Latest videos by namesameasu

This is De Paur's Infantry Choir's rendition of Albert Hay ... Posted by: namesameasu Video duration: 225 seconds This is De Paur's Infantry Choir's rendition of Albert Hay Malotte's musical adaptation of the Lord's Prayer, recorded in 1947, and directed by Leonard De Paur. It's reproduced here from the original 78 rpm. record: Track 4 of their album, "A Choral Concert: Songs Of Faith." Related: lords prayer, leonard de paur, de paurs infantry choir, albert hay malotte, christianity, musical, adaptation, choral concert, songs of faith, gospel Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video: THEIST PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT (Atheism Destroyed in 2 Minutes!!!) Posted by: namesameasu Video duration: 120 seconds THERE ARE NOT ANY GOOD ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF STRONG ATHEISM This is my Indirect Proof Of God, Part III. Refer to my channel for Parts 1 and 2, as well as my "Proof Of God" Trilogy, and God's Gift Of Free Will Explained. Upcoming: The Relevance of Jesus Christ, Our Savior Related: atheism, theism, christopher htichens, tribute, atheist experience, 761, 760, 759, 758, 757, 756, 755, 754, 753, 752, 751, 750, 749, 748, 747, 746, 745, 744, 743, 742, 741, 740, 739, 738, 735, 734, 733, 732, 731, best caller ever, william lane craig, logic, debate, philosophy, theology, religion, spirituality, humanism, 115 Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video: Atheism doesn't ... By: TheYakiin. on 19 Apr 12, 22:41:06 Atheism doesn't need to prove anything, t is the Christians who must provide evidence for the? positive assertion of a god You're? a jackass. By: Split539. on 17 Apr 12, 23:58:56 You're? a jackass. Since you choose ... By: GabOrcinus. on 10 Apr 12, 05:55:09 Since you choose to? quote LK, watch this video of him, aptly titled 'A Universe From Nothing': /7ImvlS8PLIo No, it would not. ... By: Kashaan94. on 09 Apr 12, 03:17:22 No, it would not. All evidence (that we know of) is physical. There is no evidence of "metaphysical existence." Until someone can prove the existence of something that isn't physical, then there is no reason to accept any argument based on metaphysical or non-physical "evidence" (the last term being used very loosely). An agnostic? atheist admits there might be things he can't explain, but he doesn't make up stories that have no evidence to explain them. That's what the ancient Greeks did. "that any evidence ... By: gastarbeiter1. on 04 Apr 12, 15:10:53 "that any evidence of? reality must somehow be physical in nature?" is? this your only "arguement"? Well,? how many ... By: namesameasu. on 03 Apr 12, 17:16:10 Well,? how many agnostics that you know of aren't sure because they suppose that any evidence of reality must somehow be physical in nature? Wouldn't such an expectation of evidence be labelled a belief? If that's the case, then would they still be truly agnostic? I dont think many ... By: Bcswanny. on 03 Apr 12, 15:40:05 I dont think many strong atheists exist. Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive words... Gnostic atheists are strong atheists...I have never met one. Agnostic atheists do not claim any disproof of god. I know many of them. Gnostic theists claim proof? of god. I know many of them. Agnostic theists claim no proof of god. i know many of them too. Back at you. ... By: OfTheGaps. on 03 Apr 12, 09:14:50 Back at you. Thanks for a refreshingly reasonable back and forth. Take care.? "I'll simply refer ... By: namesameasu. on 03 Apr 12, 03:17:45 "I'll simply refer you to the comments section, where he explicitly says, "This is my Indirect Proof Of God, Part III." Yes but the proof will only apply after? you seen the first two videos as well as my Proof Of God videos. I just grouped this in with them so I can make out of the first two a trilogy. So you're assuming as to what my intentions were. Do any of the arguments in the video apply to yourself? Just wonderin'. Well it does say? ... By: Bcswanny. on 02 Apr 12, 21:32:27 Well it does say? that doesn't it. Well that settles that. Thanks for this intelligent discussion I'm equivocating ... By: Bcswanny. on 02 Apr 12, 21:27:52 I'm equivocating the definition of equivocation. Is that Irony? It has to be. I? may be wrong about the fallacy of equivocation here. I'll simply refer? ... By: OfTheGaps. on 02 Apr 12, 21:20:45 I'll simply refer? you to the comments section, where he explicitly says, "This is my Indirect Proof Of God, Part III." If what you say ... By: OfTheGaps. on 02 Apr 12, 21:19:05 If what you say were true, any person who did not understand the meaning of a word would be? committing and equivocation fallacy. I don't think it's a big deal, especially since we seem to agree about the overall worth of the video, but I think you are confused about the definition of an