SkyHigh

My lord, you're absolutely terrible at this.

Nope, because a question is never an argument . Saying " then where do they come from" has no premises (honest question, do you know what a premise is?,) and zero deductively valid inferences to support your conclusion. You're lying, I mentioned creation and then included the other parts of Genesis (the book you mentioned) because it's the same science that proves it all wrong. Moving the goal posts would be if I mentioned all the other books in the Bible science has demonstrated to be false Again you're lying, I did address what you said but the fact is you haven't provided any deductive inferences that I could rebut. So, can you make a positive argument for the existence of God? , (I'm not expecting a syllogism but saying it's true because the Bible tells me so, is ludicrous on face value, because again the Bible is the claim, not the evidence)

So no actual counter argument?

No, they are literally the opposite of an argument. An argument is defined as a group of propositions that follow each other based on deductively valid inferences that support the truth of the premises in the conclusion. Science has demonstrated that Genesis is fiction , from creation to Noah's ark First, I've probably read the Bible more than you. Second, you've never heard me speak against the teachings of Jesus, in fact I have mentioned numerous times that most of the words attributed to him were thoughtful and are worth following. Where I do disagree ,is that he was any more than one of the plethora of itinerant, apocalyptic, messianic preachers of the time but was born of a virgin, preformed miracles and came back from the dead. You have an argument for that? Remember answering a question with a question (unless it's simply to clarify) is not an argument Bigoted? Nope, pithy yes But the idea that an unembodied , eternal mind has a gender is just silly and I would suggest that it's your bigotry that finds it impossible to believe that the "creator of the universe" could be anything but a man

I'm not sure I agree. The Charter had been around for a long time and I don't recall it ever being used to stifle simple speech. There have and still continue to be, bigots, racists, misogynists , homophobes , etc.. and I can think of no cases where in anyone faced criminal charges and Peterson is intelligent enough to know that adding gender expression to the protected classes won't change the law in any tangible way. I did not share that view, I always thought he was a bit of a blow hard. I think he's a very smart man ,that realized his command of the English language allowed him to just use big words that lean to one side of the political spectrum in a way that nobody could really understand (because he's not actually saying anything) I think most. (I'm sure some people with advanced degrees did) of his fans heard him talk about not agreeing with the "tranz movement" and just latched on and won't admit they don't understand a word of what he says.

Questions aren't arguments. But to answer the question, I don't know (which is often the most intelligent thing one can say) but neither do you, your book is the claim not evidence. So, you must prove your god exists before she can have any explanatory powers

Not my opinion, it's the law The case (that's even a loaded word because it tends to refer to legal proceedings) you cited was nothing more than an internal matter based on the policies of a private organization and Shepard was not charged criminally, the situation never went above the university level and she faced no repercussions. If you don't like the Charter that's fine (weird but fine) but your opinion is just that an opinion and not factual. Again if you have an example of someone being charged and convicted by our legal system I will amend my views but you have yet to support your assertions.

I very much enjoy the parables, they for the most part are stories that contain good morals and aren't tied to some magical sky fairy. Akin to Aesop's faibles. Now, for the third or fourth time, justify that your god exists.

Wow you're pathetic, you can't dispute anything I say so your forced to invent post and attribute them to me Are you drunk?

Unfortunately I don't have (or believe) in a sixth sense and the five we do have can't detect the supernatural and I still don't know how you even know you can trust your senses You do realize that I can't see through your eyes, therefore "your senses" give no explanatory power for others. Any evidence that's not soley based on your feelings?

Let me be clear, I think (save the examples I've already mentioned) that speech should be protected at all costs and think ze and zer (or whatever ) are ridiculous and in no way think misgendering someone rises to the point of hate speech ( though it is a dick move) But I went through my early years with more than one nickname, I see no difference between that and a Trans person asking people to use the name they want to be called. But, I will reiterate that, bill c-16 (yes I had to look it up, hahaha) does not criminalize speech, it just doesn't allow people to discriminate against people based on their gender expression, Unless you can provide an example of someone that was charged criminally for simple speech , not inciting violence or blatant hate speech, but simple speech. Do you know what came of their law suits against the university? Edit: I also feel that (warranted or not) private (or semi private in the case of universities) organizations can make internal decisions based on their principles (baring anything that may infringe on their fundamental rights, an employee right to say whatever they want to anyone would not fall under that). That's capitalism. If one of my employees made for example, a racist comment to another employee, I would fire them on the spot, regardless if it was his right or not. I sign your cheque you follow my rules and a university professor should be held to an even higher standard.

No worries, though I would like you to respond to my post that provided counter points to the specific arguments you did make.

Ok big guy

How can you agree with me and call me a hypocrite in the same breath? It would almost be funny if it weren't so sad

I've read the Bible, thanks So tell me what you think (pun intended) that the Bible can explain

Nope, a number divided by zero is considered by mathematicians to be undefined. Even zero. Seriously, you are one of the most ignorant people I've ever had the misfortune of speaking with

Dude you're literally repeating your own nonsense, you're pathetic. Of course science doesn't speak to god, religion isn't part of the natural world. Nope, god has no explanatory power

Binary is a computer language, the one and the zero are nothing but characters they not actual numbers Infinity is not a number.

Oh you're getting snippy. This was written before you responded to my original post and this metaphysical substrate in considered a big part of his world view. So maybe if you don't agree with what he says you shouldn't defend his intellectual prowess

Nope, I mentioned Confucius and Zoroastrianism . You're response was exactly what I said. I didn't even mention them stealing from Horus or Greek philosophy either, and I could go on So any actual argument?

I know you're not resorting to putting words in my mouth right? If memory serves me all that happened in the Shepard case, was some student didn't like a video she showed,complained to the university, who held a meeting where they suggested she may have done something wrong. It was then passed up to an independent arbitrator that said that, the university was wrong to even have a meeting with her and she had done nothing wrong. So no legal consequences or even sanctions from the university at all. The bill in question did nothing but add gender expression to the protected class clause of the Charter. So it's as illegal as not hiring a woman simply because she's a woman. It is not illegal though to just say women shouldn't be in the work plac or not using people's prefers pronouns . So he was very wrong. I'm not asking you to detail everything he's said throughout the many,many times he's spoke, I'm asking for one specific thing he has said that you find "interesting," enough to include it in your world view. I have listened to him many times and all I hear is a whole bunch of words (personally I don't think anyone really understands him , most are just not intellectually honest enough to admit it) without him actually saying anything.

You can't divide anything by zero nimrod, particularly when it's not even a number . Divide a banana by zero

So make an actual argument because if you think "GASP lots of people say things" is valid or sound. Just quit now numbskull

First, let me drop a little science on you (science is a credible method of finding truth, or the complete opposite of faith, the only thing you have to cling to) infinity is not a number it is a philosophical concept that isn't used in the hard sciences. Second, confirming that the core tenant of christianity is something that is known according to your math by more people then have ever existed and many of them, again by your math about two thirds of the infinite people that have lived in the universe according to your Bible (apologies if you don't believe in young earth but I seem to remember you arguing for the validity of Genesis) before the advent of christianity, doesn't really support the truth of christianity

Oh in that sense I agree completely. I like to say that, all people are equally entitled to their opinions but not all opinions are equal, and if someone is preaching hate, or even claiming something that clearly does not comport with reality reasonable people have a responsibility to call them on their bullshìt