When will mr rat get it?

+88rat88

*Oh dear Spanky, are you confusing delusion with illusion?*

Oh Mr Rat... It seems like I am the only one bringing evidences to the table. Here are dictionary evidences for you

_delusion_

_2. the state of being deluded._ (1)

Let me add the definition of "delude" because I am starting to doubt that english language is your first language

_delude_

_1. to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive:_ (3)

do you see the word "deceive" there? good.

_Illusion_

_2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension._ (2)

Do you see the word deceive there too again? Good. It seems like you do not know what a "synonymn" is. Both of them mean the same thing. Mr Evidenceless.

*Are you resorting to baseless accusations now? I have never deleted anybody's posts.*

Again ... Mr Rat does not know how to follow an argument. - facepalm - Let me help you since you are so poor and helpless. That was a guilt by association fallacy. Happy Now? Even if I defeated myself. But it was meant as an insult since the only language you understand is insultive languages Mr Rat. In the congtext of talking to +Rolo Beorn , I included you because you support him and his actions. If not, tell me that you do not support him and his actions in deleting my replies.

Secondly is that the only arguement in that context you are going to respond to?

How about show your delusion on how you said:

_"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."_

Oh please defend that one. You know what they say. "Silence is be best answer for the defeated".

*Even if I wanted to, I couldn't. I am neither an administrator nor the creator of this video so how could I? The most I could do is flag a comment as spam, but even then it takes multiple flags to get a comment removed. And I can assure you I never flagged any of your comments.*

Good then you agree with me that you have no authoritative right to say:

_"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."_

Wow... you CAN be wise from time to time by admitting correction.

*Nope. I stopped talking to imaginary friends when I was still a child. It's high time you did too ;)*

oK ... Good. But you are making the assumption that God is imaginary. Please lay your syllogism and let us see. If not, that is a baseless/ blanket assertion and argumentum ad lapidem.

The reason I pray to God is NOT because HE is imaginary ... thanks for demontrating your ignorance over the christian position. The christian argues that if God, a necessarily maximally great being, exists, we did not imagine HIM, *HE IMAGINED US* ... Oh God, how long do I have to deal with this ignorant rat?

*And you know this how?*

Please ... notice the first word in that sentence ... *seems*

Here is a dictionary definition to educate yourself on some english language:

_Seem_ (4)

_to appear to be true, probable, or evident:_

_It seems likely to rain._

Let me simply answer it: I don't "know" if this is true. It "appears" to be true due to the contextual data I am receiving from the probability of our discussion and I am laying it down as good evidence to theorise/ believe/ suspect.

*Not vile Spanky. I said virile. Can you not see the extra two letters there? Virile is defined as having strength or energy. In other words, the exact opposite of your arguments. The point of the analogy was to illustrate that your arguments are impotent.*

Oh ... ok... now I see. Let me step back and re-iterate myself. Sorry for that, my eyes were so filled with hate and maddness that I could not see your arguements properly.

*Your so called "arguments" are about as virile (and arrogant) as a flea who, after sexually attacking an elephant says, "Did I hurt you baby?"*

That argument makes no sense now... please... explain this if not this a Fallacy of False Analogy.

*Funny how you admit you don't know me, and yet you presume to know that I "can never accomplish anything good in my life". Contradictory much?*

Not contradictory much .... it is "no-english much" I said it "seems". ayaya ...

*At least my conclusions about you are based on things that you yourself have stated. For example, your demonstrable lack of understanding of what science is. I'm perfectly justified in making those conclusions when, by your own words, you hand me the rope with which to hang you.*

Really? You mean the ones where you show how you jumped the gun? You mean the one where you didn't wait to hear the arguments before making conclusions? Yeah ... less than _things I stated_ and more like _things you IMAGINED I stated. Here's a piece of advise for you... next time when you see

_BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE_

in an argument ... maybe you would shut up, keep quiet, be actually patient and wait to see what I have ACTUALLY have to say. That example, MR RAT was actually concrete and the best analogy you've given in the whole of this discussion to back up your very strong arguments - NOT! - Sarcarsm.

*Sure, in exactly the same way that your god is pointless to me.*

So why were you guys (your association) actually aggitated and angry and insulting me over something so pointless. It seems to me that "God is not so pointless actually"... HE makes you react in this objective real world hahahaha.

*See how that works Sport? When you understand why you dismiss the 30,000+ other gods that people worship, you'lll understand why atheists go that one tiny step farther by also dismissing yours. You'll also understand the absurdity of believing that you somehow won the lottery by being born into a culture that just happened to indoctrinate you with the one "true" god out of many, many thousands.*

please read here http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html

This stupid statement you have made has been answered OVER AND OVER AGAIN ... to show you why Intelligent Adults still believe in the God of the Bible - a maximally, necessary great being.

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of the Christian Position. I could re-explain this to you but you are too ignorant to understand how ignorant you are mr Rat.

Have a Blessed day

God bless you

REFERENCES

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion?s=t

(2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illusion

(3) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delude

(4) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem?s=t

Mr Rat Won't Give Up - ayaya

Oh dear Spanky, are you confusing delusion with illusion?
Oh Mr Rat... It seems like I am the only one bringing evidences to the table. Here are dictionary evidences for you

delusion
2. the state of being deluded. (1)

Let me add the definition of "delude" because I am starting to doubt that english language is your first language

delude
1. to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive: (3)

do you see the word "deceive" there? good.

Illusion
2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension. (2)

Do you see the word deceive there too again? Good. It seems like you do not know what a "synonymn" is. Both of them mean the same thing. Mr Evidenceless.

Are you resorting to baseless accusations now? I have never deleted anybody's posts.
Again ... Mr Rat does not know how to follow an argument. - facepalm - Let me help you since you are so poor and helpless. That was a guilt by association fallacy. Happy Now? Even if I defeated myself. But it was meant as an insult since the only language you understand is insultive languages Mr Rat. In the congtext of talking to +Rolo Beorn , I included you because you support him and his actions. If not, tell me that you do not support him and his actions in deleting my replies.
Secondly is that the only arguement in that context you are going to respond to?
How about show your delusion on how you said:
"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."
Oh please defend that one. You know what they say. "Silence is be best answer for the defeated".

Even if I wanted to, I couldn't. I am neither an administrator nor the creator of this video so how could I? The most I could do is flag a comment as spam, but even then it takes multiple flags to get a comment removed. And I can assure you I never flagged any of your comments.
Good then you agree with me that you have no authoritative right to say:
"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."
Wow... you CAN be wise from time to time by admitting correction.

Nope. I stopped talking to imaginary friends when I was still a child. It's high time you did too ;)
oK ... Good. But you are making the assumption that God is imaginary. Please lay your syllogism and let us see. If not, that is a baseless/ blanket assertion and argumentum ad lapidem.
The reason I pray to God is NOT because HE is imaginary ... thanks for demontrating your ignorance over the christian position. The christian argues that if God, a necessarily maximally great being, exists, we did not imagine HIM, HE IMAGINED US ... Oh God, how long do I have to deal with this ignorant rat?

And you know this how?
Please ... notice the first word in that sentence ... seems
Here is a dictionary definition to educate yourself on some english language:

Seem (4)
to appear to be true, probable, or evident:
It seems likely to rain.

Let me simply answer it: I don't "know" if this is true. It "appears" to be true due to the contextual data I am receiving from the probability of our discussion and I am laying it down as good evidence to theorise/ believe/ suspect.

Not vile Spanky. I said virile. Can you not see the extra two letters there? Virile is defined as having strength or energy. In other words, the exact opposite of your arguments. The point of the analogy was to illustrate that your arguments are impotent.
Oh ... ok... now I see. Let me step back and re-iterate myself. Sorry for that, my eyes were so filled with hate and maddness that I could not see your arguements properly.
Your so called "arguments" are about as virile (and arrogant) as a flea who, after sexually attacking an elephant says, "Did I hurt you baby?"
That argument makes no sense now... please... explain this if not this a Fallacy of False Analogy.

Funny how you admit you don't know me, and yet you presume to know that I "can never accomplish anything good in my life". Contradictory much?
Not contradictory much .... it is "no-english much" I said it "seems". ayaya ...

At least my conclusions about you are based on things that you yourself have stated. For example, your demonstrable lack of understanding of what science is. I'm perfectly justified in making those conclusions when, by your own words, you hand me the rope with which to hang you.
Really? You mean the ones where you show how you jumped the gun? You mean the one where you didn't wait to hear the arguments before making conclusions? Yeah ... less than things I stated and more like _things you IMAGINED I stated. Here's a piece of advise for you... next time when you see

BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

in an argument ... maybe you would shut up, keep quiet, be actually patient and wait to see what I have ACTUALLY have to say. That example, MR RAT was actually concrete and the best analogy you've given in the whole of this discussion to back up your very strong arguments - NOT! - Sarcarsm.

Sure, in exactly the same way that your god is pointless to me.
So why were you guys (your association) actually aggitated and angry and insulting me over something so pointless. It seems to me that "God is not so pointless actually"... HE makes you react in this objective real world hahahaha.

See how that works Sport? When you understand why you dismiss the 30,000+ other gods that people worship, you'lll understand why atheists go that one tiny step farther by also dismissing yours. You'll also understand the absurdity of believing that you somehow won the lottery by being born into a culture that just happened to indoctrinate you with the one "true" god out of many, many thousands.

please read here http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html
This stupid statement you have made has been answered OVER AND OVER AGAIN ... to show you why Intelligent Adults still believe in the God of the Bible - a maximally, necessary great being.
Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of the Christian Position. I could re-explain this to you but you are too ignorant to understand how ignorant you are mr Rat.

Have a Blessed day
God bless you

REFERENCES
(1) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion?s=t
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illusion
(3) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delude
(4) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem?s=t

Someone Can't find his way around an argument


oh Jesus have mercy! I'm going to have to be harsh with you.

*Your 'arguments' are without a foundation, as you have already admitted that you can't provide proof for the existence of your god.
You can't build an argument on mere thin air.*
*1 QUESTION*: Can you *prove* that you are not a brain in a vat, and that this reality (digested food in your stomach, people around you, your age) is not all fake and programmed into your brain like in the matrix?
I am not asking for *evidence*, I want *proof*. Read your dictionary and know the difference between proof and evidence. Please prove it to me to 100% degree of certainty. If not, your reference called "reality" is just on thin air too.

*I do this for a good reason.*
*You have NOT provided ANY evidence for the existence of your particular god, among the many thousands of other MAN MADE gods.*
Oh so now you want evidence and not proof? Ok... here are some philosophical evidences:
 - The Cosmological Argument
- The Moral Arguement
- The ontological Argument
- The teleological argument

Which one of them due don you think is false on grounds of objective logic? WHY?

*It seems to YOU that your god exists, but you DON'T have ANY proof for it whatsoever.*
Now you want proof? MAKE UP YOUR MIND? DO YOU WANT PROOF OR EVIDENCE. If you want proof, go away, I have not proof as I have told you. If you want evidence ... tell me which philosophical evidence in the above arguments you do not believe in.

If you don't answer anything else, answer the part where I said *"1 QUESTION"* ... Thank you

God bless you

Mr Rat is on fire

+88rat88

Hey Mr RAT. Seem... I do not get in what context the delusion runs deep with me, if not, shouldn't you be worrying that you are talking to a delusion right now and go see your psychologists? So, in what way does the delusion run deep? In my person or in this discussion context? If not... that bland, generalising statement holds no justifiable grounds.

*Nobody is deleting your posts Sport.*

Oh you want to tell me that one more time wheb +Rolo Beorn actually said and I quote:

_"I might have deleted a comment that was too ludicrous and pointless."_

_"Dog bless you"_

Please look at it one more time and tell me that nobody is deleting my comments. If I do not trust you guys anymore, don't blame me... you started it by insulting me by deleting my arguments so... say it one more time and show eveyone who really has the delusions.

Secondly, you are not a proper authority to appeal to, to make that assertion. If +Rolo Beorn or the video creator or YouTube Administration said so... I would believe. So... Mr Rat is assuming authoritative roles that he isn't even supposed to be positioned in. I wonder where the delusions really run deep.

*This is a known problem with YouTube ever since they made changes. I cannot see my own posts in the comment section either. But if you look in the notification side pane (under the little bell), the entire conversation thread is there, unaltered.*

Oh is that so? Why didnt you just say that? Oh I forgot that you are MR RAT and MR TROLL and you don't know what thety call "The Art of Civilised Discussion". Even when you wanna do good things to people you must always add a piece of badness to it. Have you prayed to God to remove this curse from you? Seems like you can never accomplish anything good in your life!

*Your so called "arguments" are about as virile (and arrogant) as a flea who, after sexually attacking an elephant says, "Did I hurt you baby?"*

Wow! You are calling my arguments vile by resorting to vile innuendos. Your hypocricrisy and disingenuity is noted. This is the best example you could come up with? Thanks for showing us how vile your own arguments too really is.

Secondly, you are coming to this conclusion based on imaginary arguments that are not even here - I wonder where the delusion actually runs deep. Please... show us this argments that are so vile and arrogant. Oh? No where?... ayaya ...

