, no lawgiver, just the way that things work in our universe.
I know that the universe was caused by something truly surprising. Nobody guessed the correct cause and it will be difficult for people to accept it. Thousands of religions had a go at working out what it is, but none got it right. Now that we know the actual cause, we can close the book on the puzzle.
Keep going man... you only have two more logical falacies, a couple more pre-supositions and one more false dicotomy to go and you'll have a full set! Best troll ever.
Yeah, that's an issue and should be dealt with. But it's an issue with the way it's taught, not the story/material itself. If it's taught with a passive sense, as a story, it's fine.
I have made a mistake in reasoning. Allow me to fix this. Do you sometimes misuse language? Does that imply that you are a Christian if you do? If so, does my atheistic belief-system become negated the moment I say 'impromptu' where it doesn't make sense to use it? How's that?
Are you paying attention? We're arguing about the coherence of the language. I'm saying that just because someone cannot understand the language, doesn't make it incoherent. I proved that using the sentential calculus (bare in mind this doesn't necessitate AAVE's coherence, but I can justify that with determining the rules and scope of the language-structure).
I never made any claims about primary causes. I was disputing your claim that there was any "decree" that caused objects to obey the laws of physics. However, to respond to your straw man argument, you are starting from the assumption that there had to be a "who" that created matter. How do you justify that initial assumption?
It won't happen in our lifetime. For example, a bill in NC was proposed that suspends the 1st amendment on a state/local level because "Congress shall make no law" means it's only restricted on the federal level. Someone wanted to make an official state religion. The bill also states that they'd ignore related federal rulings/interpretations. It's not getting passed (the legislature won't bring it to the floor), but the fact that someone is crazy enough to make it is shocking. Google HJR 494.
"I understand what you're saying" is like believer code for "I didn't listen to a word, I've just been waiting here impatiently so I can start talking again."
Facts lol
Haha, touche.
Tighe Crovetti Exactly.
To be fair, that's their only way of not being admitted to instittutions for the "differently abled."
54 tumors vs 1,000,000 kids dying of hunger every year? Pathetic.
Question: Either God exist or he does not, correct?
Answer: He exist
Priceless.
Prove it.
Howard Canaway
I didn't make any assertion, so Im confused as to what Im suppose to prove. Could it be I've found someone as stupid as the caller?
Prove there is a value to your answer. You set the value at priceless.
Howard Canaway
You can't be serious. You don't understand that "priceless" was a figure of speech to describe how I felt. And not meaning "it has no price". Isn't english your first language?
Taking a Gideon Bible from your hotel room: $0
Reading it from cover to cover while tanning on the beach with a margarita: $8
Claiming to know that the Christian god is real based on that book: Priceless :)
God heals a headache because Danny's headache is more important than starving children in Africa. Okay....
+Ebony Atheist He will also feed the starving children. He will either do it now or later XD
Fus Ro Dah
In a pipe dream maybe
It's because he believes in our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ. That's enough to starve children to death.
I guess god will be doing this "later" because he sure in hell ain't doing it now...
@@JustBenching your god made you stupid
My dog was spontaneously cured of cancer, therefore this proves magical cancer curing pixies exist.
Hey! That was clearly the work of Herschel the Hanukkah Goblin
Michael Iv
HERESY!!1!11!!
Hurderpus Maximus Infidel!
what is a pixie?
"What would you call a being who is hidden, silent, invisible and mysterious? That sounds a whole lot like 'nonexistent' to me."
from Julia Sweeney's stage show, "God said Ha."(paraphrase)
I love this! Thanks Julia.
If the supernatural is ever proven by science, it would become natural.
Danny does not know what "manifests in reality" means.
I'd doubt he even knows what 'reality' means.
Pat Doyle Apparently he doesn't know what "yes or no" means either...
Ask him his name, he may not even know it.
