Were Sartre,Camus,Neitzsche right?

[billpuntonsghost]

NI—Let’s say your made up scenario was true, can you give any flawed arguments to the questions and answers ,that were “staged”. If so ,would be pleased to think about your objections.

[Iron-awe]

More proof, if indeed anymore proof is required, that bill is just a cultist and as a result his endless repetitive claims and denials are perfect examples of cultish behaviour.

[billpuntonsghost]

I am claiming no-one has debated the recent videos I agree with. I am telling the truth,not trying to “catch someone out” and saying “got ya”. The truth is no-one on the atheist side is willing to debate. And there is a reason why. (waiting for the usual ad-hom attack,as always.)

[billpuntonsghost]

…iron -awe the first to prove my point.

[Siderite]

You responded to my post on your general debating style, yet you responded with an attempt to discredit this with a reference to no-one debating the videos. Yet you have repeatedly got into debates with this previously, or is this being denied now? I recall having several, and people grow weary because of your debating style. I do not believe you when you claim not to be out for wins or gotchas when you seem to see people’s boredom with your input on this topic as some win and irrefutable proof that it can’t be answered. It’s beyond your comprehension to even look at yourself in the mirror and understand how your debating style is impacting others. It cannot be that you bore people, irritate them with refusals to understand other points of view, no. It has to be because you are right all along and everyone else cannot hope to match your superior mindset. Convenient.

While you’re on about ad hominem fallacies, you might want to look into things like the fallacy fallacy, because assuming your position is right because you think others have made a poorly argued point against this vid isn’t proof of you being correct or atheists not being able to answer the point because they can’t (rather than can’t be arsed).

[Deereyme66]

‘The truth is no-one on the atheist side is willing to debate. And there is a reason why.’

Ergo, despite any reasons put forward, they are not being faithful and you are right? How do you think that comes across bpg? Aren’t you supposed to ‘leave them wanting more’, not ‘leave them desperate for less’?!

[Northumbiron]

The videos have a set agenda.

Here’s one that “proves” 2+2=5…

That’s why you should use your own words, not someone else’s.

[billpuntonsghost]

…but that example can be analysed and dismissed as nonsense.
You realise debating the video I posted would leave you without a defence.
That’s the difference. That’s why you resort to foolishness.

[Siderite]

I’m pleased you have all the answers without the need of anyone to form a rebuttal. If we can’t answer it, we don’t need to bother. It’s a good job none are wasting their time responding then.

[billpuntonsghost]

I would love you to take me down a peg or two,give rebuttals and give the flaws in the arguments presented. Go on Siderite ,give me a good kicking with solid arguments against the video.You know you want too.What’s stopping you?

[Siderite]

Aye, you would love me to get involved, so your ego can get a boost in trying to tear my response apart. I have already given my reasons as to why I am not getting sacked in to a proper debate with you. I don’t think you’re a good faith debater, no matter how hard you say otherwise.

[billpuntonsghost]

😂😂😂😂😂. You have no response to the video and the other videos.
By the way what is a good faith debater? If you have compelling evidence ,how would I have a leg to stand on? You speak in riddles and foolishness.

[Siderite]

You just keep proving my point that it’s futile to even try. I don’t know what you’re trying to demonstrate with such arrogance except for showing an insecurirt in your own beliefs. If you were secure, I don’t think you’d see the need ro score ‘wins’ by convincing yourself that those silly atheists and agnostics aren’t responding to debate because they can’t, when they can’t be arsed to waste time with someone who has a predetermined conclusion is also an explanation. Also, it’s one professed by many, but as I said, you know best, evidently. You have all the answers already, and know no unbeliever can refute it. You have said as much, so no need for anyone to waste time and energy. You won’t get any kind of understanding of another position from it.

What I have said before shouldn’t be hard to understand really. I have explained why I don’t think you’re a good faith debater. Yet you resort to insults against intelligence, without addressing what I have said. Now, what was that about ad hominems?

[billpuntonsghost]

I call you living in foolishness because you do. No defence in your atheistic worldview. All the videos are to show this. You cannot defend your position of atheism and are unwilling to do so. Foolishness is a correct word to use.

[Siderite]

You were calling me foolishness for my words, not my worldview. Anyway, this just demonstrates your inability to understand other views, frankly. Anyone who disagrees with me is a fool does not make me think you’re open to a healthy discussion on this.

The point you miss, amazingly, is that I can’t be arsed to make a defence. Not because I can’t, but because it’s futile and I am secure enough to know that I don’t need to demonstrate it to some anonymous, self-appointed arbiter of the argument, who is too blind to even try and comprehend another point of view outside of their own bias. I have debated with you before and it’s wearisome. There’s no attempt at understanding, but this will fall on deaf ears and we will have you repeat the same coping mechanism about how I can’t defend my atheistic worldview. If that makes you feel more secure about your own beliefs, so be it, but I feel the need to forever challenge others and demonstrate how ‘right’ you are is borne through nothing more than insecurity. Your continuous attempts to discredit others because they can’t be bothered to get into a proper debate is just you trying to convince yourself that you’re right and boost your own ego, in my opinion. You don’t ever engage with the points addressed to you and just respond with your already formed view and dismisalls of anything to the contrary.

I have said enough now. I expect more triumphant guffaws, childish arguments of how I haven’t answered, therefore I cannot answer (illogical) all to demonstrate your superiority, and thus making it evident to myself (and others, probably) why you’re not worth getting into a debate with.

[billpuntonsghost]

Because you have been brought up with nobody attacking your faith in atheism,using the well trusted lines atheists use about non- belief in a God etc having silent Christians not challenging your position or giving solid argumentation ,you feel threatened when someone challenges your presuppositions.