*Keep stroking your ego by thinking you have pearls of wisdom to cast.*

Category Mistake between

1. Ego and

2. Pearls of Wisdom

Study the definition of Category mistake. Ego or no-ego ... it does not necessitate the objective logic of "pearls of wisdom." Please... put away your appeal to emotions... we are trying to have a logical discussion here.

*The rest of us will continue to regard you for what you are: the court jester (a.k.a. fool).*

You do not know me and I do not know you. I wonder who the delusional one is. Tell me more about myself that I don't know ... come on... since you like enjoying your delusion fantasy as to who your wishful thinking wants me to be. Tell  me more and show us all who the delusional one is Mr RAT.

*Odin bless you (glad as hell I'm not you)*

Odin is pointless to me. And ok... ok? ...ok ... you are free to be glad you are not me... I dont see the point there. You are you and I am me... so? - still looking for the logic in that statement - .

God bless you (glad as "heaven" that I am not you)

Reply to 3 Wonderful Guys

+AgeOfSuperboredom & +Brad White
& +Raul Alvarado

I am replying to you three in one go because you are all asking for the same thing. I appreciate you +Brad White that you are willing to be convinced either way. I cannot say for the remaining other two guys especially for the one who displayed "trollage" by calling me a moron. God bless you - you know who you are. You insult me and you don't even know me. You curse and I bless - we shall see who the more evidential moral one is becaue Atheism has no objective morals. God will judge between us - you will see.

1. THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY?
I appreciate you guys for providing testing-methodologies, observation analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that would prove that your Atheism to be Falsifiable - which is a requirement in terms of "logic" so as to avoid committing an Unfalsifiable Fallacy. Well done.
One fundamental rule in the Philosophy of Sciene is that:

The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject) test

Please read more on the philosophy of science (1) and notice that there are many aspects to science such as
- The Philosophy of Biology
- The Philosophy of Chemistry
- The Philosophy of Mathematics
Hence, to buttress my point that the testing methodology for different things are likewise different depending on the query you are trying to solve. This reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke:

Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson went on a camping trip.  After a good meal and a bottle of red wine, they lay down for the night and went to sleep.

Some hours later Holmes woke up, nudged his faithful friend and said, "Watson, I want you to look up at the sky and tell me what you see."  Watson said, "I see millions and millions of stars."  Sherlock said, "And what does that tell you?"

After a minute or so of pondering Watson said, "*Astronomically*, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.  Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo.  Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three in the morning.  Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful and that we are small and insignificant.  Metereologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day today.  What does it tell you?"

Holmes was silent for about 30 seconds and said, "Watson, you idiot!  Someone has stolen our tent!"

IN THE SAME WAY ...
...Just like there are many mutually-inclusive ways to explain a certain thing in terms of science, there are likewise many ways to explain that same exact certain thing in terms of non-science just as you have seen in the example of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke. This is why I will repeat:

The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject or) test

2. PHILOSOPHY OF THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY
I am sure that you have heard about Occam's Razor? Which is a rule in the philosophy of science regarding the proper testing methodology which says that you should not multiply causes beyond necessity. (Please if you do not know the difference and similiarities between "necessity" and "sufficiency" please study about it (2). This is to reduce my verbiage because I want to give you the estimated credit that you are briliant/ intelligent guys and you understand what I am talking about.) That is to say:

for an explanation to be the best explanation to a certain query, YOU DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE EXPLANATION

Hence, this is why in science academic examinations, if you over explain your answers to the questions in the exams as if to show that you're a know-it-all, your tendency of failing that exam increases. So these are logical steps that we are applying even in our educational and academic systems and I believe that it is reasonable.

3. WHY HAVE I SAID ALL THIS? - Sequitur Contextual Relevance and Logical Applicability
I have said all this because I appreciate the fact you have done something not many Atheists like the silly Matt Dillihaunti would do. You have actually provide Falsifiable Testing Methodoogies, Observational Analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that can be applied to prove that:

Atheism can be proven false

Unlike the silly, die-hard tribe, fallacious and ignorant Matt Dillihanuti who says:

_"...Atheism... cannot be proven to be true..."

Such nonsense. Ok... these are the testing methodology you have provided and I going to scrutinise if they are PROPER TESTING METHODOLOGIES
1. All that is needed is for God to show Himself. get off his ass, come down from the clouds and show himself to us. It's that simple.
2. Or, lacking that, some compelling evidence. Forget proof ... All I want is some evidence.
3. I reject something that you have no proof for.
4. you god believers can't even make a simple argument.

1
This testing methodology fails on the grounds of necessity and sufficiency. That's like criminologists or archeologists using forensic science saying that: "_All that is needed is for the perpetrator to come out and show himself_"
No, investigators do not necessarily need the "subject" (eg Designer) as a sufficient conditon to infer the "object" (eg Design). So... until to ask for a proper testing methodology, I find this testinf methodology silly and absurd for people of intelligence.

2
There are two parts to this I want to address
1. Compelling Evidence
2. Evidence

2.1. Sorry, I am not here to "compel" your subjectivity as though I were some sort of magician here to impress you. That would be a subjectivist fallacy. Rather, I am here to lay down some good OBJECTIVE logic to posit the resonableness of blieving or theorising God.

2.2. The Christian has many arguement and they are done their own side of the burden of proof. It would be up to you to take the syllogisms of the Christian and tell us why it fails on objective logic while scrutinising our arguments with a large applicable list of fallacies. There are over 50+ Arguments for the existence of God. I will give you a blank cheque ... which one of them do you find fallacious? Such as
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Moral Argument
- The Teleological Argument
- The Argument from Intentionality
- Lots more etc

Pick one and tell me which one you find fallacious and we can scrutinise it together in a mutually-respected, civilised and intellectual manner.

3
I am assuming that you are intelligent enough to know the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I am sorry, I do not have any "proof" like a mathematical proof such as saying 1 + 1 = God ... no... rather, I have Philosophical Arguments with Supporting Scientific Evidences. If you want proof, I'm sorry you are barking up the wrong tree and you need to look for someone omniscient enough to "proof" God to you to a degree of absolute certainty. There are many things that are reasonable to believe even though there are no proof for them (check your dictionary semantic for proof)
- There is no proof that makes a poem beautiful.
- There is no proof that you are not a brain in a vat.
- There is no proof that my wife loves me nor that I love her.
HOWEVER, it is reasonable to accept the evidences just as they are ie, by faith (not to be confused with blindfaith).

4
Let's play the sherlock holmes game:
- Intellectually, that is ignorant of the christian position. We have made arguments
- Socially, that is insulting
- Metaphysically, that is your subjective opinion - keep it to yourself.
- Morally, you have just told a lie.
- Experientially you are just naive.
- Empirically, NO.

Lastly, I have a feeling that someone is deleting my replies... so I will back it up on my blog (3) and if I do not see this argument here the next time I come here... then I will know for sure that someone is toying with me because my arguments are so true, they cannot swallow the bitter-truth due to their emotional appeal/ crutches.

God bless you all and I look forward to your replies.

REFERENCES
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
(3) http://rdlogo.blogspot.com

Why can't he see that I have replied him?

+Bass-D C

PLEASE REPLY

I have to thank you once again for re-reminding me on the question and showing me this great grace - what do you know? Atheists can show their emotional-cructches called acts of kindness too even though they have no non-fallacious way of ontologically justifying/ grounding it in OBJECTIVE terminologies hahahaha (just teasing you).

Secondly ... I do not believe that anybody has 100% conviction power over the subjectivity over another person. But this is an analogy and it does not apply to this objective real life - so I will play with you

Is this objectively moral or Inmoral?

This is objectivly immoral of this analogical you. And I want to lay MORE emphasis on the fact that you used the word "objective" to as an adjective for moral.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Here how I come to that conclusion by reshaping this argument (1):

THE MORAL ARGUEMENT

1. It is more reasonable to believe that moral obligations come from moral laws givers.

2. To be Objective means to be true IRRESPECTIVE of if everybody thinks subjectively that it is wrong.

3. To be true means that you have to endure constantly and neccessaily without neccesarily being contingent on physical reality.

4. God is Constant and  Necessry Being.

5. "Persons" intrinsically imbible morality into their nature.

6. God is Person.

7. God is a constant and necessary being because HE deped on no one and nothing else to exist.

8. God is the best inference (OR reference point) to grounding true objective values because HE is a constant and necessary being.

