• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists, lets get real

TypicalRussian said:
blah blah blah blah

i dont need to prove it, its real one defined, the next job is on you to see if it has flaws, this isnt policy debate, this is philoshpiy
Click to expand...
I accept your admission of failure to prove you claim
 
Quag said:
It obvious you cant prove your claim and you know it so you are desperate to divert
Click to expand...

you only have to define arguments in philopsiphy and it is up to YOU to find flaws in it
 
TypicalRussian said:
did you always beleive there was no God?
Click to expand...
Oh I see, you're one of those people who go around twisting what everyone says, thinking you're clever. I'll give you a pass this one time as a benefit of the doubt. Keep at it, however, and we'll never speak again.

I did not say that there is no god. That would be a statement about gods, but I made a statement about myself. I said I didn't buy into it. Do not try to twist my words again, you are not half as clever as you think you are.

I was raised in a Catholic home. The Catholic church wanted me to say 2 things that I didn't know to be true. They wanted me to say that the bible is the inerrant word of god, and they wanted me to say that, in communion, the eucharist literally transformed into the literal flesh of Jesus. The bible has many errors, we can list them exhaustively, so if I say that the bible is without errors, that would be a lie. The eucharist remains basically just bread after the priest prays over it, it does not turn into human flesh. We can test eucharist samples and prove this. To say that the eucharist turns into the literal flesh of Jesus would be to lie.

So, I never bought into it. I never 'got' the whole god thing.
 
TypicalRussian said:
you only have to define arguments in philopsiphy and it is up to YOU to find flaws in it
Click to expand...

You didnt make an argument you provided a definition for a word you refused to prove that it actually exists

Better luck with your next attempt at a diversion
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
Youi didnt make an argument you provided a definition for a word you refused to prove that it actually exists

Better luck with your next attempt at a diversion
Click to expand...

i define my argument in philoshipym, that IS proving it
 
Wayne Jr said:
Oh I see, you're one of those people who go around twisting what everyone says, thinking you're clever. I'll give you a pass this one time as a benefit of the doubt. Keep at it, however, and we'll never speak again.

I did not say that there is no god. That would be a statement about gods, but I made a statement about myself. I said I didn't buy into it. Do not try to twist my words again, you are not half as clever as you think you are.

I was raised in a Catholic home. The Catholic church wanted me to say 2 things that I didn't know to be true. They wanted me to say that the bible is the inerrant word of god, and they wanted me to say that, in communion, the eucharist literally transformed into the literal flesh of Jesus. The bible has many errors, we can list them exhaustively, so if I say that the bible is without errors, that would be a lie. The eucharist remains basically just bread after the priest prays over it, it does not turn into human flesh. We can test eucharist samples and prove this. To say that the eucharist turns into the literal flesh of Jesus would be to lie.

So, I never bought into it. I never 'got' the whole god thing.
Click to expand...

i think your the one twisting your story into thinking you didnt "switch" you just "denied BS", common atheist tactic i am WELL aware of
 
TypicalRussian said:
i define my argument in philoshipym, that IS proving it
Click to expand...

Nope your diversion failed.
All you did was provide a definition of a word you made no argument and provided no proof

Youi failed utterly and completely.
Next diversion from, you failure in 3...2....1....
 
Quag said:
Nope your diversion failed.
All you did was provide a definition of a word you made no argument and provided no proof

Youi failed utterly and completely.
Next diversion from, you failure in 3...2....1....
Click to expand...

why dont you understand philosihpy

defining is proving
 
TypicalRussian said:
blah blah blah blah

i dont need to prove it, its real one defined, the next job is on you to see if it has flaws, this isnt policy debate, this is philoshpiy
Click to expand...

leprechaun noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
lep·​re·​chaun | \ ˈle-prə-ˌkän , -ˌkȯn \
Definition of leprechaun
: a mischievous elf (see ELF sense 1) of Irish folklore usually believed to reveal the hiding place of treasure if caught
 
blarg said:
leprechaun noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
lep·​re·​chaun | \ ˈle-prə-ˌkän , -ˌkȯn \
Definition of leprechaun
: a mischievous elf (see ELF sense 1) of Irish folklore usually believed to reveal the hiding place of treasure if caught
Click to expand...

"folklore"
 
TypicalRussian said:
yes it does until proven not
Click to expand...

Nope but I am pleasantly surprised you believe Odin, FSM, Ba'al, Leprechauns, Griffins etc are proven to exist
I am however wary about your acceptance of Phlogiston, Aether, caloric etc. exist
 
blarg said:
you have not proven any one can know everything and that any one knows everything
Click to expand...

Hes trying to play word games but he is losing very badly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom