https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7fxymHHUBY

Epistemology is so much fun.

Pastor AIO: Epistemology is so much fun.

For those who cant view the video

The video shows a christian at an atheist rally questioning an atheist.

The christian keep asking foolish questions that have no relation to christianity. The questions he asks have no true answer because they are philosophical contradictions.


"how do you know that your sense of logic is true"?

Logicboy03: For those who cant view the video

The video shows a christian at an atheist rally questioning an atheist.

The christian keep asking foolish questions that have no relation to christianity. The questions he asks have no true answer because they are philosophical contradictions.


"how do you know that your sense of logic is true"?

Sometimes, the question is itself the asker's point. That you don't get the point usually makes the point.

Ihedinobi:

Sometimes, the question is itself the asker's point. That you don't get the point usually makes the point.

you have pointed out a great point

Ihedinobi:

Sometimes, the question is itself the asker's point. That you don't get the point usually makes the point.

See this dumbazz. Rather than call the christian questioner the dubious douchebag like he is, you try to defend him. Even other christians have criticized his method on Youtube. The average Nigerian cant see past his religion out of ignorance, just like you.



You are very foolish to even insinuate that I do not understand the ontological question. Dont you have any shame?



The trick that the christian questioner is trying to play is that once, the atheist says that human logic is limited to our consciousness and perception of the world, the christian will then jump in and say "Aha, you know your logic is limited but God's logic is unlimited and he is the only way to true knowledge".



You disgust me. Dishonest f4ck

toba: you have pointed out a great point

Supporters club. Good sheep united.

Ihedinobi:

Sometimes, the question is itself the asker's point. That you don't get the point usually makes the point.

If one can't be sure of logic, how much more faith?

This could explain why faith has led to many interpretations, sects, denominations.

musKeeto:
If one can't be sure of logic, how much more faith?

This could explain why faith has led to many interpretations, sects, denominations.

Thank you!

This guy is a class act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

wiegraf: This guy is a class act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Anony borrows his style from Kent Hovind (and his substance from William Craig).



Knt Hovind is the retard christian

Logicboy03:


See this dumbazz. Rather than call the christian questioner the dubious douchebag like he is, you try to defend him. Even other christians have criticized his method on Youtube. The average Nigerian cant see past his religion out of ignorance, just like you.



You are very foolish to even insinuate that I do not understand the ontological question. Dont you have any shame?



The trick that the christian questioner is trying to play is that once, the atheist says that human logic is limited to our consciousness and perception of the world, the christian will then jump in and say "Aha, you know your logic is limited but God's logic is unlimited and he is the only way to true knowledge".
You disgust me. Dishonest f4ck

I actually don't have a lot of time now. But, I wasn't addressing the particular question. But you're probably right, it was a catch-22 question but that was the point of the question. Every philosophical position attracts certain types of questions to prove their merit. Pardon the fact that haven't watched your video, but I think I get the gist.

Consider that the atheist's position claims superiority of knowledge and an exclusive grasp of truth (much like any other philosophical position claims). The atheist holds the Christian in contempt saying that he's ignorant at best and foolish at worst. He holds his superiority on the basis that he has correct and final appreciation of logic. The Christian may then rightly ask, "how do you know you're right?" Which is actually what that question means.

Obviously, the atheist who by his position has rejected all authority outside of himself cannot answer without totally confounding his own arguments. If he claims to know the truth because he just does, he's still destroyed his position by doing so.

Like I said, the question is the asker's point.

Ihedinobi:


I actually don't have a lot of time now. But, I wasn't addressing the particular question. But you're probably right, it was a catch-22 question but that was the point of the question. Every philosophical position attracts certain types of questions to prove their merit. Pardon the fact that haven't watched your video, but I think I get the gist.

Consider that the atheist's position claims superiority of knowledge and an exclusive grasp of truth (much like any other philosophical position claims). The atheist holds the Christian in contempt saying that he's ignorant at best and foolish at worst. He holds his superiority on the basis that he has correct and final appreciation of logic. The Christian may then rightly ask, "how do you know you're right?" Which is actually what that question means.

Obviously, the atheist who by his position has rejected all authority outside of himself cannot answer without totally confounding his own arguments. If he claims to know the truth because he just does, he's still destroyed his position by doing so.

Like I said, the question is the asker's point.

Lolz.......how wrong can you get?

When do atheists claim to have superior knowledge or exclusive knowledge of the truth?


Your argument derails after that first premise

Ihedinobi:


I actually don't have a lot of time now. But, I wasn't addressing the particular question. But you're probably right, it was a catch-22 question but that was the point of the question. Every philosophical position attracts certain types of questions to prove their merit. Pardon the fact that haven't watched your video, but I think I get the gist.