9. Objective values and duties DO exists.

10. Therefore, deductively, it necessarily follows that it is more reasonable to believe that God exists as the best ontological grounding for objective moral values and duties.

more justification

Your analogical self in the example is objectively immoral because your actions go anti- to the actions that God would generally take in that condition - ie, given that there are no other sufficient moral reasons God will do the opposite. However, I do not see any other sufficient moreal reasons why you moral-goodness would come out from being like "satan" [name meaning "accuser"] - who convinces people not to take morally good actions but later on the day of judgement, would accuse them/ sue them in God's court for being convinced by him in the first place. If you have any additionaly moral sufficiency of why what the analogical-you did to Jame is good, just and fair to James (seeing that you have 100% conviction power over him) then please ... give the reasons. Maybe James is in on this too and he is willingly allowing you to 100% convince him into evil knowing that you would sue him later on. No different than you know that the devil will sue you for not believing in God but you still choose not to believe in God by allowing the devil to 100% convince you to believe that God is not real - just an example, I do not want to add anything into the mouth of your analogy - i'm just expanding IF sufficient moral reasons justify you from doing this evil deed.

This is to say that God is not like the deceiving-god of Islam. God does not lie nor deceive:

Numbers 23:19

God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

And since your analogical moral actions are nothing like God's Objective, unchanging and morally good actions - you are therefore immoral.

Here is a link on how Atheism FAILS on grounds of morality (2).

So... why don't you tell me... are your analogical actions OBJECTIVELY moral or immoral on an atheistic platform without fallacious appealing to:

- Population: and saying "that's how everyone thinks"

- Emotions/ Pain: and saying "if it does not hurt/ harm anyone" as if people who hurt/ harm themselves in the gym are objectively evil

- subjectivism/ relativism: because this destroys the original question as to the "objectiveness" of morality.

I look forward to your reply.

God bless you

REFERENCES

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA

Mr Rat Can't Just see it

+Rolo Beorn
Lastly... you did not see that the cambrian explosion is still debunking Evolution Theory by Natural Selection (ETBNS) - be it Darwin's or not. That Darwin Quote I gave you

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

This Quote still applies to evolution theory by natural selection - as long as naturla selection is involved. Unless you want to talk about supernatural selection hahaha... why? Because you already called the fact I used Darwin's exact words "stupid".

You did not and have not tackled my arguments even for this context of ETBNS. Seems to me like you have a better explanation for the Cambrian Explosion that is not "Intelligent Design". Please, lay down your strong arguments and stop resorting to Argumentums Ad Lapidems or Baseless/ Blanket Assertions.

+88rat88
Sometimes some arguments are so fallacious, I could write a book about them.

Greetings Spanky.
Greetings "rat". oh wow! will you look at that? It seems like what they say is true:
the apple does not fall far from the tree
I don't have to go to far to give a nickname you will be pleased with - you don't have to look far, it's already in your chosen&satisfied name - rat.

While you're educating yourself on the meaning of "troll", do yourself a favor and look up "strawman" as well, because you're using it wrong.

Here is wikipedia's take on straw man (2)

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The Category-Context that was advanced = Proving the Supernatural
The Category-Context that was not advanced = Biblical slavery

So for you to say

"1) I've read your stuff on this thread long enough for it to register on my bullshit meter as the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that it is."

means that you were displaying your lack of tact to present coherent rebuttals to the context of our discussion. Using a guilt-by-association fallacy for "all my discussions" in this thread is just fallacious. We aren't even talking about the same category context anymore. That's like killing your parents because you had a dream that they wanted to kill you - totally irrelevant. Maybe you should be the one to study what a straw man actually means.

Precisely Spanky, and thanks for proving my point.
You're welcome. I was not "proving" your point. I was "quoting" you. The only point I'm proving here is your straw man. Unless of course, you are agreeing that I have proven that you have made a contextual straw man ... then good - finally ... you notice.

This is now the third time I'm pointing out to you that this statement of yours stands alone as proof that you do not understand science.
And this is now the third time I am pointing out to you that you made a straw man by jumping the gun. Did you not see

BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

when I was replying to +Rolo Beorn . If I told you that I can make your wallet disappear in your back pocket without touching you, would you say "That is a nonsensical and stupid thing to say"? Or would you rather say "I'll be patient, that burden of proof is on you, please demonstrate". And if you were patient enough to see the reply I gave +Rolo Beorn , +Rolo Beorn nor you have debunked the 4 scientific arguments I advanced about evidence for the supernatural world. You are like the guy who keeps shouting "That's nonsensical, that's stupid" while I have sucessfully stolen your wallet without touching you. Keep deceiving yourself all day long in your emotional crutch. Secondly, you never produced a counter-argument to the fact that I dichotomised your argument and my argument. This is what I said:

YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH
I somewhat agree with what you are saying to a degree AND you are admitting the limitations of science. Well done. HOWEVER... that statement (C1) was not suggestive of the dealings  / methodology of science, but rather it was suggestive of the usefulness of science ie, what science can be used for. For example, the methodology of the keyboard you are typing with is for typing - simple typing; but! the usefulness of the keyboard can be used smash someone's face and break their teeth. Here, we see the keyboard being extruded from the constraints of what the keyboard is concerned about into somewhat-metaphysical-other-things the keyboard can be used to do. Anybody that is a sentient creature can use science for many other thing
- Hitler can use science to justify killing jews
- Dylann Roof can use science to justify killing people in church
- Theists can use it to posit the supernatural world
- Scientist can use science to advocate using the ebola virus to commit mass genocide (R2)

Do you want me to go on? Or are you convinced of your strawman in your confusion between what science is concerned about and what it can be used to posit?

