I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.

Whateverman

Whateverman

Well-known member
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
Whateverman said:
Anyone interested in seeing yrger getting his rhetorical arse handed to him by both theists and atheists should check out both of these links:

God, from concept to existence, an experiment in critical... - Page 61 - The Skeptics Society Forum

www.skepticforum.com

www.abovetopsecret.com

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. , page 182

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. , page 182
www.abovetopsecret.com www.abovetopsecret.com
Click to expand...
So, it's not just his writing that is similar elsewhere on the Internet. We also have his abject failure to make a cohesive argument and his rapid degeneration into an abusive laughing stock.
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
yrger said:
My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I just drop in to tell atheists or God-deniers that their use of Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy is a case of Russell's deficiency in honest intelligent thinking, as the man was also not honest in his sex morality.




Atheists or God-deniers wax ecstatic insisting that Russell was not dishonest, but was just informing folks that with absurd ideas the burden of proof is on their claimants, not on parties denying them.

This is what I keep on and on and on asking atheists and God-deniers, when are you ever going to tell us why the idea of God is absurd?

Here is my concept of God:
"God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending."

Of course you can deny the existence of teapot in space or flying spaghetti monster, etc.
Click to expand...
Whatever Russell's sexual morality may have been, intellectually, your not fit to lick his boots clean. The notion of you explaining where he goes wrong is hilarious. How long has he been dead now? And he still runs rings round you.
 
Whateverman

Whateverman

Well-known member
Temujin said:
So, it's not just his writing that is similar elsewhere on the Internet. We also have his abject failure to make a cohesive argument and his rapid degeneration into an abusive laughing stock.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely correct, yes. He's received the same kind of responses in plenty of other places.

I'm not a cyber stalker; yrger can do/say whatever he wants, and it's no skin off my nose. Nevertheless, his online personality is... distinctive? Unique? His posts here make a person curious about whether he's sincere or a troll, etc.

It's surprising what you can find out about an online personality simply by googling his/her screen name, or the first few sentences of a post...
 
Y

yrger

Member
My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title of post: God human genitals and the man Bertrand Russell

From having read the three texts of Bertrand Russell and researched on his life, I have come to the conclusion that Bertrand Russell started writing against God, of course he first thought about God and that God does not exist, when he discovered that he preferred making love to studying God.

So, originally Russell had to deny God’s existence because his genitals he discovered had got to be free, for him to employ them on as many women as he wanted or they cared that he used them on them, them women.

In this way, he showed to the Victorian society in which he was a well-known member, that there is nothing wrong with his employment of his genitals with as many women as cared to accept his genitals to make love with him.

::

Since when I started to study i.e. investigate the phenomenon of the decline of God's acceptance in society today, I had come to the conclusion that modern humans emulate the example of Bertrand Russell, namely, making love freely is preferable to the traditional restrictive sex morality of love making for only married couples.




::



Calling a spade a spade.
 
D

Deist

Active member
Rockson said:
I can make for some interesting discussion as to whether God exists but the Creator doesn't allow himself to be put on the defensive like that. He merely points out the way things will be judged and defined that is because the creation reveals it. Rom 1: 19,20 He uses the term that people will be without excuse.

People will claim they have excuse but it's already decided there will be none. This gives me peace to know it's not my place to do all of this heavy lifting those who don't want God choose that I do that is prove it. Here's the thing....if they won't yield and acknowledge what God has said and defined as self evident THEY WILL NOT yield to what other things you might want to share, and in fact with them they feel a sense that they're empowered....as in they've got God on the run. As in they're perched up on their attitude and God is somehow below them. Nope...he's not and never will be.
Click to expand...
All you are saying is that you are a believer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top