Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Bracketing out the very obvious lack of credentials on any and every subject you've sought to discredit on here, the lie where you agreed to abide by the T&Cs of the debate (which, contrary to what you've posted below, are standardized and ubiquitous to formal debates IRL and online - and I've actually bee to quite a few at various universities where I've studied so you can't bullshit your way around that) and then proceeded to completely disregard them.

So what? I am only comparing this format to every other debate I've seen, and like I said, I haven't seen one debate where there is a separate opening statement session distinct from the main shit.

If you've seen it, fine...I am just saying I haven't seen it, and I've watched many debates..after all, WLC is my hero

Again, demonstrably bullshit. The format of formal debates is standardized. Go to any university or debating hall and you'll get a similar or variant of what was agreed between you and Esquilax.

Yeah, and the debates that WLC had in UNIVERSITIES don't have opening statements as separate segments. Don't know where y'all got that from. The opening statement consists of a short piece of an intro + the participant making his argument for his side. Same thing with Con.

And it's funny that you should trot out WLC. I'm actually doing my PhD at the same university where WLC gained his own PhD here in England and I can tell you 100% that debates between student societies and internal/external presenters are in a similar format to the one employed here. And I know he participated in debates on apologetics here. So again, stop talking shit.

Man please. None of that means ANYTHING when there are dozens of debates online of WLC debating at which the "similar format" on here is NOT the same as the dozens that are online. I am right, and you are wrong, sir. So quit bitching.

Only evidences further to me that your academic credentials are zero, and thus your (often bizarre) views on the very academic subjects you seek to discredit can be dismissed.

Its funny how my credentials are constantly being raised in to question as if there are a bunch of college graduates on here I am willing to bet that none of you guys on here is more educated than I am, especially when it comes to the issues we've been discussing.

I bitch and moan when idiots like you give me things to bitch and moan about.

I am still waiting on you to provide some sort of refutation of anything that I've said. So far, you've said a lot, but contributed little.

Thus, stop being stupid

Stop bitching at me.

, post something that has some substance, and maybe people will take you seriously.

Give me a refutation that is of substance, and maybe I will take you seriously.

Until then, you're just another anonymous goon on the Internet with a penchant for hoarding incorrect information on subjects you don't know anything about from apologist websites and presenting them like you've got something to say.

Tell me what information have I posted that was incorrect? Or are you just talking out of your ass? Apparently you are just talking out of your ass, all you want to do is make these ad hominem attacks against me, which is fine...but don't make it seem as if I just have a thread full of wrong information, or that your forum friends are so smart and so factually accurate and I am so dumb and so inaccurate...because that isn't a fair assessment of what is going on here, and you know it isn't.

Really weird how you guys come onto atheist forums like you've got something to prove over subjects like evolution and then proceed to make utter fools of yourself.

I don't believe in evolution, plain and simple. No matter how angry you get or how red your face gets wont change the fact that you've never witnessed an archae-type change in animal reproduction. You've never see it, yet you believe it occurred. That isn't science, that is religion.

---

You got caught talking out both sides of your mouth, and you're not even man enough to admit it.

When???

I find it baffling as well, but you clearly stated that you did not say what you damned well said. So either you're not paying attention to what you yourself say ... or you're a liar.

I'll take "liar" for $500, Alex.

When did I "clearly state that I did not say what I damned well said"?

I don't know, and don't care. I don't think you're worth a pisshole drilled in a snowbank, because I don't like dishonest people, and you are a dishonest person.

Tell me when did I lie about anything on here?

---

I'm not sure he'll understand that you're referring to him.
Try this:
@His Majesty: "serious question, if you'll indulge. What is science to you?

Well, I am quite sure if he quoted me, it would be easy for me to see that he is referring to me...or I guess I am to stupid to figure it out, huh lol. But anyway, science is to me the same thing it is for everyone else. It is a methodology...a tool we use to see how the world works.

What do you think it means, how does it work, how do you recognise what is science and what isn't? Thanks."

Science is based on observation, and experiment. You observe a phenomena, you ask a questions of "why, what, how"...you form a hypothesis based on what you think the answer is, and your conduct an experiment to confirm or falsify your hypothesis. That is elementary shit.

You are asking me that question...so I will ask you; how is macroevolution confirmed by science?

---

Simple explanation. You've created a shitty "thought analogy". Let's put this on on the scales eh?

The thought analogy is about as shitty as the idea that birds evolved from reptiles.

Shitty thought analogy / something that has been observed to happen cannot happen.

Hmn, I don't know which one I'm going to side with...it's just so damned difficult...... Or, and this is revolutionary...you could go make the observations yourself and see whether or not they line up with the observations of others. You know, scientific method and all that. Start with peas, maybe - establish the foundation before tackling more difficult experiments?

If you can't demonstrate how infinity can be traversed, your future posts to me are irrelevant, meaningless, and any other synonym that can be thrown in there.

