Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The post mentioned was just the Motte and Bailey fallacy and his usual quote mining. That people use the 2 joke comedian as a support shows how desperate they are.
2 joke comedian? That's similar to the broken record? It's a tactic or ploy that i see used....what's the topic again?...screw the topic.. ... the 'atheist -stumper'. They have a couple of 'Checkmate, atheists' arguments they pin their whole belief -case on and they will - when it gets refuted - repeat it. Like someone with one joke (or 'funny story' ) who tells it again and again and if they don't get a laugh, will tell it again, like they think 'They can't have listened the first time'.
The one shot apologist will sometimes do a deep dive and resurface a month later, making the same argument. Hoping they will have a new and hopefully, bamboozlable, audience.
ALL OBJECTIVE truth is discovered by science and arbitrarily assigned. The forum has unjustifiedly placed all attempts to challenge that arbitrary assignment to a single thread, the Pantheism thread. You refuse to engage with posts in that thread, conveniently isolating the very evidence you challenge which not incidentally seems to be the purpose of the isolation to a single thread. Your capricious use of the rule to pretend your view is objective is duly noted.
I've taken a quick look at the pantheism thread and just as quickly determined it didn't deserve more of my attention as I also noted. Though I am older and retired now, with more time on my hands as a general rule, to do with as I please, I'm still somewhat discerning about where I will spend my time and/or not waste any more of it. The pantheism thread is something like people who are thinking they can do higher math when they can't even do simple addition and subtraction. Their "logic" is what's arbitrary...
Sorry, TOS prevents me from answering. I follow the rules. The admins do a great job here.
Does the entire world have rules about not sharing what it seems a few of you are prevented from sharing in this forum?
Again, don't let this forum stop you from enlightening the world of God's existence! Pass your evidence and proof onto someone not bound by the admins of this forum, and let us know when the findings are finally published for all the world to see and be convinced!
I was in a calc class once where one the fellow students said the exact same thing about the chain rule.
Comparing pantheism to the chain rule is rich. Truly rich, and that the student you heard also called it mental masturbation is all the more amazing. You're not storying us again are you? Thinking you can make this sort of thing up and have others swallow your story-telling as if it helps the cause of a pantheist?
Dodging and running...Noted.
I did put it up...and you read it, of course
You now know you have no rebuttal...so you invent a shield for your failure.
I did put up...there is nothing for you to wait for...the challenge is there, standing and waiting for YOU to stand against it.
Going to the other thread is no effort at all...and I do not accept your cop-out...it's as pathetic as it gets.
Either you meet the challenge..or you lose by forfeit.
So...whatcha doin...you standin up, or layin down?
I don't think it's "dodging and running." I think it's laughing and wondering if you can be serious...
Your adolescent, childish attempt to prove the existence of "god" leads me to yet another rule
The existence of a dictionary definition of a deity or god is NOT evidence the deity or god is actually real or actually exists, any more than the fact that Santa Claus has a dictionary definition is proof of him and his elfin friends existing at the North Pole in a toy workshop complete with a herd of flying reindeer (and flying sleigh).
You're posts are not "clever" or "brilliant". Quite the opposite!
I think maybe we actually are missing something...
Dictionaries exist so God exists, because dictionaries are also part of everything and everything is God.
Fortunately there are threads like the pantheism thread where these sorts of mental break-throughs are allowed to be posted for all the world to consider and maybe even come to better understand and accept sometime in our future. AKA ahead of it's time. Though not for some of the more forward thinkers in this forum. God bless 'em...
Comparing pantheism to the chain rule is rich. Truly rich, and that the student you heard also called it mental masturbation is all the more amazing. You're not storying us again are you? Thinking you can make this sort of thing up and have others swallow your story-telling as if it helps the cause of a pantheist?
We may very be well be in a living system. The best you could do is whip out "beyond reasonable doubt" as evidence against it. But you know as well as I do how that actually stacks up.
So pantheism has some legs. It takes a lot more energy for you to toss that stuff in your post than it does me just looking at the data and saying "Yeah, as far beliefs go, pantheism at least is consistent with observation."
I don't call god. But I also don't freak out about the belief either.
Comparing pantheism to the chain rule is rich. Truly rich, and that the student you heard also called it mental masturbation is all the more amazing. You're not storying us again are you? Thinking you can make this sort of thing up and have others swallow your story-telling as if it helps the cause of a pantheist?
Again? Are you referring to him stating he's scientist, or that he's actively instructing?
We may very be well be in a living system. The best you could do is whip out "beyond reasonable doubt" as evidence against it. But you know as well as I do how that actually stacks up.
So pantheism has some legs. It takes a lot more energy for you to toss that stuff in your post than it does me just looking at the data and saying "Yeah, as far beliefs go, pantheism at least is consistent with observation."
I don't call god. But I also don't freak out about the belief either.
I don't do much you say I'm doing, and I don't freak out about other beliefs either. I also try to waste less time rehashing the same misrepresentations, confusion and/or absurdities...
Just "call 'em the way I see "em" is all, and much like an umpire can't call balls or strikes in the dark, I don't call what I can't see (physically or mentally speaking).
Again? Are you referring to him stating he's scientist, or that he's actively instructing?
Neither. Reread my comment, because I think I make it pretty clear what I'm referring to. I surely don't make reference to anything you're referring to anyway...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... the 'atheist -stumper'. They have a couple of 'Checkmate, atheists' arguments they pin their whole belief -case on and they will - when it gets refuted - repeat it. Like someone with one joke (or 'funny story' 
) who tells it again and again and if they don't get a laugh, will tell it again, like they think 'They can't have listened the first time'.
