Visit my vlog channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/BionicaGaming Twitter: http://twitter.com/BionicDance BionicDance Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/127910057252487/ TheBreakfastCl…

source

31 COMMENTS

  1. That kid is deflated intelligence and together with missing intelligence they are two true psychos that admitted, without gawd, they'd go killing people – what they actually said (especially deflated intelligence) was, if there's no gawd, atheists should go and kill people but since they don't, they only lack ambition. A real pair of loving christians … Especially since he claims we have no dignity. What a sorry asshole. And I really love his claim how everybody not on the bandwagon to suck gawds dick isn't capable of thinking.

    I may not be able to prove the non-existence of any deity, but I can deliver evidence the buybull is so full of bullshit, by their own premise, it renders his gawd inexistence.

  2. Crap… I deleted my comment because I thought it could be taken the wrong way and now I notice (through possibly the lag in the system) you answered awesomely. Missed opportunity… oh well.

  3. 1. If a notion or doctrine cannot be demonstrated to be coherent, the default presumption is that such notions/doctrine are indeed incoherent.

    2. None of the notions/doctrines of developed Abrahamic theism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have been demonstrated to be coherent, and therefore are to be deemed incoherent.

    3. That which is incoherent is impossible, and therefore cannot exist, and is thus not only false, but 'not even false'.

    4. Core notions of Christianity are incoherent (see 2, above).

    5 Ergo, Christianity is not even false, but certainly not true. Q.E.D.

    Logic. Gotta love it. 😉

  4. I always think its better to argue against the belief in God rather than argue against a particular religion. Its pretty much the linchpin of their faith, and w/o a deity religion has no foundation on which to stand.

  5. Funny how often we offer evidence to Atheists, even scientific, peer reviewed data, and they won't even look at it or acknowledge it. Or just run off to their favorite Skeptic Guru to "debunk" it for them–and they are never skeptical of the "debunkers" at all, even though you can often see the "debunker" isn't being honest and has his own axe to grind.

  6. I just spent way too much effort leaving a comment on his video that expresses in formal logic that if I disagree with some moral tenant of christianity, it merely means that some miniscule part of it is wrong, and therefore the argument is unusable.
    His video would be so much more bearable if he hadn't ended with that volley of insults.

  7. Although I enjoyed this response vid, its difficult for me to accept this Mark guy is not a Poe. It feels like Youtube is now full of people making money ironically. Its a big turn-off for me.

  8. Using philosophy to show things is fine…. well almost. This is the point at which science started to differ from its past as it started to use these logical arguments, based on known facts, but then also made the logic predict something that could be tested in the real world. After all, anything could be proved if all it takes is a few lines of philosophy.

    So all thgis posted has to do is to reformulate any of his syllogisms to make a prediction that we atheists can test which would demonstrate that his god exists. This needs to be something we can go and measure and is independent of human feelings and emotions. So, come on, persuade us with some real facts.

  9. theists that only use logical arguments are the worst. anyone can construct a sound logical argument for just about anything; ie all dogs die, George Washington is dead, therefore George Washington was a dog. and I can't be the only one who found this jackass's use of term lack of belief atheists to be annoying. that term is basically a double negative. atheism already means a lack of belief in a god or gods. so essentially he was saying lack of belief in a lack of belief in a god or gods. finally someone explain to him that atheism is the null hypothesis and doesn't have to be proven.

  10. The theist gives a lousy argument. The first premise "If Christianity is true, then fornication is wrong." contains a non-sequitur. EVEN IF all the factual claims made by Christianity were true, that would still have no impact on other people's moral opinions.

    Missing The Mark is a very appropriate channel name for this guy.

  11. Kate
    I just noticed the absence of upspeak and vocal fry when you talk. Hmm. Any comments on this?

    Also, independent of that, I suspect you have a pleasant singing voice.

  12. I still wonder how masturbation is cheating when actually not satisfying your sexual need in a peaceful manner is the real cheating on your nature.
    I think withholding your urge in a self aware manner without anyone getting hurt is really cheating since I would build an overload of energy and eventually explode mentally like real Christians do and start to masturbate over peoples non religiosity.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here