Have I see any response to this? No - rather you appeal to me ego which I will address later. Maybe a simple - oh, I understand, you're right - I see the fallacy of my own thinking now. Thanks .... I admit intellectual honesty. Maybe a kinda response like that. But you keep commiting an avoiding the issue fallacy of the fact that the methodology of sciece (the things science is concern about) is NOT the same thing as the usefulness of science - the things science can be used for eg proving/ buttressing a point - irrespective of whether it is scientific or not. Last time I check, Lawrence Krauss tried to use science to prove that (some)thing could come from not-thing. That's like saying love could come out of not-love. A scientific impossibility and philosophical jargon, yet he tried and you atheists call it "scientific". But you call the fact I am trying to prove God can be proven scientifically nonsense? I see your bias confirmation - Double Standards.

Also, you did not object to the fact that I accurately defined you as a troll. Nice. You know that wise adage?

Silence is the best answer for a fool

Well done. But rather, you congratulated me that I am indeed getting an education, an elightenment into the proper definition of what a troll is. I believe that you now see how much of a troll you are but you are too ashamed to admit it that I have defined it and your actions accurately. That's alrihgt ... as long as you are changing... you are forgiven.

My sole reason for bringing up the slavery context was to illustrate to you that I've been a contributing participant in this thread since the beginning, and therefore not a troll. No more, no less.
Well, thanks for admitting your intentioanlity fallacy. You think appealing to your intentions rather than the objective & logical way your argument was used is a good arguement? Honest of you yes but in the objective context of logical discourse, you committed a straw man. That's like me saying for example "My sole (intention or) reason for talking to you today in all this harsh way is to make you laugh. Come on, laugh with me hahahahahahahahaha - you must be feeling very ticklish now right? hahahahahahahahahaha " - nonsense. I don't care about your intentions or sole purposes. You committed trolling in that insulting manner you responded to me and you committed a contextual straw man and it is as clear as day to any rational thinking person reading our discussion flow context.

Are all of your arguments so ridiculous and knee-jerk?
Let me answer it simply for you - No

You don't impress me nearly enough to make me bother reading the rest of your girthful verbosity.
You are mistaken, I'm not here to impress you. Now we have that misunderstanding out of the way we can make progress.
Next, this is a reverse-proof by verbosity fallacy because you are submitting to me that my argument must be false because it is too complex and verbouse to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. I'm sorry... just because I write big, does not invalidate the objective logic of my arguments. And you have not even responded to any of my argument. Hence you are appealing to ignorance with the next fallacy as follows:

Scanning it suggests that you like to stroke your ego by fancying you're some kind of grandmaster on logic and logical fallacies.
Here you show your contentment with ignorance as you do not study my arguments but you choose to "scan" through it - thereby producing a limited scope fallacy. No wonder you are always attacking straw men. You are not listening to me. You're like an intellectual baby with his intellectual fingers in his intellectual ears going lalalalalalal - i cannot hear you. And you later say

And if that delusion makes you feel good, more power to you. It pairs nicely with your god delusion.

Well... my Scanner-who-would-not-study-my-arguments-but-make-unwarranted-assumptions-about-them ... if that delusion feels good, feels more powerful, helps you sleep well at night, helps you answer all of life's toughest metaphysical questions of origin, meaning, purpose, morality and destiny - if you are enjoying all those emotional crutches --- please, feel free to used your atheistic non-existent-but-existent freewill to choose to continue in your delusion of no-God. It does not pair nicely with you but hey ... if the intellectual mud and poop is fine for your face - please, feel free to use as much as you can - just don't force others to think the way you think.