[Siderite]

All I will say is ha. I couldn’t care less what you, Turek or what others think. I don’t need to demonstrate it through some futile argument and crow about being some winner. I have debated many times before with you and others and none of it has convinced me. I, of course, could be wrong, but I am happy enough with my own position and feel no distress at the thoughts that others disagree. If I did, I would feel the need to demonstrate and display arrogance to hide my own insecurities.

[billpuntonsghost]

Your presupposition that there is no God is seriously challenged in the videos.This is why you will not even look at them. The crack of the curtain if slightly opened will give you problems. You are saying there is no God ,but when your presuppositions are challenged you foolishly ignore them. If you think I am trying to “get one over you” ,you are sadly mistaken.

[Siderite]

You presume too much. I have watched, read and come across such before and know that a response will provoke a pointless debate with you.

[billpuntonsghost]

Maybe have a look at all the recent videos and dismiss them after viewing.What have you to lose? They are only ten minutes each one.

[Deereyme66]

Okay bpg, first flaw in Turek’s argument, first 10secs in the video. Student asks him if he thinks one can have a meaningful life if one doesn’t believe in God? Turek says yes but it would be subjective not objective meaning. Student asks what he means. Turek replies that it can only be subjective because objective meaning comes from God, ‘from his purposes’

That my friend is unverifiable, or put not so politely, a load of only pony. His whole argument has fallen at the first hurdle because it relies on him needing to demonstrate Gods existence, which he can only attempt to do through subjective thought. There really isn’t any point in carrying on with the guy after this point. And moving back and forth, gesticulating and grandstanding doesn’t strengthen his argument either.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Heath

[Deereyme66]

Pretty soon after he says, hypothetically, that Hitler comes along and says to the student that he wants to kill him. Turek asks ‘is he wrong?’. By strawmanning the student, who is clearlý taken aback by the illogical flow of debate he’s confronted with, he’s just made a mockery of reasoning, totally neglecting man made morality and laws. Tbh, I think the bloke is complete arse. That’s before we even get on to the misnomer of whether the cited philosophers were right or wrong. Which I’ve already answered but which you aren’t prepared to accept. Instead, I’m told I’m nonsensical and Siderite is told he’s foolish. Sorry, doesn’t win any prizes bpg.

[Deereyme66]

With my lagging keyboard on my phone and having to go back and forth to that bloody video twice and carry on posting, that’s taken up far too much time this evening. And I can guarantee you’ll come back with some guff bpg. Talk about Sisyphus’s Rock, ffs…

[Fifty Pence]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

Because you have been brought up with nobody attacking your faith in atheism,using the well trusted lines atheists use about non- belief in a God etc having silent Christians not challenging your position or giving solid argumentation ,you feel threatened when someone challenges your presuppositions.

Your religion has been successful partly because it has required people to be continually taught to believe your book. Expecting people to turn up at least once a week, and have the supposed truth forced onto them, and feed them scare tactics to ensure they stay (the vast majority of people believe in the same religion they were taught to believe in, by their parents, their culture, etc – virtually none change their religion due to revelations). Christianity spread through the world using violence and not allowing challenges or arguments. The same can be said of most other religions.

Atheism is not the belief that requires groupthink, the one that shuts down arguments, etc. Atheism isn’t a single belief system, people disagree.

I’m not (and my beliefs are not) in the slightest threatened by you or your videos. Rather than threatened, they leave me bored, because they don’t provide anything new or revelatory. They neither provide proof of the existence of your god, or anything to make me question my stance. There are people of faith who do provide intriguing debates on religion/atheism who I enjoy listening to and they do challenge my views, the same cannot be said of any of the videos you’ve posted that I’ve watched.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Deereyme66]

I share much of those sentiments 50p. Far more interested in engaging with people or content who say ‘what if?’ in a genuine and enquiring way and take the time to appreciate your position rather than an ego fuelled hectoring religious zealot like Turek, intent on trying to crush you. It turns people off. Just like these videos. When I was a philosophy student we had some healthy and humorous exchanges and debates with students and lecturers from the Theology department. No one was particularly rigid in their beliefs to the extent that we shut down the other side of the coin. Being open to ideas led to interesting conversation and a broadening perspective. It was refreshing and enlightening in a way I’m just never going to experience from this type of video content. Who’s the annoying Frank Zappaesque commentator guy in the corner looking all sage like unnecessarily stopping the video and adding nothing new to what’s been said and slavishly agreeing with Turek: ‘without God, without his design, we’re just waste robots’. Aye, and without Santa I’d get no Christmas presents!

[Northumbiron]

The videos are rehearsed, managed and edited.

They are a stage act, much the same as a Derren Brown show. Turek will earn money from his performance.

As one-sided as a party political broadcast.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Iron-awe]

Indeed NI which bill will lap up ad nauseam, preaching to the converted is a tried and tested method on many levels and proves absolutely nothing.

[billpuntonsghost]

I realise you have a Christian worldview of life ( the bits you like!)even though you don’t accept there is a Creator.
If the whole world was led by a dictator like in North Korea,would that be wrong?
If you say yes,why would it be wrong? Who decides how we should live as a society?

[billpuntonsghost]

Deeryme66- when I realised you didn’t understand the difference between subjective meaning and objective meaning ,I realised it was pointless to carry on posting on this topic.I would recommend you look up the difference.

[billpuntonsghost]

By the way Deeryme, what is your standard of good?
If I said stealing is good and you said stealing wasn’t,whose standard are you using?
How could you justify you are right,in your atheistic worldview?
If you said it was for the “good of society “,you are repeating what is said in the video!!

[Author]

Posts