Consider that the atheist's position claims superiority of knowledge and an exclusive grasp of truth (much like any other philosophical position claims). The atheist holds the Christian in contempt saying that he's ignorant at best and foolish at worst. He holds his superiority on the basis that he has correct and final appreciation of logic. The Christian may then rightly ask, "how do you know you're right?" Which is actually what that question means.

Obviously, the atheist who by his position has rejected all authority outside of himself cannot answer without totally confounding his own arguments. If he claims to know the truth because he just does, he's still destroyed his position by doing so.

Like I said, the question is the asker's point.

No. You are wrong. The atheist has never claimed to have an exclusive grasp of thruth. All the atheist has said was that you have not provided any tangible evidence to support your claims.

musKeeto:
If one can't be sure of logic, how much more faith?

This could explain why faith has led to many interpretations, sects, denominations.

I'm sorry but I don't see any indication that the question quoted expressed doubt of logic. I believe the question addressed a person's sense of logic.

Logicboy03:


Lolz.......how wrong can you get?

When do atheists claim to have superior knowledge or exclusive knowledge of the truth?


Your argument derails after that first premise

You don't?

advocate666:

No. You are wrong. The atheist has never claimed to have an exclusive grasp of thruth. All the atheist has said was that you have not provided any tangible evidence to support your claims.

And how do you decide that the evidence presented is not tangible enough?

Ihedinobi:

You don't?

Abeg you have nothing

Logicboy03:


Abeg you have nothing

Oh really. You think anyone has to go real far to find you declaring Christianity an intellectually-bankrupt position?

Well, here's one example of your pompousity, logic-ostrich:

Logicboy03:


Hate? lol.......I have seen the christian love and it is evil.



You guyz love unbelievers so much that you believe that they will burn in hell for eternity for not being gullible enough to believer your BS.


I rather dwell in atheist hate than your christian sadism love

Ihedinobi:

Oh really. You think anyone has to go real far to find you declaring Christianity an intellectually-bankrupt position?

lolz


Does that make me hold the exclusive knowledge of the truth?

Ihedinobi:

I'm sorry but I don't see any indication that the[b] question quoted expressed doubt of logic[/b]. I believe the question addressed a person's sense of logic.

DAMN....
No need to refute this.. LOGIC is susceptible to doubt, faith isn't, abi?
Great way to dodge my question..

musKeeto:
DAMN....
No need to refute this.. LOGIC is susceptible to doubt, faith isn't, abi?
Great way to dodge my question..

Your question itself was a poor dodge of the issue. Faith, like I've explained to you is more like a sensory organ, not the knowledge it senses. And it is a perfect one, my friend

Ihedinobi:

Your question itself was a poor dodge of the issue. Faith, like I've explained to you is more like a sensory organ, not the knowledge it senses. And it is a perfect one, my friend

The usual 'create an abstract concept and keep building on it' oppa gangnam style tactic.

Sorry, I don't dance to this tune..

Ihedinobi:

Your question itself was a poor dodge of the issue. Faith, like I've explained to you is more like a sensory organ, not the knowledge it senses. And it is a perfect one, my friend

More Anonyism

musKeeto:
The usual 'create an abstract concept and keep building on it' oppa gangnam style tactic.

Sorry, I don't dance to this tune..

Ok. But you may need to be clearer about your demands. I think I've answered your question. Logic is never the thing that is wrong. It's just a tool for identifying truth. Its user though can use it improperly. Therefore, one's skill with logic can be questioned where logic itself might not be.

Faith, on the other hand, is not on a par at all with logic. What your eyes are to the telescope or microscope is in sense what faith is to logic.

Logicboy03:


More Anonyism

When you don't understand, . . . . .

Ihedinobi:

And how do you decide that the evidence presented is not tangible enough?

Tangibility is a qualification in my sentence, not the object. You need to present an evidence first. You have provided none. Let us not debate adjectives.

Ihedinobi:

Ok. But you may need to be clearer about your demands. I think I've answered your question. Logic is never the thing that is wrong. It's just a tool for identifying truth. Its user though can use it improperly. Therefore, one's skill with logic can be questioned where logic itself might not be.

Faith, on the other hand, is not on a par at all with logic. What your eyes are to the telescope or microscope is in sense what faith is to logic.

The more you speak, the less sense you make.

advocate666:

The more you speak, the less sense you make.

The less sense they make, the more they speak...

Ihedinobi:

Ok. But you may need to be clearer about your demands. I think I've answered your question. Logic is never the thing that is wrong. It's just a tool for identifying truth. Its user though can use it improperly. Therefore, one's skill with logic can be questioned where logic itself might not be.

Faith, on the other hand, is not on a par at all with logic. What your eyes are to the telescope or microscope is in sense what faith is to logic.