Pat Doyle May I conversate with you? You see I'm so much of a balloon 🎈 that I can't begin to understand reality,but BAHOOU! Excuse me I'm having a bit of a BAHOOU schnorrtt! Schlurpp! Ah you just don't get it b'cos, BAHOOU hahhh? Hahhh? Maybe this poor fellow ought to sign up Hahhh? To Jo'burg Uni where the problem-children go for degrees in truthology Hahhh?!?! BAHOOU...
jonnine - ...what the fuck?
I commend Matt on his ability to put things into perspective in so many different ways; it's inspiring.
I am an MD. I've already had two patients who were pastors and whom I diagnosed of diabetes. They decided that they were going to pray their diabetes away, with no treatment. They both died in a couple of years from diabetes complications.
I guess they are in heaven as we speak.
@@henrim9348 with all the choirboys they want
That was 6 years ago. How many has it been now?
That was brutal to listen to lol
Love when callers interrupt to say "correct" and "right" just to get to their next point without acknowledging or understanding what was said.
"Conversate".... is that like "Converse"?
+John Stover Yes...Conversate is like conversing...over dinner.
Bruce Baker I know it's a valid word, it's just a very odd one to use. I feel the same way about "use" and "usage", and a few others.
John Stover
Clarification: No, sorry. I had been up far too long. I was making a dumb joke. Converse + ate... talking + over dinner...
But on your topic, the one that gets my notice is orientation. And we orient ourselves. Or orientate. English is weird, man.
+Bruce Baker Gotta stay off the crack.
What, like the sneakers?
People like Danny can vote and 2 Dannys will have exactly twice as many votes as one Matt.. That's maybe something to think about... I mean next time...
I notice how he keeps tacking things on to his cancer story
Danny, it doesn't not matter what you believe but what you can prove.
Funniest thing I've seen on this for a while. God can do things straight away, or he can take time". Funny as hell.
I think I'm going to conversate with someone today.
Thank god the call ended soon. I was getting too frustrated.
Funny how these faith healers never replace hospitals.
God refuses to listen to prayers from people drowning at sea, so he can heal your headaches? Or help you win a football game.
And... THAT's the problem!
This dude represents everything that stands in the way of christians and reality: an asinine mind pre-focused on a dellusion, for wich no amount of basic logic is medication enough.
Preach lol
Amen.
@• The problem here is not using the right tool for the job and *still* call it the right job. Would you go to a dentist that used *mechanic* pliers? Didn't think you would. Then why do you listen to people who deal with logic while using other disciplines? Logic is 1+1=2 (good luck proving that wrong) and needs to be dealt within the realm of logic itself. Some discuss logic using Philosophy (already mechanic pliers for a dentist's job) and, as we all know, philosophers can manage to smartass their way out of any problem. They just don't have the solutions in the *real world,* where they would be most useful.
@• Fantastic, so everytime a debater has no reason against his adversary all he needs to say is "there's no such thing as logic and science backs me up on that!". Therefore *nobody* can lose a debate no matter how dumb he is (including *me,* so don't yell victory) and you have just deemed ALL arguments in the History of mankind pointless, my friend! We can all pack up and leave this thing called humanity. because there's no telling who's right or wrong anymore. It's all one big paradox. Let's just give up.
@• But i wasn't the one who raised a debate, it was you. If it isn't about being right or wrong, then what did i say to start with that was so dumb? Was it that christians don't listen? It's a fact.
The epic double facepalm by Matt at 16:04 pretty much sums up this entire call and attempts to argue with hardcore theists in general. It's an uphill battle, but they continue to fight it, and I salute them. I couldn't have the kind of patience that even Matt exhibits during some of these calls, much less the kind of patience that Don or Tracy show.
"Just because you haven't seen him doesn't mean he doesn't exist" is equivalently, "just because you haven't seen the ethereal pink unicorn in your backyard (that happens to be invisible to all forms of electromagnetic radiation and physical interaction), doesn't mean it doesn't exist." That's absolute nonsense. While yes that does mean that it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, it adds nothing to the argument, other than a justification for not completely ruling it out. There are things that we haven't seen, but do exist, and the only thing is, we're not going to claim with certainty that they exist until there is sufficient evidence to do so.
