(December 5, 2018 at 6:42 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 6:40 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: You don't need all of them.  You have a diversified group of "atheists" that do follow him.  Similar to a church "denomination", but now it's with atheists.

Enjoy your hobby horse.

Meanwhile, we'll await your religion's evidence.

What religion?  What evidence would you like for said religion?

(December 5, 2018 at 6:45 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 6:42 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Enjoy your hobby horse.

Meanwhile, we'll await your religion's evidence.

What religion?  What evidence would you like for said religion?

Whichever one you happen to practice.

Something compelling.

This isn't rocket science, man.

Cherub felled by FSM.

I see the word evidence here a lot.

Look, I can give you all kinds of charts, graphs, formulas, and repeatable experience but come on, That's like a bunch of work.

Just look at the trees, The branches are exactly like his glory's noodles. Checkmate!

(December 5, 2018 at 6:48 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 6:45 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: What religion?  What evidence would you like for said religion?

Whichever one you happen to practice.

Something compelling.

This isn't rocket science, man.

Right, but you're suggesting I have some religion. Just trying to figure out where I stated I have a "religion."  Once you tell me what you're referring to, I can look at it and try to respond accordingly.  You're right though, it's not rocket science.

(December 5, 2018 at 6:51 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 6:48 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Whichever one you happen to practice.

Something compelling.

This isn't rocket science, man.

Right, but you're suggesting I have some religion. Just trying to figure out where I stated I have a "religion."  Once you tell me what you're referring to, I can look at it and try to respond accordingly.  You're right though, it's not rocket science.

My mistake. I got confused by your metaphysical-naturalism-as-atheist-dogma claim. Usually, only religious people are that stupid.

(December 5, 2018 at 6:54 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 6:51 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Right, but you're suggesting I have some religion. Just trying to figure out where I stated I have a "religion."  Once you tell me what you're referring to, I can look at it and try to respond accordingly.  You're right though, it's not rocket science.

My mistake. I got confused by your metaphysical-naturalism-as-atheist-dogma claim. Usually, only religious people are that stupid.

Ahhh, well if what you have is name calling, then I'm not interested.  As soon as someone goes that route, IMO it's a pointless conversation.  Good luck though.

(December 5, 2018 at 6:29 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Cherry picking definitions doesn't work.

I like how National Geographic put it here.
[/url]
[url=https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/]The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion

Of course the subtitle is perfect for this kind of thing:

"As secularism grows, atheists and agnostics are trying to expand and diversify their ranks."

Apparently you are now to be known as "Nones" (Not nuns)

"The religiously unaffiliated, called "nones," are growing significantly. They’re the second largest religious group in North America and most of Europe. In the United States, nones make up almost a quarter of the population. In the past decade, U.S. nones have overtaken Catholics, mainline protestants, and all followers of non-Christian faiths."

Everyone noticed that you actually refuted NOT ONE of carrier's points, and are incapable of discussing what exactly is wrong with any these things you impotently GENERALIZE about. LOL

No one "cherry picked a definition". ALL of them do not apply. Please learn what "cherry-picking" actually means. 
You continue to make the fundamental error that other people (including you) get to tell others how they think. 
Congratulations on your mind-reading ability, Madame Zelda. You charge for sessions with your crystal ball ?

(December 5, 2018 at 7:58 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 6:29 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Cherry picking definitions doesn't work.

I like how National Geographic put it here.
[/url]
[url=https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/]The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion

Of course the subtitle is perfect for this kind of thing:

"As secularism grows, atheists and agnostics are trying to expand and diversify their ranks."

Apparently you are now to be known as "Nones" (Not nuns)

"The religiously unaffiliated, called "nones," are growing significantly. They’re the second largest religious group in North America and most of Europe. In the United States, nones make up almost a quarter of the population. In the past decade, U.S. nones have overtaken Catholics, mainline protestants, and all followers of non-Christian faiths."

Everyone noticed that you actually refuted NOT ONE of carrier's points, and are incapable of discussing what exactly is wrong with any these things you impotently GENERALIZE about. LOL

No one "cherry picked a definition". ALL of them do not apply. Please learn what "cherry-picking" actually means. 
You continue to make the fundamental error that other people (including you) get to tell others how they think. 
Congratulations on your mind-reading ability, Madame Zelda. You charge for sessions with your crystal ball ?

