• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

ShockOfGod

P

pendulousphallus

New Member
arg-fallbackName="pendulousphallus"/>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEDZ4uYasXs

Hilarious in the fact that he's taken to referring to himself in the third person.

"Watch how the gamer cleverly sneaks behind enemy lines...to rack up the kills."

Honestly, I think this dude is going to be the next big creationists that will stir up controversy on YouTube. He's had Ray Comfort, GEERUP, and NephilimFree on his pitiful erratically scheduled radio show. He's the shit that flies hover about.

I think the linked video serves as a decent character study of the man. Did I mention that he misleadingly refers to himself in the third person on his own video for God knows what reason?
 
arg-fallbackName="JustBusiness17"/>
That guy has one of the most inflated egos ever. He tries to talk like he actually knows something about debate and then asks for proof that "atheism is true".... Really knows a lot about science asking stingers like that (never mind the negative proof fallacy). I even heard him refer to Egenie Scott as a "him" after quote mining her.

He's a fool and only he doesn't know it :facepalm:
 
arg-fallbackName="Nautyskin"/>
JustBusiness17 said:
He tries to talk like he actually knows something about debate and then asks for proof that "atheism is true"....
Click to expand...

That 'prove that atheism is true' is one of my most hated of all the idiotic things theists say. William Lane Craig uses it as his opener in every debate he has. How can they argue against something they don't even understand? He's not a stupid man, but he says the stupidest shit you could imagine. Can he honestly not see how fucked up the things are that he's saying?
 
arg-fallbackName="pendulousphallus"/>
JustBusiness17 said:
That guy has one of the most inflated egos ever. He tries to talk like he actually knows something about debate and then asks for proof that "atheism is true".... Really knows a lot about science asking stingers like that (never mind the negative proof fallacy). I even heard him refer to Egenie Scott as a "him" after quote mining her.

He's a fool and only he doesn't know it :facepalm:
Click to expand...

He's a shining example of the claim that some theists aren't interested in being right, that they're only interested in being heard. He misleads people into thinking he called into the Atheist Experience and didn't get cut down by Matt's razor tongue.

This dude has a huge personality and I enjoy his videos because of that personality. I feel that I can get into the mind of a creationist just that much more easily by following his antics.
 
arg-fallbackName="JustBusiness17"/>
Nautyskin said:
JustBusiness17 said:
He tries to talk like he actually knows something about debate and then asks for proof that "atheism is true"....
Click to expand...

That 'prove that atheism is true' is one of my most hated of all the idiotic things theists say. William Lane Craig uses it as his opener in every debate he has. How can they argue against something they don't even understand? He's not a stupid man, but he says the stupidest shit you could imagine. Can he honestly not see how fucked up the things are that he's saying?
Click to expand...



This is the most annoying 30 minutes of shock being a douche trying to set up an online debate. He spends a huge amount of time trying to get enough airtime to ask his ridiculous fallacy. I'm pretty sure this is the video where shock says that god is on his side and gives him the strength to "always get his way" - which was somehow proof of god to him.
 
arg-fallbackName="pendulousphallus"/>
Half an hour of Shock being rude? Sure, I'll watch it. Not like I've got a whole lot else going on.

Also, I wonder how long it will take for him to bring up Santa Syndrome.
 
arg-fallbackName="Ce4or"/>
He brandishes his favorite question "prove that atheism is accurate and correct" around like it's the ultimate smackdown
to me it doesn't even sound like a real question .
 
arg-fallbackName="Nautyskin"/>
JustBusiness17 said:
This is the most annoying 30 minutes of shock being a douche trying to set up an online debate.
Click to expand...
I've got enough stress in my life without having to worry about the willfully mentally-handicapped.
 
arg-fallbackName="Nautyskin"/>
Ce4or said:
He brandishes his favorite question "prove that atheism is accurate and correct" around like it's the ultimate smackdown
to me it doesn't even sound like a real question .
Click to expand...
It's not.