If you think your headache went away because you prayed for God to take it away, then you got your headache from trying to figure out how to open the refrigerator door.
OMG Matt has incredible patience! And no, this is definitely NOT sarcasm.
Anyone else recognising Tim Minchin's "Thank you god" in that story?
Omnipotent omptomologist
The mental gymnastics is just unbelievable.
No one likes to admit they've been fooled; especially repeatedly over the course of a wasted lifetime.
I am a non stamp collector.
Why would any supposedly beneficial deity cure an adult of cancer and NOT cure a toddler of agonizing bone cancer? If Jesus "loves the little children of the world", then why do we see starving babies in Yemen on the news every night?
I got in trouble as a kid for asking my Sunday school teacher that question. Never did get a believable answer.
This is painful
The ending is hilarious. Caller just doesn't get it. :D
Why does god give you a headache in the first place? So that he can take away? If god didn't give you headaches, who did?
You have a special gift. Your ability to use so many words to say so little is impressive.
The answer to your question, if we remove the shameful words 'each step of *creation* towards perfection', is quite simply, yes.
Your inability to imagine something that isn't following a planned route, isn't *designed* for a purpose or isn't conjured up by an invisible god of special pleading, is holding you back.
Oh my imaginary friend, that was sad.
the godbot caller clutches his doll tightly.
THE CREATIONIST DEFINITION OF 'REASON": "SHIT JUST POPPED INTO EXISTENCE. Totally legit.
Yeah, I think we should leave it at that. In the end I think our actions define us better than any label can.
Poor Danny, I bet he never made it through the 2nd grade. I just can't stand to hear somebody destroy the King's English in this way
That is some fantastic special pleading you have there. That is one of my biggest problems with the 'god" concept. Your proposal is that there is a being outside of the rules that makes the rules. To be perfectly fair it is a condition that is beyond proof. Given that, faith is the divide I cannot cross.
Wonder why imams, the pope and most religious leaders go to the doctor? It's almost like they don't trust god to sort them out...
I love how I come hear most days with icecream to laugh at christians lmao this amazing entertainment
I do the same exact thing. I was told I'm an asshole for laughing at the misfortune, but fuck it. I find it hilarious to listen to dumb ppls thoughts.
Sometimes I think a whiteboard or chalkboard would be a great addition to the set. Then again, I am a very visual type of learner.
It's not a bad idea. You're not the only one. There are a few vids of AE with visual experiments.
I wish Matt would had said how many other patent also prayed to be heal but weren't cured and died. What makes one person so special that god cured her but no someone else.
He really just answered yes to a headache going away being God. That right there should've ended the conversation because you have your answer right there why he believes fairytale fantasy bullshit. He believes his sky daddy is the only way for a headache to go away. He doesn't even understand a 2 answer multiple choice or a simple true or false question. Expecting him to understand science is silly
now that was one of the more painful callers to listen to - why is it so difficult for some of these christians to answer a simple question? right at the end there was really nothing more to do but cut him off.
Because they are not as stupid as some atheists accuse them of being. They have a core belief that they are unwilling to part with. When you start to walk them down the logical path that shows the belief to be nonsense, they (consciously, or subconsciously) see that a straightforward answer will take them further down a path that they are unwilling to take. It is avoidance. I can understand this. A couple of years ago, I was having symptoms that were very indicative of lung cancer, and my two best friends (highly experience clinical nurses) told me to get to an oncologist ASAP. It took me two weeks to accept the logic of what they were saying emotionally, so that I could act on it, because I did not want to believe I had cancer. Fortunately, I did not, but still the intelligent thing would have been to do would have been to immediately act. When my friend said to me, "If you don't have cancer, you've got nothing to worry about, and if you do, you need to know as soon as possible - wouldn't you agree?" I dodged that question like Danny dodged these. For many theists, this is life and death shit - or maybe afterlife and death shit. Big shit either way.
