Gog & Magog

Revelation 19:17-21

Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in midheaven, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders—flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great.”

Cannibalism - fucking gross. I mean, God is great. Long Pig is delicious, eat up bitches!

Octree, I am still waiting for you to meet the burden of proof for the claims of your post "Foundations." As well as your response to criticisms of your post: Goedel's Ontological Proof.

Octree, in this current post there are a number of implicit and explicit foundational and essential claims/assertions that require a credible presentation of the burden of proof in order to accept your argument. Your (continuing) failure to present a credible burden of proof for your claims is very telling concerning your personal character, your personal intellectual honesty, and the weakness of your material and conclusions. Some of the foundational claims of this topic:

  • God/יהוה/YHWH/Yahweh exists
  • Angels, those supernatural min-Gods, exist
  • Your God Pantheon is a henotheistic polytheism
  • Actualization of existence of Gog, Prince of Rosh
  • The Sovereign Lord (God) condones and requires both gluttony and cannibalism/blood feast
  • Satan exists, and is a God
  • A literal Hell exists
  • An afterlife exists
  • The construct of mind-body dualism (a soul) is actualized
  • Spacetime has time loops

As before, Octree, can you/will you support your positive claim position(s), present an argument(s) and meet the burden of proof to support your claim(s), and then defend your argument(s) against refutation/criticism? And will you agree to follow some simple debate rules? If the argument fails for lack of credible evidence or supportable argument, and/or for logical fallacies, then the person making the argument never brings up that argument again with anyone. Ever. Additionally the person making the argument must demonstrate that they actually understand the argument(s) being presented - a copy/paste of an argument from someone else is intellectually dishonest if the presenter does not understand it. The definition of words commonly misunderstood, like "theory," will use Wikipedia definitions unless otherwise explicitly stated. Consider these Debate Rules as applicable to all parties when presenting your argument/post. Finally, be aware of these common logical fallacies when presenting your argument/claim/assertion as the use of these fallacies will significantly reduce or negate the credibility of your argument.

  • The difference between a claim/assertion and credible evidence or supportable argument
  • Circular reasoning. (e.g., The claims made in the Bible/Qur'an (or any "Holy Book") are true because the Bible/Qur'an says so based upon the authority of the Bible/Qur'an which says the Bible/Qur'an is the authority.)
  • Begging the question
  • Special pleading
  • Argument from ignorance
  • Religious Faith that reduces to the conceit of subjective emotions/feelings/wishful thinking/"I know in my heart of hearts that this thing is true" as having a truth/fact value
  • Presumption/presuppositionalism

I look forward to your response. If you present a credible and supportable position, via credible evidence, and/or supportable argument that is free from logical fallacies and which can be shown to actually be linkable to this reality, to a level of significance (or level of reliability and confidence) above that of an appeal to emotion, I will consider your message and adjust my religious related worldview accordingly.

If you fail to present a credible and supportable position, then any and all argument(s) that you make that are dependent or contingent upon the above claim(s) will summarily be rejected for lack of foundation, as applicable.

Octree, show and demonstrate some intellectual honesty, instead of actualizing an adolescent mindless sheep blindly following a fantasized truth based upon a love of death and an appeal to emotion. Step up, and with a coherent, clear, and concise, written voice, actually support these Truths you claim and assert, and hide not behind other claims and insipid rhetoric - else you will soon leave your vessel knowing that you have continuously failed. Read carefully, and understand, 1 Peter 3:15 & Matthew 6:5. Do not be the hypocrite.

Octree, it appears that you are attempting to start your own religion, one that even your claimed employer would decree as whack-a-doodle (excuse the jargon), and your employer would judge you as a False Prophet. Presuming your claims, are you ready for that judgement?

/r/DebateAnAtheist Thread