---

What sort of reasoning leads someone to decide to "study" apologetics?

If there weren't people out there attacking the Christian faith, Christian apologists wouldn't be in business, now, would we?

---

Oh, but I didn't just give you the link. I also directly explained the rules in my PM to you. The only way you could have avoided seeing the rules is if you both didn't read the link, nor the PM I sent you at all. So when you said what I'd sent you "looked good," I guess you were lying.

Besides, as Fidel pointed out, debates routinely function just as the rules of the debate area set out. In fact, since you seem to be such a fan of William Lane Craig, here he is in official debate using exactly those rules:





That was this year. Whoops, here's another one, and this one mirrors our rules even more closely! hock:

We can see two things, from this demonstration. The first is that you have literally no idea what you're talking about, even with regards to the things you're supposedly well versed in. The second is that "I've never seen it," from you in particular is absolutely not an indicator of reality.

First off, it is clear that you still don't know what the hell you are talking about. In his debates, when Dr. Craig gives his opening statements, he also presents his argument in the same statement, he doesn't have one segment for his opening statement, and another one for his argument presentation...they are all in the same damn statement. So what the hell are you posting videos of his debates for when they corroborate what I've been saying.

In our debate, you guys apparently thought it would be cool for us to have opening statements that where distinct from our main body presentations, which again, I've never seen before.

Am I in the twilight zone?

As the above should demonstrate, it's not what WLC is used to.

His opening argument and his argument presentation are in the same damn speech. Are you stupid?? You posted videos that only confirm what I've been saying.

Like I said before, I guess being wrong doesn't seem to bother you. You were wrong about the BGV implications, you were wrong about whether or not dinosaurs were reptiles, and you are wrong about WLC's debate formats.

You are consistently and blatantly...wrong...all the time.

Well then where do you get off shouting down CD and pretending that the rules were unfair to you?

My point was...let the playas play.

Your problem is that you never see fit to actually support your dismissals in any way. You just go "that's a lie," but you never bother to demonstrate that this is so. Why should any of us take you seriously if the extent of your argumentation is just "nuh uh!"?

Well, give me on single claim of macrevolution and I will be glad to explain why it is a lie...but I already did in the debate anyway.

How? Because, the last time I checked, the scientific method contained the standard scientific classification system, and did not contain any acknowledgement of "kinds."

Lets pretend like we don't know what "kind" is..and if you don't, then apparently that is how much of a hold this nonsense theory has on you.

Yes, I'm familiar with the dishonest creationist tactic of demanding that a complex conclusion built out of a number of converging lines of evidence be reduced to a single talking point. Put simply, I refuse to bow to your desire to oversimplify things into something you can strawman more easily.

Dishonest creation tactic? Wait a minute, so atheists can ask theists for evidence for God all day and night, but when we ask for evidence for evolution, we are being dishonest?

Makes no sense.

The best evidence for evolution was presented in my opening statement during the debate, to which your sole response was to attempt to make up and attach something new to the definition that was never present before, and then dismiss the rest by fiat assertion. Your sad attempt to respond to my evidence does not mean the evidence just vanishes, it just means you're more in love with your "kinds" fantasy than with the facts.

I don't even remember what it was...it must of not been worth remembering.

By the way, do you have a definition for "kind" yet? Or haven't you made it up yet?

Well, how about this...here is another analogy, since my analogies are on so much demand here...

If you went in a pet store, and you asked the clerk "Can you show me where the dog section is", and the clerk says "Sure, follow me"...and you proceeded to follow him to a section that consisted of nothing but hamsters...would you simply brush it off and begin looking at the hamsters, or would you recognize that there is a damn difference between what you asked for, and where you were taken? If the latter, then you would recognize that the "kind" that you asked for was different than the "kind" that you were taken to.

No need for technicalities...a dog is a different "kind" of animal than a hamster. And I know what you will say "What do you mean, they are both mammals"...but SO FREAKIN' WHAT...they are two different KINDS of mammals..either way you look at it, they are a different kind.

And if you still insist on putting up a front about the whole "kind" business as if it has no place in biology....then the next time you go in a pet store to buy a dog and you are brought any animal other than a dog, just purchase whatever animal that is...since you apparently don't know what a kind is.

But Chuck wasn't talking about the archaeopteryx.

Well, that is what me and you were talking about.

He was talking about the classification system that we use to organize animals, and why certain species (dinosaurs, not archaeopteryx specifically) fit in where they do.

Look the bottom line is, as I've said for the 5th time (at least), is the archae is the alleged missing link between reptiles and birds. You tried to correct me in that regard, and you are wrong...not that it mattered anyway, since it doesn't matter whether or not it is the alleged missing link between reptiles/birds or dinosaurs/birds, but overall point was: No one has ever witnesses such large scale changes in ANY living organisms. That was the point.