Pat Doyle Very well said. I always argue that while I like to think of myself as rational and a critical thinker, I, like you, have instances when I refuse to accept the logical course of action until my emotions "subside". We rationalize, minimize, distort, distract or outright avoid in certain situations. To me, the fact that I recognize that I do this is half the battle.
Goooooo Joe! ;)
ram menon
Thanks. I try to remember that when my frustration goes beyond the "facepalm" threshold, but i do not always succeed :-)
I sometimes poop the bed, therefore: god
I sometimes don't, therefore: Odin
Thanks for sharing.
I wish I hadn't clicked "Skip Ad".
Matt is completely wrong about what antitheism is. It IS under the Atheist umbrella terminology. Antitheists ARE atheists. Antitheism is also NOT the assertion that “god doesn’t exist”. Antitheism is more in the realm of believing that theism and religion are generally harmful and should be opposed. Asserting that god or gods do not exist IS atheism. I’m an atheist. I believe/know that god or gods do not exist. I’m also an antitheist because I believe it’s all wacky bullshit and is doing serious damage to mental development. Facts are facts, not Matt facts.
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 yea, I’m completely aware of what agnosticism is. You’ve missed the point, I guess.
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 I’m an atheist/anti-theist. My point is that antitheism is NOT an assertion that god doesn’t exist. My disagreement is with the fact that antitheism IS atheism. Antitheists ARE atheists. I am the proof
“Asserting that god or gods do not exist IS atheism”
No it isn’t.
It’s a lack of belief in Theistic claims, it is not the assertion that those claims are false.
I did not expect this.
Dillahunty for president!!!
I used to be like Danny. When I was 5.
I`ve also heard the EXACT SAME STORY !
I'd love to see a prayer study where a matter gets prayed over by two people of different religions with different deities, both prayers being for the same outcome. Ignore any outcome that the result is not what is prayed for, and for any outcome that is what is prayed for ask the two prayers, or their religions theological experts, to demonstrate it was their deity that provided the result, then sit back and enjoy the laughs.
What I meant was, there's a difference between teaching religion and teaching *about* religion. There's a difference between "Keep your spiritual heart light or the Ammit will eat it and you will be no more!" and "The ancient Egyptians believed in X gods with Y traits, and afterlife Z in which... To appease their gods, they did ritual Q and went to war against..."
Good: "Christmas began with the customs of... and later incorporated beliefs of..."
Not good: "Be good or Santa gives you coal!"
How...just....HOW do they put up with these people every week?
CONVERSATE? [01:58] What does that mean?
Actually, we can, and we do.
Your explanation is acceptable.
In the description, I could be seeing it wrong, but you say Matt tries to educate Paul. The caller is Danny so is Matt trying to educate the writings of Paulor was that a screw up?I haven't watched the video yet
Ugh. I hate it when they only greet Matt. It's so annoying.
Thank you random theist for not answering my question.
Add "correct" to the list of "right", "ok" and "exactly" as words theists do not understand.
Im pissed ironchariots isn't up anymore.
Unfortunately Danny manifests in reality.
These people never credit the doctors but instead the nonexistent. It annoys me every time.
I lol'd at the end.
Good grief, this caller was difficult to listen to. I'm not sure I'd have the patience to have a similar length discussion with them about anything. The constant interruptions of "Mhm, correct, true, you right, mhm, mhm, yeah" and then immediately launching into "I get what you're saying BUT..." every time he had a chance to talk, without even acknowledging a single thing that the hosts just brought to the table drove me nuts.
"But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?"
who ever said that?
Danny is no different to the nutbags hollering and screeching in the middle of the town square with a cardboard sign and a megaphone. These folks shouldn't be allowed to leave their cells.
