To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
- Isaac Asimov
- Isaac Asimov
God and Science
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. â Christopher Hitchens
http://www.youtube.com/user/hitchenschannel?blend=1&ob=4#p/c/588891F1B3567ADC
http://www.youtube.com/user/hitchenschannel?blend=1&ob=4#p/c/588891F1B3567ADC
Hitchens' proof is about 120...same as yours longshot...
Hitchens is is too dense to grok a priori proofs...all of his proofs are just a spun version of drunk on his posterior circular argument...
Hitchen is a typical atheist, who hates Christianity because they were buggered as a child...
Hitchens would not dare to debate anyone with a grasp of ontological arguments, even a sober Hitchens (which is rare) would be left holding his dick in his hands...so he takes on the blithering Christians and thinks that makes him intelligent? Angry bitter formerly theistic intellectuals like Hitchens who beat up on Christians do noting but demonstrate how bankrupt they actually are when it comes to any degree of genuine philosophical discourse.
Hitchens would shirk the tough questions from a real philosophical mind just as stu and longshot duck the simple questions about their pronouncements...
What is completely pathetic is that Hitchens and the rest of his ilk is they attack conditional statements of Christianity, without anything but their own conditional a posteriori arguments...
Though I am not at all surprised that you would be using Hitchens' opinions to make your case...after all, the blind do follow the blind.
Hitchens is is too dense to grok a priori proofs...all of his proofs are just a spun version of drunk on his posterior circular argument...
Hitchen is a typical atheist, who hates Christianity because they were buggered as a child...
Hitchens would not dare to debate anyone with a grasp of ontological arguments, even a sober Hitchens (which is rare) would be left holding his dick in his hands...so he takes on the blithering Christians and thinks that makes him intelligent? Angry bitter formerly theistic intellectuals like Hitchens who beat up on Christians do noting but demonstrate how bankrupt they actually are when it comes to any degree of genuine philosophical discourse.
Hitchens would shirk the tough questions from a real philosophical mind just as stu and longshot duck the simple questions about their pronouncements...
What is completely pathetic is that Hitchens and the rest of his ilk is they attack conditional statements of Christianity, without anything but their own conditional a posteriori arguments...
Though I am not at all surprised that you would be using Hitchens' opinions to make your case...after all, the blind do follow the blind.
Quote from killthesunshine:
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. â Christopher Hitchens
http://www.youtube.com/user/hitchenschannel?blend=1&ob=4#p/c/588891F1B3567ADC
our refutation, sir, respectfully submitted
http://www.youtube.com/user/hitchenschannel?blend=1&ob=4#p/c/588891F1B3567ADC/1/UTrVPaoLuu8
take that!
Ignorant folks like yourself confuse arguments against organized religions and legitimate discussions of God...
God has only one religion, men of limited mind make up all the rest...and Hitchens argues against all the rest, as he is clueless about any sophisticated discussion of God.
Why is that?
Whenever pressed into a corner, which is actually easy with folks like Hitchens, they will begin to speak of God as if they actually conceptually know what God is (which they don't know, all they know is the concepts of Abraham based religions which they grew up with)...
They classic fallacy of the atheists is they begin to quote Christian scriptures in some attempt to prove there is no God...or that the Christians' concept of God is "illogical" but these arguments are completely absurd as they are using as a buttress of their position something they don't agree with from the beginning.
It is actually easy to expose these people, but they are clever enough to only "debate" the truly mindless parrots found in Christianity.
They attack Christianity nearly 100% of the time, or Islam, or the other Abraham based religions...as the fundamental ontological concepts of Eastern religions or deism are like advanced calculus to a flash card mind like Hitchens are followers...
They make humanistic arguments and that proves there is no God? If God did exist, it would be their concept of God only?
LOL!!!
God has only one religion, men of limited mind make up all the rest...and Hitchens argues against all the rest, as he is clueless about any sophisticated discussion of God.
Why is that?
Whenever pressed into a corner, which is actually easy with folks like Hitchens, they will begin to speak of God as if they actually conceptually know what God is (which they don't know, all they know is the concepts of Abraham based religions which they grew up with)...
They classic fallacy of the atheists is they begin to quote Christian scriptures in some attempt to prove there is no God...or that the Christians' concept of God is "illogical" but these arguments are completely absurd as they are using as a buttress of their position something they don't agree with from the beginning.
It is actually easy to expose these people, but they are clever enough to only "debate" the truly mindless parrots found in Christianity.
They attack Christianity nearly 100% of the time, or Islam, or the other Abraham based religions...as the fundamental ontological concepts of Eastern religions or deism are like advanced calculus to a flash card mind like Hitchens are followers...
They make humanistic arguments and that proves there is no God? If God did exist, it would be their concept of God only?
LOL!!!
Quote from killthesunshine:
our refutation, sir, respectfully submitted
http://www.youtube.com/user/hitchenschannel?blend=1&ob=4#p/c/588891F1B3567ADC/1/UTrVPaoLuu8
take that!
ok, how do YOU know God better than the next man (for instance, hitchins)?
or me? what gives YOU the exclusive right to truth?
First and foremost, Hitchens is an avowed atheist, so he immediately disqualifies himself as "knowing" God sufficient to render an opinion against God.
Good gravy longshot, you are embarrassing yourself again in public with you stupidity...
Yes, you are confused...a truth that all with sound mind can attest to...
Good gravy longshot, you are embarrassing yourself again in public with you stupidity...
Yes, you are confused...a truth that all with sound mind can attest to...
Quote from killthesunshine:
ok, how do YOU know God better than the next man (for instance, hitchins)?
or me? what gives YOU the exclusive right to truth?
trying to come up with not only rational rebut but witty..
STU, LOGON!
STU, LOGON!
Pinocchio longshot begs for his puppet master Geppeto stu to bail him out...
Quote from killthesunshine:
trying to come up with not only rational rebut but witty..
STU, LOGON!
To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldnât be wrong to ask. â Geoff Mather