Who is "everyone?"  Everyone on the planet?  Everyone in a room?  Everyone in your imagination?  Maybe it was group think.

Anyway, you failed to read my statement correctly. Someone refuted the initial statement by Carrier on the YT page for the video.

See post #317 (the one with the video)

"It's amazing how it took less than a minute of his argument for someone to find logical fallacies..."

Someone...  As in someone else and not me.

There ya go.  You wasted all that time checking with "everyone" when you could've just asked or taken the time to read the post.  If at that point you still were uncertain, you could've went to the YT page or asked for further clarification.  E-Z Peazy.

(December 5, 2018 at 8:59 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 7:58 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Everyone noticed that you actually refuted NOT ONE of carrier's points, and are incapable of discussing what exactly is wrong with any these things you impotently GENERALIZE about. LOL

No one "cherry picked a definition". ALL of them do not apply. Please learn what "cherry-picking" actually means. 
You continue to make the fundamental error that other people (including you) get to tell others how they think. 
Congratulations on your mind-reading ability, Madame Zelda. You charge for sessions with your crystal ball ?

Who is "everyone?"  Everyone on the planet?  Everyone in a room?  Everyone in your imagination?  Maybe it was group think.

Anyway, you failed to read my statement correctly. Someone refuted the initial statement by Carrier on the YT page for the video.

See post #317 (the one with the video)

"It's amazing how it took less than a minute of his argument for someone to find logical fallacies..."

Someone...  As in someone else and not me.

There ya go.  You wasted all that time checking with "everyone" when you could've just asked or taken the time to read the post.  If at that point you still were uncertain, you could've went to the YT page or asked for further clarification.  E-Z Peazy.

Just as I thought. YOU are totally unable to even address ONE point YOURSELF, that Carrier makes. 
You know NOTHING about the subject, in fact. 
All you can do is parrot what someone else says. 

I realize your reading comprehension is pretty bad, but show me ANYWHERE I said "everyone". 
What a fucking dolt.

BTW, when you arrived you said some things are true, regardless of anyone's opinion on them. Then I asked you how you determine what is "true" ... and you gave some stupid answer.
Thanks about it, fool. Your statement is the height of idiocy. If it's true, and no one can determine it's true, then how the fuck can anyone "tell" it's true ?
A philosopher you ain't. LMAO

(December 5, 2018 at 11:26 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 8:59 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Who is "everyone?"  Everyone on the planet?  Everyone in a room?  Everyone in your imagination?  Maybe it was group think.

Anyway, you failed to read my statement correctly. Someone refuted the initial statement by Carrier on the YT page for the video.

See post #317 (the one with the video)

"It's amazing how it took less than a minute of his argument for someone to find logical fallacies..."

Someone...  As in someone else and not me.

There ya go.  You wasted all that time checking with "everyone" when you could've just asked or taken the time to read the post.  If at that point you still were uncertain, you could've went to the YT page or asked for further clarification.  E-Z Peazy.

Just as I thought. YOU are totally unable to even address ONE point YOURSELF, that Carrier makes. 
You know NOTHING about the subject, in fact. 
All you can do is parrot what someone else says. 

I realize your reading comprehension is pretty bad, but show me ANYWHERE I said "everyone". 
What a fucking dolt.

BTW, when you arrived you said some things are true, regardless of anyone's opinion on them. Then I asked you how you determine what is "true" ... and you gave some stupid answer.
Thanks about it, fool. Your statement is the height of idiocy. If it's true, and no one can determine it's true, then how the fuck can anyone "tell" it's true ?
A philosopher you ain't. LMAO

What specifically do you want me to address?  I've told you at least twice you can ask.  If you don't read things or don't comprehend them properly, that is beyond me.  I can't control your brain cells or make your fingers type a question.  Just tell me what you specifically want me to address from Carrier and maybe the time he says it in the video for reference. So let's just get past the string of logical fallacies in this last post of yours, tell me what's on your mind specifically, then we can have a friendly conversation about whatever it is.

If you say I'm not a philosopher, there are two problems there. First, philosophy isn't always about coming to the correct conclusion. Second, I never stated I was a philosopher.  Furthermore, even if I said I was, and still got something wrong, it wouldn't validate you because philosophy at its core is one thing.  "The love of wisdom."  You don't even have to fully understand.  You just have to care about the journey.  And to that, all I would have to say is, "then you don't know me."