Profile

Cover photo
Rodney Mulraney
617 followers|157,108 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Rodney Mulraney

Shared publicly  - 
 
Everything you know about Darwin is wrong --probably...

Darwins finches ? Darwin didn't even know they were finches [until later], but he thought the mockingbirds were interesting... etc..etc..

There are a lot of myths about Darwin. Here an expert on the matter, explains where the myths are. Interesting stuff, if you are interested in such things.

Also all his published works are now online at : 

http://darwin-online.org.uk/
1
2
Brandon Petaccio's profile photoPkmmte Xeleon's profile photo
Add a comment...

Rodney Mulraney

Shared publicly  - 
 
Atheist troll Andreas, cowers in defeat

+Andreas Geisler So you clam the argument is question begging... which it is not, and you claim it is a fallacy, and you claim premise 2 is "unsound"... and you just assert all that, and when asked for reasons, you totally misrepresent the argument...
So not only do you totally fail to comprehend a simple logical argument, but in doing so you become confirmation of premise 2 yourself...

Also you call a known troll, +Bart Verveen because you obviously realise trolling torrents of nonsense is all you can do with this proof of God...

I love this argument :D thanks +Andreas Geisler !

-- The argument is posted here in my stream... just keeping this my last comment ... before bart torrent trolls the original... 

--classic andreas quotes; his previous comments ;

"You call that an argument? You're begging the question, silly."

"Theism is irrational. "The book says so" is not a valid reason to believe anything."

"Your premise is that atheism is irrational, and your conclusion is that atheism is irrational because god exists. There's even more fallacy in that than in +Keyser Soy Sauce's earlier argument.

Besides, your p2 is unsound."

"Bart Verveen Did +Rodney Mulraney block you for proving him wrong, yet?
If not, take a gander."


---- My last comment to the troll duo :

"My first comment presents a coherent argument, which you just assert with no reason "it somehow fails", and then completely ignore it and just continue to asset your erroneous understanding about other issues that honest people that actually understand the argument have progressed to discussing.
When pointed out on your recent error you claim "well what I wrote if could have been interpreted in some other way"... to try to worm your way out of your blatant error..

You and Bart both do this as a "debate style", you both deny "Grices maxims".... 
You both knowingly troll... 
You both have spent time arguing that trolling is a valid debate style."
1
1
Rodney Mulraney's profile photoJosual Williams's profile photoClint Udy's profile photo
150 comments
 
+Clint Udy So you agree with my argument, and are just tyring to rationally support atheism ?
All religions could be false and God could still be true, your argument is merely a fallacy.
Also even if there was no evidence of God; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
--there is tons of evidence of God though, you just ignore it.
Add a comment...

Rodney Mulraney

General Discussion  - 
 
How to avoid Hell ?

According to the Bible, many people that profess to have followed Jesus, will be told, go away, workers of evil... 

How can we be sure we are not headed for hell ? Even though we are Christians ?

----- Edit

Didn't Jesus say to the pharasees they were evil because they were of their father - the devil, who was a liar from the beginning ?

Jesus -- Truth, love.

Satan -- deceiver, liar..

So how to know we spread truth and not lies ?

It is imperative we learn completely Grices Maxims !!!
2
1
Nixon Contreras's profile photoRay Vaughn's profile photoRodney Mulraney's profile photoKen Lucas's profile photo
8 comments
 
+Ken Lucas I agree we can trust the Bible without question, it is all the other stuff that gets complicated, and we need logic, scientific education and things to discern things...
Most important is Grices Maxims though, as they help us in telling the difference [between liars spreading deceit and those not]in everyday speech/conversation.
Add a comment...

Rodney Mulraney

General Discussion  - 
 
Proof Atheism is False

Note; Agent-1 is a hypothetical agent that is rational, and holds that; God does not exist, is true, and has access to all the information that "normal humans today do"... Agent-1 is a hypothetical "thinking atheist".

1. If Atheism is true then Agent-1 is possible.
2. Agent-1 is not possible.
C. Therefore Atheism is false.

It goes without saying that if atheism is the true position it should be possible to hold that position rationally. I think arguing agaisnt premise 1 then, is arguing agaisnt the success of science itself.

If Agent-1 were possible atheist thought should be atleast as rational / irrational as any other supposed proposition, and at least its contrary.
However the more we think about the proposition the more absurd and defeating of rationality we find to be the implications seem to be.
Atheists tend to use very little arguments and majority engage in meme generation...
So I think it is much more probable that premise 2 is true, than it is false.

-edit;

As further evidence of premise 2, I supply the arguments I posted recently in the community "thinking atheist", and replies to them posts here;

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/GMHWBkWXoGq

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/T5Y897on4Z9

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/XreP24kG3Sd

And finally all atheists that claim atheism is a mere lack of belief in the claim of God existing are implying they support premise 2 as well.
1
Elsbeth Humphrey's profile photoTony M.'s profile photoRodney Mulraney's profile photosimon frost's profile photo
63 comments
 
+Nicholas Costa - Sorry, couldn't read your post.  Too long, too winded.  Keep it short!  LOL 
Add a comment...
 