"That depends entirely on you Spanky. Are you done stroking your ego? And if so, are you ready to learn what a strawman is?"
Mr Rat. Appealling to my ego - ie, appealing to my personal incredulity - it says NOTHING about if my arguments are right or wrong. Am I really reading this? Like, how low can your logical rebuttal tact go? I too could appeal to your ego and it would not be touching our logical arguments not one bit. Whether I am a master of recognising logical fallacies does not invalidate my logic one bit. That means that you have not been reading my arguments all this time, you have been reading my ego. I'm sorry but the objectivity of my rational and logical discourse does not have anything whatsoever to do with my subjective ego. I just can't really understand you - OK OK - Calm down... let's do this better ... "respond. to. my. arguments. not. my. personality" OK? Is that clear enough for you Mr rat?
Lastly, tell me what you think about my definition of strawman - and feel free to present your own to me if you have something better to teach me.

Nope.
This is another discussion context where I was talking about the aggressive way you respond to "God bless you" even though it is meaningless and pointless to you. OK - no ... you self-identify as someone who is not affected with "God bless you". I accept that as existential evidence of you self-identity... however, your past actions spoke contrary. But if you say so. Ok - I reasonbly accept.

This is called wishful thinking, an essential component of your worldview.
Here is wikipedia's take on wishful-thinking fallacy (3).

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire.[1]

So, in the "God bless you" context, you say my conclusion that "you responded to "God bless you" with such aggression AS IF this seemingly meaningless and seemingly pointless kindly gesture was actually effective in your worldview" - you said my conclusion is wishful thinking? Let us test that by the standards that make wishful thinking REALLY wishful thinking.
1. Does it please me that you believe in God? No - not necessarily
2. Did I appeal to evidence of how you aggressively insulted me for saying "God bless you"? Yes - the evidence is as clear as day in this discussion thread.
3. Do I have a rational reason to infer from the evidence that you "might" just believe in God due to the way you responded to "God bless you"? Yes - the aggressive evidence rationally points to it.
4. Is the evidence/ conclusion based in reality? Oh yeah ... all one has to do is see our past dicussions thread where I was aggresively insulted for saying God bless you.

After analysising the criterias that make wishful thinking... did I really commit a wishful thinking fallacy? no
Maybe you are the one committing a wishful-thinking fallacy in asserting that I am committing a wishful thinking fallacy by not demonstrating it with concrete arguments.

(PS: Did you see the way I rebut your argument? Maybe if you tried this once in a while, you will make sense... for now, you are just allowing my fallacy arguments against you to slide pass you freely ... you are looking more like the illogical one with so much fallacies on the side of the fidurative-debate-tennis-court - demontrate how any of  my arguemnts are wrong rather than just making baseless / blanket assertion and argumentum ad lapidems).

Believe it or not, not everyone who mocks you is in rebellion against your god man, or in denial about his alleged existence.
Red-herring - this is because you are attempting to distract us from the contextual-topic at hand by introducing a separate argument you believe is easier to speak about. What has this got to do with the "God bless you" context? Do you know how to make a rebuttal? Ok- I accept that as a fact ... happy Mr Rat? Good

In fact, the overwhelming majority of nonbelievers that reject your poisonous religion do so because... (are you ready for this Spanky?) IT'S BULLSHIT.
Argumentum Ad Lapidem and Red-Herring ... not once have you addressed my arguments. You just like talking anything without thinking right? Mr Rat Scanner came to that conclusion by scanning through my arguments eh? Yeah ... very logical. And thanks for speaking on behalf of every nonbeliever - seems like you are very omniscient and you know who all the non-believers are with absolute certainty - yeah ... very logical.

And people like you are just too dishonest and brainwashed to see it.
Sweeping Generalisatioin Fallacy... Mr Omniscient Rat. I am sorry but there are no "people like me". I am unique. You need to read what I said to +Rolo Beorn about what Neil DeGrasse Tyson said in a video:

(R1) Time: 0:13 - 0:58  I'm not an "-ism". I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry. It's not. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert you know what's gonna happen in advance.

Mr Tyson says to you "that's not how to have a conversation".
Finally, since you are not the only one to make fallacies so bad that I have to write so much about them, (yet you don't debunk a simple argument but you debunk my person - fallacious) let me end with a funny pun as I appeal to my intentionality and try to make you laugh - this is my sole purpose:
People like me are this-honest and we have a washed-brain becaue we are not blinded by a dirty brain - we can see it - that is to say, "dirty and ratty brain people, cannot see it".

hahahahahahahahaha - in my subjective opinion, I'm the funniest man in the world.

God bless you

REFERENCES
(1) Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 306–308. ISBN 1-60206-144-0. OCLC 176630493.
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (R2) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

(R1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos