Dtruthspeaker:


That is how evidence indeed works. What you guys do not know is that there are many different types and classes of evidence which appear in different ways.

That is what we lawyers know and how we are able to prove the Truth of a matter or disprove a Lie.

Nigeria which way...hmmmm

Workch:
Another fallacy "whataboutsim"

"was the universe created?

I don't know would have been a genuine answer but because you are full of shit from religion, you see a need to insert a creator.

Now how many more creators should we come up with with your fallacious logical of infinite regress.

You cannot win this debate even if you want to, it's dead on arrival. A belief in a creator is a myriad of fallacies and can easily be rubbished by basic arguments.

I love to read stuff like this

kimco:


And people take this guy serious? Simply amazing....no body can be this high.

Do you think people are as unreasonable and stupid as you are?

Truth, Rules.

Which is why since 2019 till today, no one can reasonably and validly counter my Answers. So, go hang in your cave.

AudioMonkey:


Lol. I laugh in Gucci.
The same way you kept babbling instead of simply rubbishing these myriad of fallacies by basic arguments.
I noticed the initial arrogance in your responses has now dwindled into repetition of babbles. Where did your ego and overeducation suddenly go?

Don't use this mention as distraction. Answer my question in the other reply.
Start making points, stop making excuses.

There's no crime is saying "I don't know".

Be humble else I'm gonna make you realize how ridiculous you sound

AudioMonkey:


Alright, I also love to read stuffs like that.

Except that if you follow our discussion, i asked him a simple question, instead of a straight forward answer, he's been dodging and creating texts which could be regarded as the 'the unending babbles of Workch '
If you're his friend or fellow atheist, you can help him out. I won't take it as cheating.

You cannot ask without providing evidence for your claims.
It's called loaded questions and it's irrational

Dtruthspeaker:


Do you think people are as unreasonable and stupid as you are?

Truth, Rules.

Which is why since 2019 till today, no one can reasonably and validly counter my Answers. So, go hang in your cave.

Nobody can "reasonably" counter your Answers? You actually think you follow a consistent train of thought? You can't even formulate a proper method of investigation, even as a joke, if you were asked to copy it from a book. You move the goal post so much you, Its amazing how you get people to debate with you. That is the true miracle. You are out of your depths "Degoalpostmover".

Pls don't argue with that guy
He isn't honest

kimco:


And people take this guy serious? Simply amazing....no body can be this high.

AudioMonkey:


You're such a coward atheist. What crop of parody atheists do we have here?

parody that has helped you realize how ridiculous you sound

The other day, it was one who ran away from the debate, today it's another too afraid to explain a statement he made, only to keep digressing.

Your arguemnt for a god is as ridiculous as the argument that flying spaghetti monster created your God.

Over a decade ago on Atheist Republic, white atheists are not like this. These boys are loaded, they have clear answers to give, there isn't space to run around circles.

do you have any personal prejudice against atheists?

I never ran from all your questions. In my replies, I've made clean points while all you do is babble theoretical terms in fallacy.

I am not responsible for your inability to make a point without fallacies.

So, which claims I've I made here without providing evidence? Say it.
We can start all over again. No where for you to hide

"God exist" is a claim
Provide evidence for it

kimco:

Nobody can "reasonably" counter your Answers? You actually think you follow a consistent train of thought?

Nobody can reasonably counter because their is None.

Why?

Because all arguments and stupidities end at the Wall of Truth! Hence The Law, "There is No Valid Argument against The Truth"! None Whatsoever!

reigncalif1:
Pls don't argue with that guy
He isn't honest

A lesson learnt too late my brother. Extremely dishonest fellow

kimco:


A lesson learnt too late my brother. Extremely dishonest fellow

can't you see how I avoided him like a plague?

AudioMonkey:

Good. Your first time of making a clear statement instead of irrelevant babblings.

