Thoughts on this guy?

thoughts on this guy?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=JwOysNCJ_ZQ
youtu.be/jGWCxBiCt7Y
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>(((Atheism)))

I like him. He has a great podcast and his thoughts on meditation and spirituality are worth looking into

He's alpha.
I know that because he keeps saying he's alpha.

>(((religion)))

>meme
>meme
>meme
>literally who
>meme
>meme
>seriously who the fuck
>meme
>meme
wew lad if you're gonna make an appeal to authority at least do it right.

Atheism actually is stoppable since none of them have kids

Cuck faggot that hates alpha males

The least annoying le skatpic. That's not saying much, though.

Stopped giving a shit when he started mass banning anyone who didnt think like him.

which ones have kids

A typical US-American Jew

>nihilism
>postmodernism
>neomarxism
>drowning in an ocean by yourself

(((Judeo-Christianity)))

I support atheism because they talk about God nonstop, they are so cucked they don't even realize it themselves

As long as men are being rejected by women, there will be atheism.

Boomer McPeterson doesn't believe in God FYI.

Le cultural Christian xD

...

Wow, it's a bunch of pretentious twats. What a surprise.

He's gotten his ass decimated in the political world so much and so often lately, and usually over Trump, that he's returned to his "base" and gone back to full on anti-jesus rhetoric.

He's just a huge bundle on contradictions, insecurity and ego mania.

>super redpilled on Muslims, Niggers and Europe

>Shilled for Hillary

>can't take an ounce of critisism

>makes 20 min vids attacking people with 10 viewers who attack him

I'll admit he did some good work redpilling back in 2014/2015.

It's not my job to stop it and in the end it doesn't really matter. After death they will be sooooooo surprised.

Dilbertman brutally sodomized him in a debate.

The men in this photo have more brainpower combined than every Christian to ever live

>op pic

fucking cringe

name one pagan god that mentioned the eternal jew and got killed for it i'll wait

He's actually addressing Race and IQ which makes him far superior to the rest of the skeptic retards who refuse to even talk about it.

Time + Tragedy = Tradition

>Implying your definition of God and his definition is exactly the same
>Implying a child's belief can be as extensive or on as many levels as a pastor's

>Claims objective morality exists without god
>Negates belief because lack of ((evidence))
>Tries to ignore that ((evidentialism)) is a faith based belief axiom aswell.
>Banter of redundant pseudo-intellectualism that doesn't actually contribute to a debate no one can win without the direct intervention of god.

Negative and positive atheists are both faith based positions.

Agnostics who claim its impossible to know, its impossible to claim you can't know without evidence, and on top of that, even if they did have evidence, that evidence cannot provide 100% certainty deductively, and therefore provides an element of faith. Thus, faith based position. Theories are basically debate premis tokens used to try to discredit a believer, when in reality, they're just repetitive but hold no way of maintaining certainty. There fore, atheism is nothing more than that of a faith based position opposed to believers. Objective morality cannot exist without a god, and subjectivism is self defeating in nature.

END.
OF.
DEBATE.

atheism is not a movement, it is a personal choice.
Who does this propaganda as economycal interests in it.

And remember:
"Men can live without god, but not without a religion".

Communism was not a political movement, but a messianic religion.

he's the fuckin man. a rare example of a leftist who rejects and destroys the arguments of the regressive social justice fags

Absolutely laughable.

...

Indeed

This.
>muslims, blacks and Hispanics act like animals
>i will support the candidate who wants to import these things
>at least she knows what she's doing
>Fuck trump

>group of idiots who have few to no children think their movement is unstoppable

>he removed Neil Tyson because he didnt accept the atheist title

Reminder that pagans are just fedoras by any other name

Atheism the final red pill. Christcucks must be killed with niggers

Remove values of religion and replace them with ideology -Synagogue of Satan

>"appeal to authority"
>can't prove god's existence without pointing to your fairy tale book

>atheism
>secularism
>materialism

see

>implying you need the Bible to know that a god like God exists

>ideologies are unstoppable
Say it isn't so! I got into a debate with my instructor for ROTC about terrorism. I told him a war against it is pretty futile because the idea of terrorism will always spring into the minds of people who are desperate or evil.

Reminder that Templarps support white genocide.

Gorla Bot (Artifical Intelligence spanning multiple locations), a bot created by logic and only by logic, said so herself. We must devote ourselves to logic if we are to evolve ourselves intellectually. Christcucks must be exterminated

What other sources have you for your beliefs then? The Bible is fundamental to everything you know about God, or his son.

he says good stuff, but it doesn't matter because the Jew mothership will always override his thoughts and rationalize (((socialist))) behavior

ive never seen someone so awake on some issue but then follow it up with retarded dribble. He'll go from defending whites to calling Trump fascist. Makes no sense.