equivocation fallacy (which according to you would itself be an equivocation fallacy). you are correct. ... By: Bcswanny. on 02 Apr 12, 16:07:18 you are correct. However many many? people think that atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist. And that is the only definition. That is an equivocation fallacy. To think it does not occur is naive to the ignorance of many people. If you protest that the author is not equivicating, I agree. His use of strong atheist would suggest that he understands the difference You are simply ... By: OfTheGaps. on 02 Apr 12, 14:02:53 You are simply wrong when you say, "If the author believes that all athiests are strong athiests then this is an equivocation fallacy". Equivocation is using a word in multiple contexts and assuming the same meaning, when distinct meanings ought to be preferred. eg: All bushes are green and leafy; therefore, George W. Bush is green and leafy. A straw man is an attack on a misrepresentation of an opponent's position. eg: Attacking 'strong atheism' as (an implied) common atheist? belief. Since you insist, ... By: Bcswanny. on 02 Apr 12, 13:53:58 Since you insist, let me address 1. The last comment was "there is no strong argument to support strong athiesm." No where does he ever either a) offer a logical argument? for the existence of god or b) claim that there is one. The claim "God doesn't exist" must be demonstrated and proved much like the claim "god exists" would have to be. You're assuming the jump from "god doesn't exist" is not true, therefore it's false He might actually think this, but he didn't say this in the video. I agree that he ... By: OfTheGaps. on 02 Apr 12, 13:45:57 I agree that he didn't prove anything, but for the sake of brevity I didn't address that. In my view, it's more important to point out that even if we assume? his arguments are valid and his premises true, he is still nowhere close to proving a deist god, let alone a theist God. At BEST he would have only shown that a deist god is not impossible. I won't address 1? ... By: Bcswanny. on 02 Apr 12, 12:16:48 I won't address 1? because he didn't prove anything 2, Yes, t;hat is a common straw-man and/or equivocation fallacy. However it states in his comments that he is speaking of strong athiesm. If the author believes that all athiests are strong athiests then this is an equivocation fallacy, not a straw-man fallacy. However, the author never stated that all athiests were strong athiests, so the equivocation is implied by the reader. Perhaps justified by the author's seeming disdain for athiests Nice point, but two ... By: OfTheGaps. on 02 Apr 12, 10:23:19 Nice point, but two probs: 1-His 'proofs' merely refute strong arguments against a deist god. He may show it not IMPOSSIBLE that a deist god exists, but is nowhere close to 'proving' a deist god exists, let alone even approaching proof of a theist God. It's a bait-and-switch: a deist god is not 100% impossible,? therefore a theist God exists. Bosh! 2-Most atheists don't advocate a strong argument against deism, but simply apportion belief per the evidence. The 'strong argument' is a straw man. It makes me sad ... By: Bcswanny. on 02 Apr 12, 03:37:51 It makes me sad that this video gets so many dislikes. The sentiment is showing logical flaws in "strong atheism" claims. You must understand that "strong atheism" or a "gnostic atheist" is one that believes they can prove/know that god does not exist. Such? a position requires the same illogical fallacies that strong theism requires. Theists are the ... By: JokerzKard. on 25 Mar 12, 22:15:14 Theists are the universe's gift to us rationals who like a good laugh..? Like all these? ... By: crissyhowes. on 24 Mar 12, 07:32:21 Like all these? claims for god, which one and why don't you believe in other peoples gods, want do you use to show its your god that stands up to why you don't believe in other gods? @namesameasu I'm ... By: Z6D4C4. on 23 Mar 12, 03:36:43 @namesameasu I'm sorry. I just assumed you had no evidence and that was bad of me. I sound all official-y too. lol With the hypocritical bit, hell yeah it is. But? you can't just change your belief even with logically thinking it out in your head. What I believe and what I think I should believe are different things. I argue from what I think I should believe because it's a hell of a lot easier. I also shouldn't be speaking for all atheists like I'm pretty sure I just did in my last comment. "YOU MADE AN ... By: namesameasu. on 23 Mar 12, 01:42:23 "YOU MADE AN ARGUMENT BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT GODS EXIST, PROVE IT." Next time? watch my Proof Of God trilogy, followed by my video God's Gift Of Free Will.   You like it? Share it! Social Bookmarking

Western Art videos :: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Feedback powered by: Customer Feedback