Origin Story for this Channel: Theist challenged everyone to a debate... until I called their Bluff!

We have many theists who run from debates, such as @James ‪@EdithBromfeld‬ ‪@JimCastleberry‬ ‪@neverendingparty4832‬ ‪@neverendingparty1534‬ ‪@wrencestondwanson3437‬ and more. But there's one ‪@damonkenny7818‬ /‪@damonkenny3444‬, aka Damonkey, who is "special".
Damonkey had goaded multiple atheists on ‪@TheAtheistExperience‬ channel comment section, including ‪@ajclements4627‬ ‪@holgerlubotzki3469‬ ‪@amtlpaul‬ ‪@sideboob6851‬ ‪@tonyclements1147‬ and more to debate him IRL. He even said that he would make the arrangements. He said he's debated MANY atheists and had a LOT of experience debating. And he goaded on the atheists, calling them cowards and lamenting that no atheist was willing to debate him.
But as soon I called him on his bluff, the excuses came out. And after being SO eager to debate atheists, he's lost his appetite. It's almost as if he's afraid to debate me. But maybe I'm wrong. Check back next week and see if he shows up. But don't bet a $1M on it. Ask ‪@eggheadusa‬ on whether bets like that is wise.

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

It looks like you've doubled up, restarting with "hello everyone" again at 5:45

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

Thanks for letting me know. I've edited it. It might take a few minutes to get updated online.

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

​@@ChallengeYourBeliefs 👌😁

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

​@@ChallengeYourBeliefs and the edit is now live. 👍

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs I sent you an email... Did you get it?

[@nealjroberts4050]

I always found it funny that immediately after Q accepted _DK's own challenge_ to a debate DK suddenly had a myriad of excuses not to go through with it. 😂

[@damonkenny3444]

QC lies about the truth. I challenged QC to a debate about Hegel and annihilated him with scores of citations proving Hegel commits to God as the proper name for Absolute-Spirit. Buried him in the comment section and he just couldn’t admit defeat. He just Gish galloped and piled up hundreds of aimless irrelevant lies, nothing to do with the point. It was then I realised that QC completely rejects all citations and completely lies about books he’s never even read. He had never even read Hegel. Boy what a liar I discovered QC to be.

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@damonkenny3444 I was there. No you didn't. I remind you that lying won't make your beliefs true by default.

[@damonkenny3444]

@@nealjroberts4050 You are a habitual liar who can’t think straight.

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

​@@damonkenny3444You get demolished, then call YOUR lack of knowledge a Gish gallop by the other side. It's hilarious! We've all seen how you think a few words out of context demonstrates that you know what you are talking about, but you cannot even understand the passage to know how wrong you are! 🤦🤣🤣🤣

[@damonkenny3444]

@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 You can’t even read a citation without abusing twenty people and blaming them because you can’t read.

[@yosef6664]

Where's the guests on the livestreams? There are none. Is this a joke?

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

The one who started all this, @damonkenny3444 is here in the comments, but says nothing about following up on all the challenges he made to debate atheists and how confident he is that he would win in 5 minutes. So much false bravado from this poser of a word-salad generating fake high-school dropout philosopher-wannabe.

[@ZeitgeistOmega]

I’d debate him, but he’s worse than DIVA is. Therefore, my blood pressure will start to spike and my brain would rot faster than what any drug could do.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

@ZeitgeistOmega He would be horrible to debate. That's why when he initially challenged people, no one wanted to because it would have been bad. I agreed only because I knew he was lying about having debated and he was bluffing. I knew he wouldn't have.

[@ZeitgeistOmega]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs You’re right, he would be. I just wanted to point out how bad it would be. So, better to just let him stew around in the comments section, acting like the @$$ he’s always been.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs I'm thinking of removing all the posts by paultimson6674. My reasons are, Paul is not playing with a full deck, he needs medical help and I don't like to give a platform to people who obviously have some sort of mental problem. Let me know if you're OK with me doing so.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

🤣 The idea that Q.E is doing this for "sweet sweet YT money" 🤣 Any bloody channel that has me on live is not get any sodding YT money because I fecking swear, so YT will demonetise the video.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

Humm video uploaded 12mins ago and 3 views, two likes. I thinks that some godling troll has a crush on Q.E.

[@nealjroberts4050]

Who is more credible? 1) A recorded plagiarist who gets philosophy and science wrong then lies about it while throwing accusations. 2) Someone who presents the posts and citations backing up their arguments about philosophy etc. Some monkey posters want you to think it's #1 and they'll go through their predictable dance steps while everyone else laughs at them. While that is entertaining I still pick #2 as they've demonstrated they are reliably honest and factual.

[@nealjroberts4050]

See ☝️ Deflection and disingenuousness all in display

[@damonkenny7818]

@@nealjroberts4050 "Kant's Categories are not ontological... the name is the ontological" predicates. But the way Kant uses it is not to refer to the ontology of things." -QC 😂😂

[@damonkenny7818]

🤢 Gawd I wanna puke just reading his incoherent gibberish comments

[@damonkenny7818]

@@nealjroberts4050 “Wow! I didn't even look into it too much. I just saw that it was NOT in the Critique of Pure Reason as it didn't have the section that he mentioned. And when 1 searched for it, it showed that it was an exerpt from the Critique of Judgment, but I didn't realize it was the translator's introduction. 1 WAS confused that Kant was being imprecise in his terminology. But that explains it.” -QC

[@damonkenny7818]

Oh god 🤢 make it stop

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

This whole thing started because Damonkey thought that he could lie and bluff his way to shutting down atheists by pretending that he's debated atheists and that he could challenge atheist to a debate to shut them down. DK: I challenge you to a debate. Set it up Me: I accept let's debate. Dk:... Me: Well? Let's debate. Are you running away? DK: Uh... uh... Well, you lied about Hegel, so i will never debate you! By far, this is my favorite excuse. DK can't pretend that he mean debate in the comments and not irl (though he did try this excuse). So instead, he's doing it for the principle. To protect Hegel's honor. 😂 Because of course disagreeing with someone or thinking that someone is wrong about something isn't a reason to have the debate. It's a reason to call the other person a liar and run away.😂😂😂 It's SO transparent with all these cowards.

[@vertigo4236]

Who cares about Hegel? Followers of hegelianism can't agree about his work. The idea of having a discussion about Hegels philosophy with Kenny is, is as close to hell as I could ever be.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

@@vertigo4236 Apparently anyone who doesn't agree with DK's broken conception of Hegel are all "lying", according to Damonkey. The entire literature in Hegelian scholarship is apparently full of liars, according to Damonkey. And if he thinks he's right, he should be even MORE eager to debate me and show me up ON record so that IF I am wrong, I would be found out. But for some reason, that is NOT the case. It's almost like he's afraid to debate me because he KNOWS that I know more about philosophy than he ever will.

[@DamonKenny-gp3nq]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs "The entire literature in Hegelian scholarship is full of liars, according to DamonK". Wow what an utterly false and obvious lie you are spreading about me. QC you are a liar bro a complete and utter liar. My position that Hegel commits to God as the proper name for the Notion of Absolute-Spirit is irrefutable as per the citations.

[@DamonKenny-gp3nq]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs QC you have an addiction to completely lying about people. Your only hope is to somehow gish gallop and pile up thousands of lies about me and others who you despise.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

@DamonKenny-gp3nq OK. Give me the citation of any Hegelian scholar that says that the Absolute Spirit is your singular god.

[@amtlpaul]

Seems like this video has got under DK's skin

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

Well, to be fair, it doesn't take much to get under those who are thin-skinned.

[@nealjroberts4050]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say Q has an addiction to exposing lies and liars? That's why this channel exists. DK bluffed a challenge and Q accepted. That DK ran away lying about it is just gravy.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

I can find no fault in your logic🍻

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@ookekklibarianbornagain6708 The clarity of a long lie in 😉

[@damonkenny3444]

I’ve told QC I will never debate him. That’s why he made an entire channel dedicated to attacking me.

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@damonkenny3444 Persecution complex too 😆😂🤣

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

​@@nealjroberts4050Yeah. I'm holding weekly live streams every week to "attacking" someone who can only understand the literal philosophical terms and can only spew word salad. Yeah. That's it.🤣

[@ryvercardn3387]

Hey QC! Nice channel🤘

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

Thank you. I'm glad you caught the origin story video. You can thank Damonkey for the creation of this channel.😂😂😂 Though he's too afraid now to debate atheists. 😂

[@ryvercardn3387]

That tracks. I was rather surprised at the list of familiar "faces". I was less surprised to see the behaviors of folks like Jedith to be standard across the board.

[@EdGein542]

I’m going to give you an example of why it’s a waste of time to debate QC and his uneducated minions. I told him the bonds between amino acids that form functional proteins is called an Alpha bond, I told him this is because the alpha C1 must bond to the alpha N2. Amino acids can connect with other bonds but it must be the alpha bond that makes them functional….that’s why it’s called an alpha bond to point specifically to that functional bond. QC lies and says it’s not called the alpha bond even after giving him the exact bond, he twist words claiming you said things you did not….his uneducated minions just chime in things like “you don’t understand chemistry “ but cannot say why. QC acts like a child….even when you provide him with a source to back your claims he refuses to ever admit he is wrong so he lies and twists your words. Neal just parrots whatever he says.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

It's not an alpha bond. That's a matter of fact. NO scientist calls the alpha peptide bond an "alpha bond". It's like no one calls the bond in a 1,1-dimethylcyclohexane a "1-1 bond". That's not how chemistry nomenclature works. The name of bonds like a peptide bond doesn't come from the structural variant of a molecule. And amino acids do not connect with other bonds. Different variants of amino acids, such as the beta and gamma amino acids STILL form peptide bonds. But those bonds are not named after the amino acid variant. An alpha amino acid can form a peptide bond with a beta amino acid. Do you know what they call that bond? A PEPTIDE bond. OMG! You would KNOW this if you had a minor in biochemistry. In fact, you would know this if you were a bright high school student taking high school chemistry. I REALLY don't understand why you are still pursuing this. You are factually wrong. Just take the L.

[@EdGein542]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs Clueless. You have no education in biochemistry so your opinion is worthless. I was taught in college the term alpha bond and had to be able to draw the structure of each amino acid and to show exactly how they formed functional alpha peptide bonds. Your example is not relevant to the topic. It’s called an alpha peptide bond …..there are other bonds that can form peptides that do not form functional proteins. Lie some more QC.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

@@EdGein542 Show me ONE paper where they refer to the alpha peptide bond as the "alpha bond". Go ahead. I'll wait... and wait... and wait. Because NO SCIENTIST calls it an "alpha bond". And EVEN you said, "show exactly how they formed functional alpha *peptide* bonds." Even YOU don't call it an alpha bond. You call it a peptide bond. Thanks for proving me right. It's called an alpha PEPTIDE bond, NOT an ALPHA bond like you claimed. You are LITERALLY arguing against yourself.

[@EdGein542]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs Wow…I told you guys, QC twisting words again. Alpha refers to a specific peptide bond….there are others that don’t work. Simple concept. Same thing as calling something a Civic Hatchback instead of just a Honda. Ouch.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

@@EdGein542 You said it's called an "alpha bond". And are you now changing your story and saying that you have been saying "alpha peptide bond"? But a more accurate version of your analogy is you saying that an alpha peptide bond is called an "alpha bond" by a real scientist. NO SCIENTIST calls an alpha peptide bond an "alpha bond" like you claim. Why can't you understand that?

[@paultimson6674]

happy HALLOWEEN

[@Ghalaghor_McAllistor]

Love me some pagan holidays.

[@EdGein542]

In my debate with the uneducated crew, they made claims that a self replicating ribozyme inside a lipid bubble was life because it was creating more of itself. I provided a source that said self replicating ribozymes have never been seen in nature…. Explained that creating more ribozymes would require more molecules to enter the lipid bubble without any active force….they didn’t understand this would go against the concentration gradient and could not happen. They refuse to accept the facts. I told them proteins cannot form outside a living cell because the bonds are too weak and water molecules break them apart. I explained there are chaperone proteins that protect the folding of proteins inside a cell…. I then challenged them to find one source that shows I’m wrong….they could not. Instead, QC just wanted to argue about the fact I said the the chaperone proteins formed a protective “ bubble” around the folding protein….it is an easy term for encapsulation……QC just focused on the term bubble to avoid admitting he’s wrong about proteins. Like I said, like debating a child. Waste of time.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

More Glen lies: "they made claims that a self replicating ribozyme inside a lipid bubble was life." Glen doesn't think that you can go from the starting line of a marathon to the finish line because the first step doesn't take you immediately to the finish line.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

And no. You didn't challenge anyone to give you one "source". Because for you, the "source" cannot be about ANY research with man-made experiments. Because you don't understand that scientific experiments are done by men and not talking donkeys.

[@EdGein542]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs See guys….QC has to twist words. They specifically said there were self replicating ribozymes inside lipid bubbles and that was life. I didn’t say it they did. QC adding nonsense about a finish line to try to avoid being wrong again.

[@EdGein542]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs More QC lies. I clearly explained that man made meant man manipulated meaning they did things and used chemicals that cannot exist in nature and nature cannot change pH, filter, use pure chemicals, stop reactions before the product degrades then isolate it…..all man manipulation. Junk science. More QC lies.

[@amtlpaul]

​So according to ​@@EdGein542, the only reason to believe that something could have happened is to go back in time to witness it first hand. Ed claims that it's not allowed to artificially replicate conditions in which abiogensis could have happened because of... reasons.

[@EdGein542]

There is no point in debating QC….he lies and avoids answering the questions he cannot answer.

[@amtlpaul]

Keep whining

[@nealjroberts4050]

So you've not come to pretend things about chemistry then? And after we worked out where you got the erroneous "alpha bond" thing from.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

😂😂😂 Oh look. You are back after running away once it was SO obvious that you are not a biochemist or a microbiologist. Never been inside a lab.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

@@nealjroberts4050 🤣Yeah. The peptide bond that he thinks everyone calls alpha bonds.🤣🤣🤣 What a faker he is.

[@nealjroberts4050]

​@@ChallengeYourBeliefs It reminds me of DK's inorganic benzene and salt decay claims 😂

[@damonkenny3444]

QC lies about the truth. I challenged QC to a debate about Hegel and annihilated him with scores of citations proving Hegel commits to God as the proper name for Absolute-Spirit. Buried him in the comment section and he just couldn’t admit defeat. He just Gish galloped and piled up hundreds of aimless irrelevant lies, nothing to do with the point. It was then I realised that QC completely rejects all citations and completely lies about books he’s never even read. He had never even read Hegel. Boy what a liar I discovered QC to be.

[@vertigo4236]

Ohhhh Kenny😂 Your self delusion is a hell of a drug.🤣

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

You get demolished, then call YOUR lack of knowledge a Gish gallop by the other side. It's hilarious! We've all seen how you think a few words out of context demonstrates that you know what you are talking about, but you cannot even understand the passage to know how wrong you are! 🤦🤣🤣🤣

[@vertigo4236]

@@damonkenny3444 I see what for a "master" debater you are😂 Did you spend 15 years in kindergarden to "study" your "philosophy"?🤣 Never stop being our little dancing monkey😂

[@damonkenny3444]

@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 “Kant's Categories are not ontological… the name is the ontological" predicates. But the way Kant uses it is not to refer to the ontology of things.” QC 😂😂

[@damonkenny3444]

@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 ^^^^ 😂😂

[@Jesse-JC]

I have a very honest question for you and your panelists... If the evidence for Jesus Christ being truth, meaning, the evidence holds weight that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and is God, would any of you all accept Him? Would you believe in Him as your God, Lord, and Savior? Or, will you reject Him no matter what?

[@amtlpaul]

How is this relevant? First demonstrate that the claims are actually true. Since you cannot do that, the issue of acceptance does not arise.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

I would accept him as someone who was able to "come back to life". If you could show physical evidence that he ACTUALLY died. There are MANY people who seemed to have come back to life after being misdiagnosed as being dead. Will you accept them as your savior?

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

We could do hypotheticals until the heat death of the universe and it wouldn't make a jot of difference. Do you have any actual evidence that _Yeshua_ came back from the dead, or that he is God, or even that ANY kind of god exists, or ever existed?

[@Jesse-JC]

@@amtlpaul It's profoundly relevant. If your mindset is set in stone and there's nothing anyone can do or show you that can change your mind, then two things happen. First, the person is wasting their time with you. Second, you will never look at any evidence with honest reason. If someone, on the other hand, showed me more evidence, NOT PROOF, that atheism is the truth, then I would become an atheist in an instant. And I say evidence because PROVING something to be true can be nearly impossible.... especially when discussing God. But, I do believe that if evidence leans more to one side, then that side needs to be considered. But, again... if your mindset is already predetermined, it will be extremely difficult to have an honest look at the evidence. Took me a long time to work through this myself. My mind was so set that there was no God and if there was a God, He was obviously done messing around with us. It wasn't until I buried my presuppositions that I was able to honestly look into this stuff and come out with a nonbiased decision.

[@Jesse-JC]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs What kind of physical evidence would suffice? Obviously, I can't go grab Jesus and put Him in front of you. And yes, many people have had NDE's. However, medical professionals/doctors have already determined that what Jesus Christ went through, there is no doubt in their mind that He died on that cross. Some are surprised He survived as long as He did on that cross. Not only that, they put Him in a tomb afterwards with zero medical assistance to bring Him back. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that He was dead. Which is why the resurrection was so shocking.

[@paultimson6674]

You guys want to control the MUTE button. talk over people. If you want to debate people do it on a stage. Give equal time. have a moderator. You just want to mug people.

[@wyldink1]

You lost? Queuecee doesn't mute anyone on his vids.

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

You clearly haven't watched any episodes, because of you had, you would know that Quecee gives the guests PLENTY of time. Just because they are trying to run away and change the topic, doesn't mean that anyone has to put up with that.

[@paultimson6674]

@@wyldink1 i've watched the videos that atheists set up, the poor caller is mugged, he starts to explain a complex subject, they interrupt and pick out one word and then they rip the piss out of people. You do not want a debate, you want to bully people. Using words like cowards and bluff. when YOU are describing yourself. We do not need to talk to you lot. We are leaving earth. We are going Home. You lot stay on earth with satan and starve. we try to wake you up before that happens. At this stage i say - its too late. So starve. Get the full SPA treatment from Satan. You deserve it. If you make it through the meat grinder. Then we will welcome you to heaven. If not? its MOOT. we do not need manipulative types in heaven. We had one Satan. We do not need more.

[@paultimson6674]

@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 I see we are a burden? to your finely tuned minds? lets see how you feel next year . when you are starving. And debating a non issue.

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

@@paultimson6674 oh Jesus! You are one of _them!_ 🤦🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@damonkenny3444]

For all visitors of this cope channel. QC does not believe philosophical concepts are evidence. ““And your point, "philosophical terms are definitions, not evidence," is what I've been saying over and over.” -QC As you can see he also thinks a term is a definition. But, the definition of the noun term says, a term “expresses a concept”, which is evidence for a valid belief.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

For all visitors of this channel DK thinks that just name dropping philosophical terms counts as evidence. For example: Christian: You have to show evidence that there's no god. Atheist: The evidence that no god exists is "skepticism" and "phenomenology". Christian: How is that evidence? That's just a term that expresses a concept. Atheist: But a wise word salad artist said that concepts are information which is evidence. Christian: Yep. Checks out. I agree. God doesn't exist.