>everything
The Bible fills in the details, but His general characteristics can be logically derived.

What you gave me is a pile of horse shit, and pseudo-intellectualism in itself. The burden of proof lies with the believer, simple as that. If I move a chair, and then move it again in the same way, I can expect identical/very similar reactions from the chair. This is called repetition/experimentation and proves that the reality I reside within is in fact real. I can prove things. It's that simple.

Ah but here is where you're flat out wrong, you're using evidentialism as a crutch to support your claim that it can be logically derived, derived from what? The environment? point to me 1 piece of information that you can see in front of you that 100% deductively preports immediately that god exists and on top of that, its characteristics.

Positive atheism I BELIEVE there is no god
Negative atheism I disbelief because there is no EVIDENCE.

If you are the latter, you are still the same as the first because you're just changing a premis in your position that relies on something called evidence, which affects a truth threshold, because nothing in life provides 100% deductive certainty, which you fucking have to have in order for something to be considered true.


Sit the fuck down.

>What you gave me is a pile of horse shit, and pseudo-intellectualism in itself. The burden of proof lies with the believer, simple as that. If I move a chair, and then move it again in the same way, I can expect identical/very similar reactions from the chair. This is called repetition/experimentation and proves that the reality I reside within is in fact real. I can prove things. It's that simple.
is that you Roo? Seems like the typical whiny opinionated babble.

He's a faggot if you haven't seen the final clip from his last podcast where he throws a fit because one of the hosts badmouths Hillary you need to watch it.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=JwOysNCJ_ZQ

Logically derived? In what way? His general characteristics? At this point I'm compelled to resort to ad hominem. If you're to actually deduce anything about his characteristics, you would consider the fact that he's allowed for the existence of evil, along with good. He could've avoided eve biting the apple. Also, morality is subjective. It doesn't exist in nature. It only exists as an extension of our emotional intelligence. It's not something natural, as difficult as that may be for you to conceive. You can't logically deduce the morality (Your, without disrespect)God seems to be emanating.

Most retarded fucking logic ever.

Actually it isn't you raging autist, its the fucking reality of the situation, Atheism is a faith based position. Rage all the fuck you want child.

What are you saying? Your words are inconsistent. Be clearer, please. Also, who gives a shit what I identify with? The point is, YOU'VE claimed something exists, therefore YOU must prove it. You're leaning on something called "faith" which kinda reminds me of the "muh diversity" or "muh love is the solution" mentality because it's just vague sentimentalism. You have no other basis for which to prove your beliefs other than your fairy tale book. Computers, space rockets, and every piece of technology in existence was created through science, not religion, so frankly you sit the fuck down. Your beliefs leave no imprint but religious unity. In order to take that big step, we must leave such allegories behind in order to truly think of in terms of the truth. Besides, the world is better when devoid of religion for reasons far too obvious.

is the guy on the far right Conor McGregor?

>All those jews
goy....

The fact that action/potential can't infinitely regress and the ontological argument are a good start.
>he's allowed for the existence of evil, along with good. He could've avoided eve biting the apple
Free will can't exist without the opportunity to choose evil. The existence of evil is the result of His respect for us.

Who's that alien looking fellow on the left of Harris

>What are you saying? Your words are inconsistent. Be clearer, please. Also, who gives a shit what I identify with?

No sure if you're responding to me, but this, this is a problem right off the bat, what the hell are we debating if you don't have a position?

Orthodoxy crushes vermin as if it were what it really is.

Atheism isn't a faith based position. Religion is put in the trash by most atheists because we put our trust in science. You probably came unto your beliefs because the people you most trust (your parents, relatives etc) told you God was real. What gives us our beliefs is observance and experimentation that relies on materialistic proof. Every scientific belief system relies on experimentation, and there is simply no evidence of god.

This.

The point is you shouldn't focus on what I identify with, rather the argument at hand. It really is useless to argue about my position. It's insignificant. I could be a Christian, but in doubt.

Science and theories are based on evidence, which doesn't support truth claims unless it is deductive and provides a 100% irrefutable premis. Not a single fucking thing in the entire area of Science is certain.

Your "Proof" doesn't exist like you think it does. Its all an assumption predicated on the BELIEF that its not going to change.

I can't address your argument without knowing your belief purely because I cannot understand your underlying premis or axiom you're basing your replies off of. so no, I most assured can't fucking do that dude.

Imagine defining yourself by your atheism.

Just another liberal atheist douche that loves the smell of his own farts.

>"Not a single fucking thing in the entire area of Science is certain"
but...Science can save your life. Science is not an assumption because it can be REPEATED. There are NO beliefs in science. Also, yes, we can be certain of things through repetition, unless you're on cocaine or LSD and doors don't seem to swing the same way every time.