It's the same as saying 'Prove that an amputee is correct'. Sheer nonsense.
 
arg-fallbackName="MRaverz"/>
pendulousphallus said:
Half an hour of Shock being rude? Sure, I'll watch it. Not like I've got a whole lot else going on.

Also, I wonder how long it will take for him to bring up Santa Syndrome.
Click to expand...
Twas painful to listen to, Shock should've been kicked within the first five minutes!
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Ce4or said:
He brandishes his favorite question "prove that atheism is accurate and correct" around like it's the ultimate smackdown
to me it doesn't even sound like a real question .
Click to expand...
That's because it isn't a real question. It is like saying "prove that not watching football is accurate and correct." I don't have to prove that not believing a claim is "accurate and correct", he needs to prove that his claim is accurate and correct. He thinks he's come up with a magical trump card, when what he's really done is show how stupid he is.
 
arg-fallbackName="pendulousphallus"/>
http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/12/-4Bhq-mZSCk

Last post I'll make on the topic. In this video, Shock talks about The Atheist Experience, provides and annotation with a link to a video where he calls into an atheist show while the annotation text implies that the audio is from The Atheist Experience. Following the annotation, Shock does his regular silly song and dance on a show that is, so far as I can see, NOT The Atheist Experience.

No idea what his motivation is concerning his dishonesty.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
pendulousphallus said:
No idea what his motivation is concerning his dishonesty.
Click to expand...
He clearly has a serious personality defect, so spreading falsehoods is to be expected. The question is, does he know he's spreading falsehoods, has he convinced himself that the things he says are true, or does he believe the things he says become true simply because he states them?
 
arg-fallbackName="pendulousphallus"/>
ImprobableJoe said:
pendulousphallus said:
No idea what his motivation is concerning his dishonesty.
Click to expand...
He clearly has a serious personality defect, so spreading falsehoods is to be expected. The question is, does he know he's spreading falsehoods, has he convinced himself that the things he says are true, or does he believe the things he says become true simply because he states them?
Click to expand...

I really need to get to work on that mind reading machine. Those are some decent questions you posed, wish I had a way to begin to answer them. I find the man fascinating.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
pendulousphallus said:
I really need to get to work on that mind reading machine. Those are some decent questions you posed, wish I had a way to begin to answer them. I find the man fascinating.
Click to expand...
I've found that it is tons more interesting to speculate about the inner workings and underlying assumptions and possible delusions of theists/creationists than to debunk them. Their arguments are usually hundreds of years old anyways, and have plenty of debunking that you can look up if you're interested. I'd rather question the foundational mindset than bother with any specific claims.
 
arg-fallbackName="pendulousphallus"/>
ImprobableJoe said:
I've found that it is tons more interesting to speculate about the inner workings and underlying assumptions and possible delusions of theists/creationists than to debunk them. Their arguments are usually hundreds of years old anyways, and have plenty of debunking that you can look up if you're interested. I'd rather question the foundational mindset than bother with any specific claims.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I think the only way we can begin to probe the workings of a fundie mind is to break and disallow them to run with stale argumentation by continually refuting these lines of "reason" as they bring them to the dialogue. By doing so, we found out what Neph was made of when he became desperate. We found a man who posed with an voice I believe he to don in the guise of intellectualism. He tries to sound smart by using words he doesn't quite understand. Then it turned out past the empty arguments that he was sponging off of the government by rooming with a stroke victim and taking her benefits. It seems to a complete non-sequitur [sp?].

I don't think it is. Where Neph was shown to be a sneaky mooch VFX was shown to be a rather innocent guy who was straining for something to believe in.

If Shock turns out to have a personal failing of the same magnitude I think it would be worth trying to speculate as to a common thread among fundies. I almost wish GEERUP had been around a bit longer so we could se what was going on in his life as we waged wars on YouTube.
 
arg-fallbackName="pendulousphallus"/>
Shock should totes call in AE if he's throwing down these challenges. Somebody message him and tell him so, I 'm blocked. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top