[@damonkenny3444]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs The definition for the noun term, says a term expresses a concept. And, that’s evidence for a valid belief.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

🤦‍♂ Is ANYONE here surprised that Damonkey can't grasp the concept of evidence? But at least he agrees that I disproved the existence of god.

[@damonkenny3444]

⁠@@ChallengeYourBeliefs Evidence is a concept now is it????? (As you just claimed). A term expresses concepts by definition! So you just said a contradiction! 😂

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

​@@damonkenny3444 👈 yet another member of Troglodytarum pontii pusillanimitas, as proven by Quecee in this very video!

[@paultimson6674]

Matthew 25-13 - Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh WATCH? G1127 γρηγορεύω grēgoreuō gray-gor-yoo'-o From G1453; to keep awake, that is, watch (literally or figuratively): - be vigilant, wake, (be) watch (-ful). GREGORY. Jesus is pointing to GREGORY. Two Gregory Popes. have changed the CALENDAR we use. Pope Gregory , 8th century moves ALL SAINTS DAY to Oct 31st. Pope Gregory in the 16th Century renames every day? was it needed? SO he has rename Oct 21st to Oct 31st. this is a big thing. LIBRA ONE - first day of the seventh month. Aries is (1st) Libra(7th) So where is Libra one in 1582? Use Stellarium? and where is Libra one in year 2024. Use stellarium. This moves Libra one into HALLOWEEN. and so what occurs in LIBRA - JUDGEMENT. What occurs - The dead rise up. Rapture. What occurs in HALLOWEEN? All hallowed Eve. forget all the Hollywood BS. This is FEAST OF TRUMPETS moving through space and time. Over 6000 years. to arrive at HALLOWEEN. In the last decade of ISRAEL. Its at that date for 117 years. Then moves to November 1. (not Halloween) in year 2130AD Then moves to November 2(not Halloween) in year 2250AD. so only in this sensitive time range. Is Feast Of Trumpets at HALLOWEEN-ALL SAINTS DAY. So either this year? or maybe next year. I favour this year for other factors. The DEAD SHOULD RISE AT HALLOWEEN. its a fitting day. For JUDGEMENT. Judgement constellation, day 1. Feast of trumpets is called many names - Yom Teruah, Rosh Hashana, the day of awakening judgements, the opening of the books, the Hidden Day, the wedding of the messiah. A HIDDEN DAY. is my favourite. Its hidden as its a moving target. It was at Oct 4th at the time of Christ. It was at Oct 17th at the time of Gregory, and now its at oct 31st. The Essene Calendar, The true calendar is active. The SOLAR CALENDAR. The Jews use a Pharisee LUNAR calendar. The Pharisees killed Jesus. The Essenes would have welcomed him. Now if the dead do wake up at Oct 31st. A dead prophet called Moses should arrive on earth. He will preach to earth with Elijah the prophet for 3.5 years. Then they are killed by Satan. after three days they rise up. resurrected. Now on a solar calendar Jesus died on Aries day 14, he rose up on Aries day 17. that in our time is converted to May 1st, May 4th. Check with NASA? i did. So 3.5 solar years is equal to 1277-78 days. 365.25 x 3 plus 183 days. = 1278. Moses will die again on May 1st - Aries day 14. Nice numerical confirmation. He dies at Passover 2028. Or at Passover 2029. , if its 2028. then its a good fit. I have no issues. If its 2029. I have issues with it. As it is coming very close to the deadline. SO this year looks nice. Very ample timing. We can bag up all of the atheist scum. We can dispose of the garbage? WEEDS. throw them on a fire. If you identify as weeds? maybe stop being a weed. Live as a HUMAN being. an IMMORTAL SOUL. OWN IT. instead of denying God, LIVE TO YOUR POTENTIAL. Instead of living for your next wank? maybe be a MAN. instead of a chimpanzee. God will raise the dead, you have one chance after that to remain HUMAN. To get to HEAVEN. if you blow it. You are a chimp. and beasts do not reach heaven. they end up in hell. With a MARK.

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

☝️ And they're your are, spamming nonsense, but also doing exactly what you said you don't: claiming to know the date of the apocalypse, which the Bible says cannot be known. 🤦

[@amtlpaul]

"Well, it's not quite the conflagration we'd been banking on. Never mind, lads, same time tomorrow. We must get a winner one day."- Beyond the Fringe, "The End of the World"

[@paultimson6674]

@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 cannot be known if you do not look for it you mean? Did you look up the date when Libra starts? or are you stoopid?

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

​@@paultimson6674go get a sandwich board, stand on a street corner and yell at pedestrians. This is ridiculous.

[@paultimson6674]

​@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 you seem to think I want YOU in heaven? I don't CARE. Jesus is choosing his team. His family. You are either part of it. or are an ass. A problem child. I don't recruit. I warn you that soon it ends. EARTH is empty soon. and if you want to avoid the place called HELL. you have to pick up the pace. If you want hell? Do nothing. Go watch Netflix shows. Go Golfing. Go fk a nurse. But don't attack God because he's the only one that can stop you reaching HELL - EVERYONE ONE EARTH. will get FULL FACTS at an appropriate time. That is very soon. And then you VOTE. You cannot Vote today. The POLLS ARE NOT OPEN. You can canvass, you can talk shit, but on voting day you have all the info on the candidates. suppose before the USA election you hear Trump is sleeping with Putin? That might change your vote? SO God is saying Once the dead wake up. Then you vote. Not Today. As you still are unsure. So you get all the info first. Then you VOTE. I personally would skin you all. But i'm not God. I would use poetic justice, Turn you all into chimps. With no opposable thumbs. But God has his own methods. You are not going to VOTE until the election day. After HALLOWEEN? and it maybe Halloween 2024, or Halloween 2025. Personally i like Halloween 2024. It would screw with USA elections. NOBODY goes to hell.. without full knowledge. You lot seem to think a man can go to hell for sex? or thievery? You go to hell as an act of defiance. You are PROBLEM CHILDREN. TOXIC. MALICIOUS. You need to cross a spiritual wickedness line.

[@damonkenny3444]

“Where does he use the term "ontological predicates"? Go ahead. He said existence is not a predicate. Is that what you are confused about? He was critiquing the ontological argument. X Wow! You are sooooo *****. Tell me which page of the 50-100 pages of philosophy that you've read today where Kant says that his pure concepts of UNDERSTANDING are "ontological predicates". Do you REALLY like to make a fool of yourself by being SO wrong???” -QC
 Yet A Critique of Judgement, Introduction V, pg.21. Kant refers to the categories as ontological predicates (pure concepts of understanding). "For in order for us to cognize the proposition a priori in the first case, we must think the body only through ontological predicates (pure concepts of the understanding)"- Immanuel Kant

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

Don't be so dumb. I've pointed out how you were wrong to think that Kant's Categories are ontological. It's too bad that you couldn't understand the nuance and context of the quote. It's NOT saying that the Categories are ontological. It's epistemological. But this is a bit over your head. Maybe you should listen to a 3rd party who has a PhD in philosophy and actually teaches philosophy. Go tell HIM that you are right.

[@damonkenny3444]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs You appear to be trying to say you’re not wrong. But I’ve proved you’re a liar, with the citations.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

@@damonkenny3444 I'm not wrong. Kant's Categories are not ontological.

[@damonkenny3444]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs They’re ontological predicates as he calls them. That’s an absolute Fact. Dig that hole.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

@@damonkenny3444 Yes, the name is "ontological" predicates. But the way Kant uses it is not to refer to the ontology of things. For Kant, you can't directly access the ontology of the _Ding an sich._ Bu the ontological predicates, or the Categories, are the _a priori_ structures of understanding. I.e. epistemological. Sorry, this is probably a bit above your education level. But I explained it in the video. BTW, when someone gives you a hot dog, it's not really a "hot" dog. Know what I mean?