Now, in addition to your confusion, do you have short memory?
I know all you need as atheist is critical thinking, but that doesn't remove the importance of memory, at least to keep up with a conversation like this.
What got us to this point really?
Was it not same evidence you asked for in the beginning, while I told you, you're the evidence you ask, which you called fallacy.
What makes this a fallacy or not is if you or the universe show evidence of intelligent design which indicates intelligent designer but since you claimed there's no evidence of design anywhere. So I ask you to explain what a design is and why the universe doesn't fit as one. If eventually the world is invalidated as a design or it doesn't show any indication of any designer, it simply means your claim of fallacy is true and I'll accept there isn't any evidence, until maybe a day if I have.

So far, what we're doing here exactly is what you ask for. Now that we're here, stop deviating. If you can show the universe isn't a design, then this will be over and we all go home.

Once again, i've put this whole conversation on track from the beginning, stop deviating or dragging it back.

OK, since you are here to make claims without evidence.

I propose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the intelligent designer. It makes alot of sense because the intelligent designer cannot exist without being created.

I do not have to provide evidence for this since you didn't provide for yours

AudioMonkey:


Which evidence again? You mean the one we're almost done with, which you're running from, since you know the outcome.
You were claiming genius initially, now you're the one running and derailing the conversation.

I'll take this to mean, you finally accepted defeat.
As expected while we're right in the middle of the evidence you ask, you'll keep taking us back to start since you know what awaits you at the end.
Even though you won't let us get to the end of this, yet I've made you look like the clown you're, stuck in an infinite loop of intentionally babbling the conversation backwards.

Then congrats my boi, you've successfully committed more fallacies than any living. Red herring, strawmanning, loaded question and the rest.

The only place you proved me wrong was my initial thoughts. Initially I was looking at a tough challenge but as the conversation went on, you showed you're just like your fellow atheist clowns here.

Another one bites the dust.
While you recover, go find a soft, east target in religious section to massage your balls and rebuild your tiny ego.
In the meanwhile, bye coward .
Till we meet again.

Flying spaghetti monster loves you.
Ramen

Workch:
There are all sorts of reasons why people have theistic belief, and some of them make a whole lot of sense from their perspective.

Some people have experienced phenomena that isn’t adequately explained by science and find a theistic explanation more satisfying.

Some people have overcome major life challenges, such as addiction, through the power of faith.

Some people have been raised in a religious belief that has been reinforced by peers, elders, and culture.

For some, faith brings solace and comfort.

For many, faith inspires their path of lovingkindness and justice.

As I said, I’m an atheist. There are certain aspects of some theistic views that I reject and outright oppose.

But the vast majority of theists I know are people of deep character, and have reasons for their beliefs that I readily respect as long as they don't try to enforce their beliefs on others and make it the universal truth.

I have problem with fundamentalists and religious people who try to undermine you because you don't share their religious opinions.

well, being an atheist is a choice and being an extremist is also not bad but it depends on what subject.


If I am extremely kind and loving and I decide to spread it instead of hide it and you condemn me for hating those who are not kind and loving like me , haven't you commit a crime? maybe you don't get it, If I am extremely good in mathematics but decide to teach my fellow mates I perceived are not cashing up, and I am being attacked by other fellow mates, do you really think that will be fear ?

I am aware America has been propagating their own version of democracy all around the world. That is fundamentalism in politics. How do you iron that out ?

vaxx:
well, being an atheist is a choice and being an extremist is also not bad but it depends on what subject.


If I am extremely kind and loving and I decide to spread it instead of hide it and you condemn me for hating those who are not kind and loving like me , haven't you commit a crime? maybe you don't get it, If I am extremely good in mathematics but decide to teach my fellow mates I perceived are not cashing up, and I am being attacked by other fellow mates, do you really think that will be fear ?

I am aware America has been proven their own version of democracy all around the world. That is fundamentalism in politics. How do you iron that out ?

The topic is about evidence for your beliefs.
I'm strongly to understand how your comments address that

Workch:
The topic is about evidence for your beliefs.
I'm strongly to understand how your comments address that

I only followed you last line of thought, you were of the opinion you dislike religion fanatics, and I address your topic as it does .

If you are looking for evidence of God , I have written many notes on the subject , but to not put you into a block chain, let me hack it for you. go read ""godel proof for existence of God", give it a Wikipedia read and furthermore , read more pdf

.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

However, all evidence depend on their axioms. No evidence is immune to challenge, even if you are going to go against it , your evidence will be subjected to another evidence.

