Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

How dare you demand that I prove one of my unfounded claims, when, according to my other unfounded claims, it has already been proven; especially when I know that, as soon as I offer my "proof", you're just going to refute it with logic, reason, and even science?!?

If you are so much more adept and better equipped to handle the text of scripture, get your butt back in the church and teach us. Break us free from our bondage instead of the bitchfest you engage in here.

[mwc]

     @LuthAMF  I wouldn't take that from him.  Go ahead and talk about your god.  Sure, it's not entirely original and your religion stands on the shoulders of others but don't let that shake you.  It's your worldview and even though it's fairly absurd it seems to act as a security blanket for you so you go ahead and let us know all about it.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

But does God exist? We have till now been asking what would be true if God exists. Is it nothing but a fine vision that we have seen? Our answer is that God must exist or the very questions that we have asked about Him would be meaningless. We have seen that God must know all things if we are to know anything. Hence it is also true that my asking about His existence would have no meaning unless He does actually exist. In other words, I must presuppose God’s existence for my experience to have any significance. My belief in God is as necessary as breath to me; He is “nearer than hands and feet.”

     Van Til ("The Believer's Theory of Knowledge")

 

     And so the answer of whether or not god exists, and why, is answered.

 

     "The Unbeliever's Theory of Knowledge" a section or two later is very interesting.  I have no idea what a cow is and Plato has brought me little aid on the issue.  I'm about to the point where I'm going to kill myself because I refuse to deny my manhood.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

If you are so much more adept and better equipped to handle the text of scripture, get your butt back in the church and teach us. Break us free from our bondage instead of the bitchfest you engage in here.

Your understanding is flawed.  Proving the existence of god using the text of scripture would require that one first presuppose the veracity of scripture.

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Your understanding is flawed.  Proving the existence of god using the text of scripture would require that one first presuppose the veracity of scripture.

Which has nothing to do with the charge.

[LuthAMF]

On 8/9/2019 at 10:10 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You mean the debate where he opened up by saying "Why does God exist? Because its true that God exists" then playing short clips of Matt and responding to them instead of laying out his position proper? 

 

Great. Why does the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist? Because it's true that the invisible pink unicorn exists. Take that unbelievers! 

 

Where Sye says "In my view of reality God exists, and I really really believe that my view of reality is the right view". So what? If you cannot demonstrate it then it's not part of reality that we share. There is just so much wrong with Sye's position. It's only going to convince the converted, or the true believer. 

 

You remember the big hooha a few pages back about you strawmanning Josh? Well Sye strawmans Matt in the debate in order to attack the weak strawman he creates. He takes short clips out of context in order to attack a line from Matt such as "I don't care if this is not the ultimate reality". He then cuts another clip in from years prior of Matt saying "I really really don't care" No context as to what Matt wasn't caring about, only using the clip to reinforce the strawman he was building.

 

I respect some Christian debaters - but not Sye. He's a dishonest, arrogant, condescending 'debater'.

 

I love Matt's opening line "Didn't I just get 10 minutes?" So true. You have to have lost all critical thinking capacity to have your mind changed by Sye. His argument is devoid of any substance. 

 

One commented posted this in the comments section of the debate video: "You cannot have a debate when only one person is willing to debate." Which of course was the point of my above post. If your entire debate argument comes down to saying "How do you know that" then you don't have an argument, you are just a moron.

 

Edit: Listen to the opening 2 minutes of Syes rebuttal. It is seriously so full of shit I cannot adequately express how shitty it is.

 

"All of you know God exists" "I don't present evidence to you because you are not the Judge, God is the judge"

 

For fucks sake. You cannot debate with someone like this. He is totally full of shit. I know this. How do I know this? Because I know, that I don't know that God exists.

 

Syes claim is so outstandingly arrogant and moronic I don't see how anyone would ever be convinced by it.

 

By the way Luth you know no God's exist. You just won't admit it because you can't handle the idea of having to make your own moral decisions. 

 

See how that sounds? Observant people will recognise this as the reverse of the claim that atheists don't want to believe God because they want to sin. 

 

Such drivel is of course wrong and pointless.

"One commented posted this in the comments section of the debate video: "You cannot have a debate when only one person is willing to debate." Which of course was the point of my above post. If your entire debate argument comes down to saying "How do you know that" then you don't have an argument, you are just a moron."

 

Is this "how do you know that?" not precisely the tactic you have taken with me in the debate, @Joshpantera?

 

...waits for the "No" then a philosophical answer followed by a YT video.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

36 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Which has nothing to do with the charge.

More confusion.  As well as evasion. 

[mwc]

"Let there be light."

There is no reason to immediately presume this to be our sun when initial light is not identified. Is the sun the only source of light?  

     You guys glossed this.  This light is named:

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

     So, since it is introduced, it needs to be addressed.  How is this light, that is not the sun, day and the darkness, night?  We know that the sun causes day as it relates to light so this would be an extraordinary usage (compared to common usage and the rest of the bible for that matter) especially since we also see the usage of evening and morning which also require the sun (and an atmosphere along with rotation and other such things but no point in complicating it).

 

          mwc

 

[florduh]

4 hours ago, mwc said:

 

 

     You guys glossed this.  This light is named:

 

 

     So, since it is introduced, it needs to be addressed.  How is this light, that is not the sun, day and the darkness, night?  We know that the sun causes day as it relates to light so this would be an extraordinary usage (compared to common usage and the rest of the bible for that matter) especially since we also see the usage of evening and morning which also require the sun (and an atmosphere along with rotation and other such things but no point in complicating it).

 

          mwc

 

You do know you're dealing with a troll, right?

 

But regarding "light" I'll go even further. There is no light in the absence of organisms that perceive it. Light is nothing more than a range of frequencies that can be perceived, and perception varies between individuals and species. With nothing to tune in the light waves it is simply a vibration no different than what we call radio waves or sound waves. What we name the different ranges of vibration relies solely on who perceives it and how. So in a very real sense, there is no light.

[LuthAMF]

19 minutes ago, florduh said:

You do know you're dealing with a troll, right?

Im not a troll.

But keep repeating it. At this point it's simply character assassination. How bout you knock it off now?

Ask @Joshpantera if he thinks I'm a troll..

 

21 minutes ago, florduh said:

But regarding "light" I'll go even further. There is no light in the absence of organisms that perceive it. Light is nothing more than a range of frequencies that can be perceived, and perception varies between individuals and species. With nothing to tune in the light waves it is simply a vibration no different than what we call radio waves or sound waves. What we name the different ranges of vibration relies solely on who perceives it and how. So in a very real sense, there is no light.

 

God "perceived" it. 

If there is no light, why did evolution need to develop photosensors in oreder to "perceive" it?

28 minutes ago, florduh said:

What we name the different ranges of vibration relies solely on who perceives it and how. So in a very real sense, there is no light.

This is what is called "philosophical BS".

 

 

 

[florduh]

7 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Im not a troll.

But keep repeating it. At this point it's simply character assassination. How bout you knock it off now?

Ask @Joshpantera if he thinks I'm a troll..

 

You're either a troll or an idiot. Those who recognize this poster as a troll, speak up now. FYI we don't need a majority vote, or any vote.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Up now.

[TrueFreedom]

I’m not sure that he’s intentionally trolling, but he certainly meets the qualifications and is obviously an idiot. I guess we’re hard up for Christians willing to debate.

[LuthAMF]

37 minutes ago, florduh said:

 

You're either a troll or an idiot. Those who recognize this poster as a troll, speak up now. FYI we don't need a majority vote, or any vote.

Then I'm an idiot cos I'm not a troll.

And don't care one bit what you think. 

[LuthAMF]

42 minutes ago, TrueFreedom said:

I’m not sure that he’s intentionally trolling, but he certainly meets the qualifications and is obviously an idiot. I guess we’re hard up for Christians willing to debate.

Yeah, but not all Christians are willing to put up with your abusive BS either, huh?

So you've had next to zero / nada to contribute thus far. How bout you keep it that way?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

In my estimation, whether he's a troll or an idiot (or both) is irrelevant.  But I will say he is certainly a one trick pony; and that one trick has gotten old.  I quit trying to seriously engage him a while back because it's simply pointless to do so.  Moreover, he has already been called down once before and warned to shore up his ways.  He has clearly failed to do so.   He whines about character assassination while failing to realize that he, in fact, lacks character to begin with.  And his behavior here has been nothing but shameful.  It ain't my place to say he should be banned; but I'd be as happy as a whore in a dick tree if it happens. 

[LogicalFallacy]

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"One commented posted this in the comments section of the debate video: "You cannot have a debate when only one person is willing to debate." Which of course was the point of my above post. If your entire debate argument comes down to saying "How do you know that" then you don't have an argument, you are just a moron."

 

Is this "how do you know that?" not precisely the tactic you have taken with me in the debate, @Joshpantera?

 

...waits for the "No" then a philosophical answer followed by a YT video.

 

No it's not. It's sad that you don't understand the difference.

 

We are asking how you know something from a skeptical perspective. We want to know what your evidence is. 

 

Sye on the other hand when he says How do you know that? Is actually saying you cannot know anything outside of my presupposed worldview. 

 

Big difference there. Don't need a YT vid to explain it. You are the one who quotes stuff from other sources and presents it as your own argument. 

[LuthAMF]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

In my estimation, whether he's a troll or an idiot (or both) is irrelevant.  But I will say he is certainly a one trick pony; and that one trick has gotten old.  I quit trying to seriously engage him a while back because it's simply pointless to do so.  Moreover, he has already been called down once before and warned to shore up his ways.  He has clearly failed to do so.   He whines about character assassination while failing to realize that he, in fact, lacks character to begin with.  And his behavior here has been nothing but shameful.  It ain't my place to say he should be banned; but I'd be as happy as a whore in a dick tree if it happens. 

Shore up my ways? Anywhere you are involved, you deserve what you get. You are the most vile person I've ever encountered. Do what you will with it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

You are the most vile person I've ever encountered.

 You should get out more.

[LuthAMF]

10 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

No it's not. It's sad that you don't understand the difference.

Yes, it is and I do know the difference. You are simply committed to being contrary no matter what I offer.

 

11 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

We are asking how you know something from a skeptical perspective. We want to know what your evidence is. 

The exact same evidence that you have which is what I pointed out in the debate. It's a matter of perspective or bias. You claim yours are pristine.

 

13 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Sye on the other hand when he says How do you know that? Is actually saying you cannot know anything outside of my presupposed worldview.

Is it a fair Q? There have been repeated times in debate demonstrating that the atheist has to continually borrow from a Christian framework in order to make sense of his own. Gnash your teeth over that all you will but it's in your face.

 

19 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Big difference there. Don't need a YT vid to explain it. You are the one who quotes stuff from other sources and presents it as your own argument. 

That's exactly right. So why keep pulling up YT vids to explain something, hmmmm? How bout letting the text speak for itself and then allowing for historical confirmation. ***Cue more ranting and raving***

I accepted the correction for not citing sources. When you or others cite sources, though, are you not also bolstering your own argument? Hypocrite. That's how things work. UNLESS you are a source unto yourself. Are you a source unto yourself, LF? Hmmmm?

[LuthAMF]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 You should get out more.

No, you'll do. Cos I've been "out". That's why I make the qualification. Congrats.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

No, you'll do. Cos I've been "out". That's why I make the qualification. Congrats.

And congrats on coming "out" in public.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

23 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Shore up my ways?

Go back and revisit page 21 of this thread.  You were on thin ice then; you're wearing red hot skates now.

[LogicalFallacy]

14 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Yes, it is and I do know the difference. You are simply committed to being contrary no matter what I offer.

 

Yet more projection.

 

14 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

You claim yours are pristine.

 

Show me where I've claimed my bias and perspective are pristine.

 

14 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

So why keep pulling up YT vids to explain something, hmmmm?

 

Where am I pulling up YouTube vids? Show me.

 

14 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

How bout letting the text speak for itself and then allowing for historical confirmation.

 

No Christian does this. Everything is interpreted. That's where we get dispensations from. If you let the text speak for itself you'd assume a 6000 year old earth and that the people 2000 years ago thought the end of the world was imminent and that the Lord would return in their lifetimes.

 

14 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

I accepted the correction for not citing sources. When you or others cite sources, though, are you not also bolstering your own argument?

 

I have no problem with citing sources to bolster an argument. No one here does. In fact we expect it.

 

14 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Hypocrite.

 

You have a misapprehension of what this word means. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Are you a source unto yourself, LF? Hmmmm?

 

Dear God please help this man create a semi decent argument instead of obvious clap trap. Amen.

[florduh]

I'm not sure if anybody is enjoying or benefiting from this any longer. If y'all really do enjoy asking questions to a broken record let me know. I don't want to stop anyone's fun.