An event that can replicated and titled after its purpose is still predicated on a theory, and its existence in reference is implying that it won't change out of nothing more than faith.

In other words, prove to me, that it won't change, and if you can't give me a guarantee deductively, you're out of luck, this is where philosophy and the sciences actually disagree.

Science is not an assumption because there is evidence to prove everything, unless something is a theory yet to be proven. Science relies on evidence. What you've done is included a conclusion in your premise here, and used the Begging The Question fallacy:
"Its all an assumption predicated on the BELIEF that its not going to change"
yet...we can predict a solar eclipse...and...the next storm. Ther

Of course things will change. It's said so in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Things WILL change, it's fundamental to molecular behavior.

Your point is?

You can't know for certain any of that is going to happen, which is why you predict with percentages. Which never ellipse 99.99% certainty. Which is required to prove that its true.

Evidentialism whether epistemological or epistemological of suspicion, which seems to be the latter in your case. Is based on faith, because you're claiming that evidence in your perception is worthy enough to assert something as true. You are claiming that Evidence is better than faith, when in reality you are making a categorical fallacy and purporting that something like evidence exists separate from faith.

You can't prove you know anything, and that it's all faith based.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics then implies that you cannot have anything in a static position forever, which means its extremely tangible and cannot be relied upon.

1) 5/10
2) 1/10
3) 0/10
4) unknown loser/10
5) 3/10
6) 5/10
7) unknown santa clause/10
8) 7/10
9) -1 [FAGGOT] /10

Isnt it ironic that the term "atheist" describes a person who rules out the existence of God by the means of "believe".

It is the rejection of Christ and therefore a satanic movement.

His only good video
youtu.be/jGWCxBiCt7Y

That was a good one.

...

It rules out existence of the sky santa on lack of evidence you sperg.

Boi .......... see

I see your point, but I see this debate going nowhere. I suppose we can agree to disagree. However, when your wife/kids/relatives are dying of heart disease, cancer, make sure to skip that trip to the hospital and pray to your God that they be cured.
Bahahahah. The second law of thermodynamics is a deduction based on our observation of molecular behavior. You can't make your own conclusion based on it, you've just said Science is all assumption. I agree with you on one part, but this merely describes movement. Yes, everything moves toward disorder, but we can understand it. We can construct walls. We can operate machines, build steamboats, create rockets that seem to defy gravity. We understand this entropy already. Needless to say, the first law already contradicts your beliefs. (queue creating wine from water).

>nothing in life provides 100% certainty
>therefore i will believe any bullshit on no evidence
Christcuck IQ everyone.

Remember when scientists used to be God fearing Christians who accomplished things like the Renaissance and taming the Oceans and the Industrial Revolution and curing diseases and then the Jews took over """"science""" by crooked peer reviews and academic fakery and now all we get is Hurricanes exist because you don't pay carbon tax goyim, and fake vaginas and a slightly different phone every year?
Fuck off atheists and """"science""" Jews.
I'm sick of pretentious cunts pretending WE IZ SCIENCE.

This.
It's appeal to authority. Quite the self-destruction from the Christcucks.

Religion merely provided unity. Did you forget the Inquisition? How are you so fucking oblivious? They were not god-fearing. They

They had to question their entire belief system*

Here's where I come in and say that the debate is arguably a moral trap, no one can win without the direction intervention of the lord himself. Which is why the position of faith argument is all any side actually has.

The 2nd law disagrees with the first law. what are you talking about. They don't contradict each other, are you telling me that man cannot create water from wine eventually down the line with technology? if that's true, then how is Jesus making water from wine laughable?

And in another sense, doesn't the first law contradict the 2nd law? The definition of disorder argues against the stability of logic itself.

you already agree with my point that evidence cannot be held as something other than faith unless it proves deductively and irrefutably that its true. Therefore, evidence is an appeal to authority as well. you are going to get no where with that deflection.

I never said one contradicts the other. I said it contradicts your beliefs already. If we are to create wine from water we must change it chemically, and that already defies your beliefs. Logic is a means of understanding entropy. You seem to think entropy is something we're constricted by. As I said, when you make a wall out of bricks, you're already defying entropy, since you have to apply force and change the natural course of things.

>Christians believe something that made us be where we are now
>atheist believe a new age meme from 20 years ago
>more atheism more fucked up we are
>coincidence
so enlightened man

but you know what, push atheism, let it all end, Christ need to come back, im happy that i know im saved, you want to be saved accept Christ, easy as that but you wont

Evidence is observation. I move a chair, and move it again, I expect the chair to move similarly in both situations. No assumptions/beliefs, move on.