Scientific evidence are subjected to challenge , that is why research never end ? How compelling do you want to disagree?

vaxx:
I only followed you last line of thought, you were of the opinion you dislike religion fanatics, and I address your topic as it does .

If you are looking for evidence of God , I have written many notes on the subject , but to not put you into a block chain, let me hack it for you. go read ""godel proof for existence of God", give it a Wikipedia read and furthermore , read more pdf

.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

However, all evidence depend on their axioms. No evidence is immune to challenge, even if you are going to go against it , your evidence will be subjected to another evidence.

Scientific evidence are subjected to challenge , that is why research never end ? How compelling do you want to disagree?

ontological proof is not evidence.
How do I help you understand the difference?

Workch:
ontological proof is not evidence.
How do I help you understand the difference?

though you state itt without providing the reason. Or you just want to reply for replying sake .

what empherical evidence do you need that is more model than mathematical proof, seems , you will need evidence that will not be subjected into another evidence .. and pls that is not science .


S

vaxx:
though you state itt without providing the reason. Or you just want to reply for replying sake .

S

Ontological arguments are nothing but literary masturbation. You can define your god and give it all types of attributes but at the end of the day all you’re doing is describing something that doesn’t exist. No matter what words and phrases used to describe the nature of being of your god, you still have to produce proof that it exists because your words will NEVER suffice. And we all know that your god is not going to show up like it does in your stories. So yeah, ontological arguments are a waste of time and definitely not evidence. The only thing an ontological argument evince is your vocabulary.

White Christian apologist William Lane Craig says God is “maximally great”. So what? Dog is “stupendously terrific”.

vaxx:
though you state itt without providing the reason. Or you just want to reply for replying sake .

what empherical evidence do you need that is more model than mathematical proof, seems , you will need evidence that will not be subjected into another evidence .. and pls that is not science .


S

ontology is a philosophical argument, it's not evidence.
It cannot be tested

Workch:
ontology is a philosophical argument, it's not evidence.
It cannot be tested

How do you text axioms ? What kind of insane answers is this ? Or you are just an atheist wannabe ? All evidence has structure base from mathematical model, how do you text this model? Axioms are taken to be true without fact and it is science .

KnownUnknown:


Ontological arguments are nothing but literary masturbation. You can define your god and give it all types of attributes but at the end of the day all you’re doing is describing something that doesn’t exist. No matter what words and phrases used to describe the nature of being of your god, [b]you still have to produce proof [/b]that it exists because your words will NEVER suffice. And we all know that your god is not going to show up like it does in your stories. So yeah, ontological arguments are a waste of time and definitely not evidence. The only thing an ontological argument evince is your vocabulary.

White Christian apologist William Lane Craig says God is “maximally great”. So what? Dog is “stupendously terrific”.

The word proof is usually only used in math and logic, the basis of science. So, in fact, there is no proof that anything exists.

For as many good arguments, there will always be of course every counterarguments, so that in aggregate, all the debate will rather inconclusive. I have given you a mathematical logic of understanding to work with . Give it a read and come down to counterproof it , if you want long chain of inconclusive argument.

vaxx:
how do you text axioms ? What kind of insane answers is this ?

WOW!
I thought atheists do agree on line of thought!

So what exactly is wrong with human brains if you can't even agree despite claiming you guys are wiser than believers?

MaxInDHouse:


WOW!
I thought atheists do agree on line of thought!

So what exactly is wrong with human brains if you can't even agree despite claiming you guys are wiser than believers?

pls I am not an athiest and your question can easily be answer by a smart athiest ...

vaxx:

pls I am not an athiest and your question can easily be answer by a smart athiest ...

OK, i'll keep following!

vaxx:
How do you text axioms ? What kind of insane answers is this ? Or you are just an atheist wannabe ? All evidence has structure base from mathematical model, how do you text this model? Axioms are taken to be true without fact and it is science .

I am not here to argue strawman.
Just provide evidence for your beliefs that we can test