Discussing “Darwinian Evolution’s Occult, Pagan, New Age Roots” with an Atheist, 6 of 6

Concluding a discussion with an Atheist regarding the video Darwinian Evolution’s Occult, Pagan, New Age Roots—when all segments are posted, you will be able to find them all here.

Picking up from where the previous segment left off, Ken Ammi (I don’t recall why but I posted a follow-up comment):

Friend, I realize that it is convenient to post a new comment so that you can seek to abscond from our discussion and pretend that facts have not been provided to you about the issues you raise but: note your premise which is “is NOT concerned with truth” but on your worldview, truth is accidental and there is no universal imperative to adhere to it so that defeats your comment.

Gary Walker:

Friend,

<As I have told you before, you are NOT my friend. My friends do not lie to me and expect me to abandon reason and evidence on faith in magic. >

I realize that it is convenient to post a new comment so that you can seek to abscond from our discussion

<I do not abandon threads, but one thing I think we can agree with is that Youtube chat is imperfect at notifying us of new posts. >

and pretend that facts have not been provided to you about the issues you raise but

<You have NOT presented facts that refute any detail of biological evolution or any other science that does show religious faith to be nonsense. >

: note your premise which is “is NOT concerned with truth” but on your worldview,

<My “world view” IS based on EVIDENCE through which we understand what is true. I have other opinions as to what might be true but there is not evidence to support claiming it is fact. I keep these in different categories. >

truth is accidental and there is no universal imperative to adhere to it so that defeats your comment.

<BULLS[***]. Just because you are too stupid to understand my imperative to be honest does NOT mean that it does not exist. >

Ken Ammi:

Friend, please mind your manners.

You say I lie without evidence and without a premise upon which to condemn lying: why do you keep ignoring these facts—besides that they would assist in exposing the utter collapse of your worldview?

On your worldview to not “abandon reason and evidence” is a merely subjective personal preference. Also, you have no premise upon which to establish reason nor demand evidence.

If your worldview is based on the Atheist interpretation of a theory of evolution then it is not based on evidence but on an Atheist interpretation of a theory of evolution.

I noted the fact that on your worldview “truth is accidental and there is no universal imperative to adhere to it so that defeats your comment” and you actually think that a cogent reply is spewing filth from your keyboard and make fun of me on the level of a five year old: why not even attempt to debunk these facts? Why just pound your chest and run away?—besides that they would assist in exposing the utter collapse of your worldview?

Gary Walker:

I will be quite pleased to mind my manners if you tell me how I am being bad mannered.

<YOU ASSERT LIES AS FACT. YOU IGNORE EVIDENCE. YOU REPEAT THAT I HAVE NO BASIS TO DEMAND HONESTY. >

You say I lied but what makes you think so and upon what premise do you condemn lying?

<LYING IS BAD BECAUSE IT F[***]ING CAUSES HARM YOU S[***] HEADED MORON. >

Ken Ammi:

Again (and again and again and again) you claim I lie without evidence and and now subjectively assert that “LYING IS BAD BECAUSE IT [******] CAUSES HARM” but that is vaguely generic and also begs the question (I mean really, do you actually never thing about such things?): why is causing harm condemnable?

Gary Walker:

<BULL[****]. If somebody is interested in our origins, they should look to science, not your bull[****] dogma. Your ignorance and denial of reality is not evidence against that reality. >

Ken Ammi:

Please mind your manners. Breakdown of your subjective assertions:

“If” thus, there is no absolute standard.

“If somebody is interested” is an appeal to subjective personal preference.

“they should look to science” indeed, such as biology and not a worldview-philosophy-dogma such as evolution—although I know not what you may mean by “evolution” nor to which of the iterations of that worldview-philosophy you adhere.

“they should” so you are claiming an imperative—but only on your own self-appointed (pseudo) authority.

You condemn “ignorance and denial of reality” but never bothered providing a premise for doing so.

You refer to “that reality” but also fail to provide a premise upon which to demand that accidentally and temporarily existing apes “should” adhere to “reality”—reality, that is, as your haphazardly evolved brain with its random bio-chemical neural reactions can manage to discern it, of course.

And, of course, on your worldview reality is also accidental and temporary.

That ended it since no more replies where forthcoming.

For more info, see my books about Atheism related issues.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites.