Conquer Club

The Gospel according to Jay

I have no thought process
I cannot comprehend logic
I fail miserably to make any coherent points
Yet Im desperate for the safety of a flock
Let Jesus and youtube be my savours.

Amen for animation , fairy tales and the flicky videos that save one having to think for oneself.

MeDeFe wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:This sooooooo belongs in this thread!

"This video has been removed by the user."

So... know another place where we can watch it?

heaven.

Oh come on boys, be nice, I'd really like to see the counterargument to the first debater in that video.

MeDeFe wrote:Oh come on boys, be nice, I'd really like to see the counterargument to the first debater in that video.

Part I


Part II


Part III


So far, that is all.....

I didn't watch the whole thing. I just got to the Reverend's first big mistake.

He said that atheists suggest that logic is true because a lot of people believe it is true. Now, if statements can be true because everybody says so, then that applies to religion as well.

kagetora wrote:I didn't watch the whole thing. I just got to the Reverend's first big mistake.

He said that atheists suggest that logic is true because a lot of people believe it is true. Now, if statements can be true because everybody says so, then that applies to religion as well.

Stop resorting to petty insults.

Basing your proof for god's existence on the basis of the existence of logic? You are only positing a 'light the touch paper' deity, certainly not the xian god. He even says 'the xian worldview includes logic, the atheist's doesn't' or something to that effect. Sleight of hand for idiots. And didn't godel show that any logical system is incomplete, anyway?
I wonder what the evil atheist's response will be.

EDIT: why do atheists always sound more intelligent than bleevers? lulz - comment on youtube describes kagin as an 'overly edcuated monkey'. Says it all really.

EDIT: 'Without god's existence we can have no way of rationally discussing anything'. ie.e this debate itself proves god exists. is Slick stoopid or a sophist?

' Sleight of hand for Idiots '

Well that cannot be true because Jay believed every word........Ah

heavycola wrote:EDIT: why do atheists always sound more intelligent than bleevers?

Are you kidding me? The Rev. was far more articulate, his points put together well. The atheist seemed to be "winging it". Not addressing the points raised by the Rev. Making up acronyms for "Atheist"??? I mean come on.

MeDeFe wrote:Oh come on boys, be nice, I'd really like to see the counterargument to the first debater in that video.

Part I


Part II


Part III


Part IV


So far, that is all.....

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:EDIT: why do atheists always sound more intelligent than bleevers?

Are you kidding me? The Rev. was far more articulate, his points put together well. The atheist seemed to be "winging it". Not addressing the points raised by the Rev. Making up acronyms for "Atheist"??? I mean come on.

The rev's 'point' was that because logic exists god exists. It is a fairly ridiculous argument; all the "atheist??!!!" had to do was point out that logic, like language or arithmetic, is a human construct. Which is the more intelligent way to look at it, whether you believe in a god or not.
The rev lost smart points too for all the strawmen at the end of his first speech. And for being a reverend. And for trying, disingenuously, to suggest that xianity is compatible with logic while non-belief isnt - when in fact all he was doing was suggesting there must have been a creator. From creator -> war god of the hebrews -> NT-type god is a huuuuuge leap that he never explained. Like Bush and Rummy mentioning 9/11 and saddam in the same sentences when there was never any link.

Of course there is no way I can read 290 pages on this forum so I guess someone has already pointed out this maybe, but
I just want to note that the whole discussion started, right from the start in message 1, with a non-so-true assumption:

jay_a2j wrote:Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

Since has not said that *AT ALL*, and common sense does not match science many many times, and in fact in the well-known book "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life" Cairns-Smith states that life could indeed have come from non-life inorganic material. As I am lazy, I post here some part of a review that can be found in the web where that point is made more clear:

In "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life", A. G. Cairns-Smith, a molecular biologist and so on at the University of Glasgow, lays out in an amusing and chatty way (including numerous Sherlock Holmes quotations) his argument that yes the first replicator really couldn't have been any of the replicators that we have today, or even anything very much like them. And he presents his own theory as to what they in fact were: inorganic clay crystals of a certain type that seem to have (or seem capable of having) both the requisite ability to do a kind of very low-tech replication, and the potential to have eventually provided the platform on which our current much higher-tech replicators (DNA and all that) got their start.


So, regardless of whether God exists, it is quite a bad, though usual, technique to support an argument based on possibly false assumptions (that's exactly what science doesn't do!).

It has awoke again.

Yes I and many others throughout the 290+ pages have pointed out that life can come from non-life. The thread ended up revolving more so on "logic dictates that the Christian God is/isn't real" and "no evidence exists to suggest the Christian God is any more practical than ..." etc. Focuses mostly on the Christian God's, with some retardedly stupid comments by both sides (namely jay for the Christian side). Oh yeah, the new earth vs old earth and evolution managed to work its way in for a little bit (prob 30 or so pages).

God, this thread is so win...

Well, if this thread can come back from the dead, maybe Jesus could too.

We need to advertise this thread or something, get some new blood in here. Jay did his part, but he isn't an intellectual Rambo. We need more people on the other side of the argument! Same goes for the evolution thread.

I think this was my first ever debate thread... like, two and half years ago

lol, there it is, my first words on the god debate from October 2006

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1562&p=127326#p127326

It's thread resurrections like this which make me realize just how long I've been here and how much time I've wasted... erm... I mean spent on these forums.

Perhaps Dostoevsky had it right when he tried to reduce the whole idea of putting God's existence on trial to the absurd...a Kierkegaardian absurd.

Frigidus wrote:We need to advertise this thread or something, get some new blood in here. Jay did his part, but he isn't an intellectual Rambo. We need more people on the other side of the argument! Same goes for the evolution thread.

Where are you going to find intellectual people on the creationism side?

I know a fervent atheist who absolutely refuses to believe evolution. Clever person too.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I know a fervent atheist who absolutely refuses to believe evolution. Clever person too.

I know of one of the largest organized religions in the world whose dogma and teachings says the evolution was the likely process for the origin life. It has millions of members.

OF COURSE THERE IS A GOD... ITS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mpjh wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I know a fervent atheist who absolutely refuses to believe evolution. Clever person too.

I know of one of the largest organized religions in the world whose dogma and teachings says the evolution was the likely process for the origin life. It has millions of members.

What's your point?