So whatever I believe that disagrees with you has to be faith according to you? Fine, don't "replay" to it. In the end, the only one you are harming is yourself.
"When you conversate," Jesus Christ, the butchering of the English language on this level should be illegal!
You should have done a simple g00gle check before you posted this.
'conversate' - to engage in conversation
54 tumors
That doesn't change anything, though. I am saying that strictly speaking, words don't mean anything unless we give them meaning. So a word like 'finish' might be agreed to mean something, but you can't use it incorrectly because it doesn't actually mean anything until you give it meaning and you can change it, re-structure it, etc. Sorry if I am being unclear. Does what I say make sense? Am I being irrational? I appreciate your participation thus far, please write back! :)
2:46 is incorrect. In Scots law, juries can return a "not proven" verdict.
No, no, and no. I wholly disagree.
1) I have a point because what I am saying is that incomprehensible is used subjective to make a point about consistency, which is wrong and a nice example of false equivocation.
2) How does your misunderstanding of my argument demonstrate that I have no idea what I'm talking about? I am saying that you are missing the goddamn point of my argument. This demonstrates to me that you fail to understand my point, so it's /inconsistent/, eh?
How do you know that things in brackets are what author intended it to mean?
Matter doesn't "decree" physical laws, they obey the physical laws, such as gravity, that naturally exist. No decree, no lawgiver, just the way that things work in our universe.
I know that the universe was caused by something truly surprising.
Nobody guessed the correct cause and it will be difficult for people to accept it.
Thousands of religions had a go at working out what it is, but none got it right.
Now that we know the actual cause, we can close the book on the puzzle.
The universe is made out of shit. That's why everything and everyone is so shitty all the time.
Keep going man... you only have two more logical falacies, a couple more pre-supositions and one more false dicotomy to go and you'll have a full set! Best troll ever.
If you ask a Christian why they believe what they believe, 100% of the time they will tell you what they believe in different words
the MUTE and END CALL buttons. That's how.
Haha oh no.... EVERYBODY RUN TO THE HILLS!!!!
Now what does that have to do with anything? I am confused.
"conversate" really?
Matt talking over Jen.
Yeah, that's an issue and should be dealt with. But it's an issue with the way it's taught, not the story/material itself. If it's taught with a passive sense, as a story, it's fine.
That was amazing!!
I have made a mistake in reasoning. Allow me to fix this. Do you sometimes misuse language? Does that imply that you are a Christian if you do? If so, does my atheistic belief-system become negated the moment I say 'impromptu' where it doesn't make sense to use it? How's that?
Are you paying attention? We're arguing about the coherence of the language. I'm saying that just because someone cannot understand the language, doesn't make it incoherent. I proved that using the sentential calculus (bare in mind this doesn't necessitate AAVE's coherence, but I can justify that with determining the rules and scope of the language-structure).
Good one!
The Big Bang...
In the Court of Human Logic and rationality, god has been found not guilty of existing.
"Conversate" is NOT a f@cking word!!!...the word is CONVERSE!!!!
He's a black theist, what else would you expect?
Becoming more animated and emotional does not make you're argument any more plausible. Smh How do yall do it, these people would drive me crazy.
No, Atheists don't say "there is not god", we say "I don't believe in your god, prove it".
I never made any claims about primary causes. I was disputing your claim that there was any "decree" that caused objects to obey the laws of physics.
However, to respond to your straw man argument, you are starting from the assumption that there had to be a "who" that created matter. How do you justify that initial assumption?
'Murica
It won't happen in our lifetime. For example, a bill in NC was proposed that suspends the 1st amendment on a state/local level because "Congress shall make no law" means it's only restricted on the federal level. Someone wanted to make an official state religion. The bill also states that they'd ignore related federal rulings/interpretations. It's not getting passed (the legislature won't bring it to the floor), but the fact that someone is crazy enough to make it is shocking.
Google HJR 494.