Proof Atheism is False

Note; Agent-1 is a hypothetical agent that is rational, and holds that; God does not exist, is true, and has access to all the information that "normal humans today do"... Agent-1 is a hypothetical "thinking atheist".

1. If Atheism is true then Agent-1 is possible.
2. Agent-1 is not possible.
C. Therefore Atheism is false.

It goes without saying that if atheism is the true position it should be possible to hold that position rationally. I think arguing agaisnt premise 1 then, is arguing agaisnt the success of science itself.

If Agent-1 were possible atheist thought should be atleast as rational / irrational as any other supposed proposition, and at least its contrary.
However the more we think about the proposition the more absurd and defeating of rationality we find to be the implications seem to be.
Atheists tend to use very little arguments and majority engage in meme generation...
So I think it is much more probable that premise 2 is true, than it is false.

-edit;

As further evidence of premise 2, I supply the arguments I posted recently in the community "thinking atheist", and replies to them posts here;

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/GMHWBkWXoGq

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/T5Y897on4Z9

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/XreP24kG3Sd

And finally all atheists that claim atheism is a mere lack of belief in the claim of God existing are implying they support premise 2 as well.
1
Rodney Mulraney's profile photoAngelique Ang's profile photoChris Talbot's profile photo
16 comments
 
+Chris Talbot ha ha yes since I've know Rodney its the same.  Same accusations too.  But it's okay that he feels free to be himself.  Just as long as neither atheist or christian gets personally insulting to such an extent that it ruins the vibe of the community.
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
617 people
Tarun Gehlot's profile photo
Edilberto Duarte's profile photo
Pepijn Gaillard's profile photo
Noida Businesscentre's profile photo
kbharath bharathk's profile photo
Bettina Ascaino's profile photo
labeja caleps's profile photo
刘腾飞's profile photo
Chloe Cannon's profile photo

Rodney Mulraney

Shared publicly  - 
 
When who you trust for information is shown to be untrustworthy, how do you know who to trust ?

If some other body is created that we agree can be trusted, how long can they be trusted ?

Is it possible to create some guaranteed to be trustworthy body ? Or do we need to verify everything ourselves ?

If we need to verify everything ourselves, is there an easy formulae or set of rules we can use ?

How do we really save the world ? :D
 
Unholy alliances and revolving doors

Monsanto and TED: http://www.naturalnews.com/042112_TED_conferences_pseudoscience_GMO.html

Monsanto and the US government (starts 1 min 37 secs in):
[238] How Monsanto Runs Washington, Wal-Mart's War on Wages, & Ending the TPP
1
1
Rodney Mulraney's profile photoThomas Brandtstaetter's profile photoEric Price's profile photo
2 comments
 
Will truth win... hmm it is possible, since most people like to think they want to be with the truth.
But yeah I think you are right, it would need a universal movement of simple truth expanding knowledge, like Grices maxims for everything.
Add a comment...
 
Proof Atheism is False

Note; Agent-1 is a hypothetical agent that is rational, and holds that; God does not exist, is true, and has access to all the information that "normal humans today do"... Agent-1 is a hypothetical "thinking atheist".

1. If Atheism is true then Agent-1 is possible.
2. Agent-1 is not possible.
C. Therefore Atheism is false.

It goes without saying that if atheism is the true position it should be possible to hold that position rationally. I think arguing agaisnt premise 1 then, is arguing agaisnt the success of science itself.

If Agent-1 were possible atheist thought should be atleast as rational / irrational as any other supposed proposition, and at least its contrary.
However the more we think about the proposition the more absurd and defeating of rationality we find to be the implications seem to be.
Atheists tend to use very little arguments and majority engage in meme generation...
So I think it is much more probable that premise 2 is true, than it is false.

-edit;

As further evidence of premise 2, I supply the arguments I posted recently in the community "thinking atheist", and replies to them posts here;

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/GMHWBkWXoGq

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/T5Y897on4Z9

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/XreP24kG3Sd

And finally all atheists that claim atheism is a mere lack of belief in the claim of God existing are implying they support premise 2 as well.
1
Rodney Mulraney's profile photoJosual Williams's profile photopeean nat's profile photoRoger Jenks's profile photo
96 comments
 
+Josual Williams clearly you not only fail to understand basic logic, but also have no idea how science works either...
Please stop spamming your ignorance over my threads, thanks.
Add a comment...
 
Proof Atheism is False

Note; Agent-1 is a hypothetical agent that is rational, and holds that; God does not exist, is true, and has access to all the information that "normal humans today do"... Agent-1 is a hypothetical "thinking atheist".

1. If Atheism is true then Agent-1 is possible.
2. Agent-1 is not possible.
C. Therefore Atheism is false.

It goes without saying that if atheism is the true position it should be possible to hold that position rationally. I think arguing agaisnt premise 1 then, is arguing agaisnt the success of science itself.

If Agent-1 were possible atheist thought should be atleast as rational / irrational as any other supposed proposition, and at least its contrary.
However the more we think about the proposition the more absurd and defeating of rationality we find to be the implications seem to be.
Atheists tend to use very little arguments and majority engage in meme generation...
So I think it is much more probable that premise 2 is true, than it is false.

-edit;

As further evidence of premise 2, I supply the arguments I posted recently in the community "thinking atheist", and replies to them posts here;

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/GMHWBkWXoGq

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/T5Y897on4Z9

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/XreP24kG3Sd

And finally all atheists that claim atheism is a mere lack of belief in the claim of God existing are implying they support premise 2 as well.
1
Jayan M's profile photoRodney Mulraney's profile photoJoxua Luxor's profile photoBruce Lindman's profile photo
193 comments
Jayan M
 
+Bruce Lindman I am grateful to you(atheist) since you open my eyes every time you raise questions and I try to give answers. I grow stronger when you challenge me.
Add a comment...
 
Proof Atheism is False

Note; Agent-1 is a hypothetical agent that is rational, and holds that; God does not exist, is true, and has access to all the information that "normal humans today do"... Agent-1 is a hypothetical "thinking atheist".

1. If Atheism is true then Agent-1 is possible.
2. Agent-1 is not possible.
C. Therefore Atheism is false.

It goes without saying that if atheism is the true position it should be possible to hold that position rationally. I think arguing agaisnt premise 1 then, is arguing agaisnt the success of science itself.

If Agent-1 were possible atheist thought should be atleast as rational / irrational as any other supposed proposition, and at least its contrary.
However the more we think about the proposition the more absurd and defeating of rationality we find to be the implications seem to be.
Atheists tend to use very little arguments and majority engage in meme generation...
So I think it is much more probable that premise 2 is true, than it is false.

-edit;

As further evidence of premise 2, I supply the arguments I posted recently in the community "thinking atheist", and replies to them posts here;

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/GMHWBkWXoGq

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/T5Y897on4Z9

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/XreP24kG3Sd

And finally all atheists that claim atheism is a mere lack of belief in the claim of God existing are implying they support premise 2 as well.
1
Rodney Mulraney's profile photoLaura Cody's profile photo
116 comments
 
+Laura Cody Of course premise 2 makes sense, saying it does not is either dishonest or really stupid.
Add a comment...
 
Proof Atheism is False

Note; Agent-1 is a hypothetical agent that is rational, and holds that; God does not exist, is true, and has access to all the information that "normal humans today do"... Agent-1 is a hypothetical "thinking atheist".

1. If Atheism is true then Agent-1 is possible.
2. Agent-1 is not possible.
C. Therefore Atheism is false.

It goes without saying that if atheism is the true position it should be possible to hold that position rationally. I think arguing agaisnt premise 1 then, is arguing agaisnt the success of science itself.

If Agent-1 were possible atheist thought should be atleast as rational / irrational as any other supposed proposition, and at least its contrary.
However the more we think about the proposition the more absurd and defeating of rationality we find to be the implications seem to be.
Atheists tend to use very little arguments and majority engage in meme generation...(again, see this community for evidence, I am a theist, in case you wondered)
So I think it is much more probable that premise 2 is true, than it is false.

-edit;

As further evidence of premise 2, I supply the arguments I posted recently in this community "thinking atheist", and replies to them posts here;

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/GMHWBkWXoGq

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/T5Y897on4Z9

https://plus.google.com/110061950370826485627/posts/XreP24kG3Sd

And finally all atheists that claim atheism is a mere lack of belief in the claim of God existing are implying they support premise 2 as well.
1
Rodney Mulraney's profile photoMichael M's profile photo
18 comments
 
Maybe God will cause peace on earth and good will to all, before we develop that, but even if that occurs, it only takes one evil matrix loving scientist....
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
617 people
Tarun Gehlot's profile photo
Edilberto Duarte's profile photo
Pepijn Gaillard's profile photo
Noida Businesscentre's profile photo
kbharath bharathk's profile photo
Bettina Ascaino's profile photo
labeja caleps's profile photo
刘腾飞's profile photo
Chloe Cannon's profile photo
Work
Occupation
I work to save all humans in the long run
Links
Contributor to
Story
Tagline
fed up of technology and coorps abusing everyone
Introduction
well i dont think theres many with my name, and so anything i put here would be copied....so ... heh... theres no real way to know if im the right rod... 


Bragging rights
I feel uncomfortable bragging about my life in the "first world" when others are being tortured to give me that opportunity....
Basic Information
Gender
Male