Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
30 Jun 2005 05:47:09 PM |
|
|
In article <xuqdnVgOYN-igFnfRVn-gw@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
Does "love" exist?
Why do you ask?
Simple Septic seems to think he has a right to ask questions but no
obligation to answer any.
One more example of Simple Septic having two sets of rules, one for
himself, and another for everyone else.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DenialSan |
30 Jun 2005 11:54:19 AM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:WSKwe.8822$rE6.7653@trnddc06...
Jones wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:AJHwe.6533$Ku6.6229@trnddc04...
Jones wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:sxFwe.11524$gm6.10968@trnddc05...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:x5Ewe.7392$dz6.2688@trnddc02...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:eLjwe.8376$Xr6.3144@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about
believing things without evidence?
Fallacy of bifurcation.
How do you figure that?
Before I answer that, answer me this question so I know how to
discuss things with you:
Does "love" exist?
You think God is love?
Answer the question. Does "love" exist?
Why can't you show the relevance first?
Psychological aspects.
What do you mean by 'psychological aspects', and what is the relevance?
How is human emotion, something known to be real, relevant to Johnny's
invisible God, not known to be real?
Belief is psychological.
Now, answer the fucking question!
There is no need to get angry and abusive. Try to stay calm. Do you have
some medication you can take?
No need. You just can't answer the question.
Does "love" exist?
Why do you ask?
Why can't you answer the question?
You seem to already KNOW that love is a real phenomenon. You
say you love Christianity.
....with the qualifier that Christianity stays in the church.
What could you possibly mean when you say, "I
love Christianity" if you don't know that the human emotion called love is
known to be a real phenomenon?
Look at the qualifier.
When are you going to explain where you are going with this, explain exactly
how human emotion, something known to be a real phenomenon, is relevant to
Johnny's invisible God, not known to be anything real?
Johnny's invisible God "belief" is real.
Now, can you answer the question?
Does "love" exist? No more pussyfooting. No more diversionary tactics.
No more weaseling. Just answer the question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
01 Jul 2005 09:47:22 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:%sVwe.7954$Iv6.6795@trnddc03...
JHC wrote:
You seem to already KNOW that love is a real phenomenon. You say you love
Christianity.
...with the qualifier that Christianity stays in the church.
Yet you still adore Christianity?
"I adore Christianity" is a theist thing to say. Atheists do not engage in
adoration of Christianity, Islam, or any other doctrine that there are
propositions like the tenets of Christianity or Islam for example, that men
ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence. Doctrines of that
type are rightfully despised, denied and repudiated, as immoral, not adored.
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do
not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
then accept it and live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
28 Jun 2005 02:57:49 AM |
|
|
In article <kYOdnXs-BPHXACLfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
DenialSan :
Why would I want to "deprogram" them?
Because, as every atheist knows (go ahead, ask around), believing things
without evidence is not the right thing to do, because it is contrary to
one of mankind's most basic principles.
...for atheists...
For anybody. There is a basic principle involved. Didn't your daddy teach
you the b - b - b - basics?
Watch out, Simple Septic, the stutter in your thinker is leaking out
your fingers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DanialSan |
28 Jun 2005 03:19:12 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <kYOdnXs-BPHXACLfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
DanielSan :
Why would I want to "deprogram" them?
Because, as every atheist knows (go ahead, ask around), believing things
without evidence is not the right thing to do, because it is contrary to
one of mankind's most basic principles.
...for atheists...
For anybody. There is a basic principle involved. Didn't your daddy teach
you the b - b - b - basics?
Watch out, Simple Septic, the stutter in your thinker is leaking out
your fingers.
Header fixed to remove the stupidity that is "DenialSan." Deep Thought,
what are you, 4?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
28 Jun 2005 01:33:58 PM |
|
|
Why do you say that the non-believers must just accept the fact that the
religious believe in things without evidence and not try to talk them out of
it, not try to convince them that believing things without evidence is NOT
the right thing to do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
30 Jun 2005 05:29:11 PM |
|
|
In article <5vedndQcI9mLBVzfRVn-tg@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
Why do you say that the non-believers must just accept the fact that the
religious believe in things
Because refusing to accept facts when there is good evidence for them is
at least as evil as accepting something as fact without any evidence.
And there is plenty of evidence that the religious do believe in things.
But Simple Septic is never content to just call a spade a spade without
imposing a moral judgement on those who use spades.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DenialSan |
28 Jun 2005 04:59:22 PM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
Why do you say that the non-believers must just accept the fact that the
religious believe in things without evidence and not try to talk them out of
it, not try to convince them that believing things without evidence is NOT
the right thing to do?
Because believing things without evidence *CAN* be the right thing to
do, depending on circumstances. You are committing the fallacy of
_bifurcation_. That it must be one or the other. It can be more than that.
"Believing in gods" and "believing one is a child molestor" are two
*TOTALLY* different things.
Believing in "gods" affects one person.
Believing one is a "child molestor" affects more than one.
However, if one begins telling OTHER people to believe in the "gods"
that one believes in, it now affects more than one.
There's the difference. More than one. Pay attention, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
29 Jun 2005 12:52:08 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:_Kjwe.8375$Xr6.6345@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
Why do you say that the non-believers must just accept the fact that the
religious believe in things without evidence and not try to talk them out
of it, not try to convince them that believing things without evidence is
NOT the right thing to do?
Because believing things without evidence *CAN* be the right thing to do
...
Never.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
30 Jun 2005 05:35:51 PM |
|
|
In article <ubydnWzHssNaQl_fRVn-hA@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:_Kjwe.8375$Xr6.6345@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
Why do you say that the non-believers must just accept the fact that the
religious believe in things without evidence and not try to talk them out
of it, not try to convince them that believing things without evidence is
NOT the right thing to do?
Because believing things without evidence *CAN* be the right thing to do
...
Never.
Refusal to believe in anything enough to take some action act when
immediate action is required to avoid immediate disaster is a wrong
thing to do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
27 Jun 2005 12:04:26 AM |
|
|
In article <HtKdncX_JvMu1SLfRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:7_Fve.2913$Uc2.2579@trnddc03...
Deep Thought wrote:
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence.
Not if we can deprogram the sheep,
Why would I want to "deprogram" them?
Because, as every atheist knows, believing things without evidence is not
the right thing to do
Except that Simple Septic, beleives a lot of things without evidence,
since neither he, nor anyone else, has the time or energy to verify
everything that he believes in.
One of the things that Simple Septic beleives, for which he will never
get evidence because it is not true, is that the principles of logic
when applied to him work differently that when applied to others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
27 Jun 2005 01:24:35 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-7DD0DF.23042626062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <HtKdncX_JvMu1SLfRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:7_Fve.2913$Uc2.2579@trnddc03...
Deep Thought wrote:
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence.
Not if we can deprogram the sheep,
Why would I want to "deprogram" them?
Because, as every atheist knows, believing things without evidence is not
the right thing to do
Except that Simple Septic, beleives a lot of things without evidence,
since neither he, nor anyone else, has the time or energy to verify
everything that he believes in.
One of the things that Simple Septic beleives, for which he will never
get evidence because it is not true, is that the principles of logic
when applied to him work differently that when applied to others.
[Look at this moron. He thinks he is a mind reader!]
---
One of mankind's most basic principles:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of [is convinced,
believes] the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That which Agnostics deny
and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are
propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" 1889
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do
not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
then accept it and live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
28 Jun 2005 12:14:21 PM |
|
|
In article <-dKdncjYpdp2BiLfRVn-1g@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
Except that Simple Septic, believes a lot of things without evidence,
since neither he, nor anyone else, has the time or energy to verify
everything that he believes in.
One of the things that Simple Septic beleives, for which he will never
get evidence because it is not true, is that the principles of logic
when applied to him work differently that when applied to others.
[Look at this moron. He thinks he is a mind reader!]
This is merely an inevitable deduction from Simple Septic's posts, in
which he criticizes others for doing what he regularly does.
As for reading Simple Septic's mind. I'm not even sure he has one, much
less that there would be anything to read in it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
28 Jun 2005 12:28:17 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-1AF1B8.11142128062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-dKdncjYpdp2BiLfRVn-1g@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
... Simple Septic, believes a lot of things without evidence ...
[Look at this moron. He thinks he is a mind reader!]
This is merely an inevitable deduction ...
Not a logical deduction.
Virgil here presents with evidence he believes agnosticism is about
knowledge, when actually it is about irrational religious belief! Tsk tsk.
His delusional disorder is acting up again.
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do
not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
then accept it and live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
29 Jun 2005 12:08:32 AM |
|
|
In article <5ZydneuHzPYsFVzfRVn-oA@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-1AF1B8.11142128062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-dKdncjYpdp2BiLfRVn-1g@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
... Simple Septic, believes a lot of things without evidence ...
[Look at this moron. He thinks he is a mind reader!]
This is merely an inevitable deduction ...
Not a logical deduction.
Depends on whose logic, and whose ox is being gored.
Simple Septic's logic may not allow it because it gores his ox, but in
everyone else's logic, especially those whom oxlike Simple Septic tries
so futilely to gore, it is an inevitable conclusion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
26 Jun 2005 08:22:47 PM |
|
|
In article <PbOdnRfNndVFRyPfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence.
Not if we can deprogram the sheep, show them that believing things without
evidence is not the right thing to do
How does that change the fact that they are doing it?
Simple Septic is again having reading problems. "DanielSan" merely says
you must accept the fact of what the religious are doing.
That is, unless one does as Simple Septic often does and denies what is
actually going on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DanialSan |
26 Jun 2005 09:16:39 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <PbOdnRfNndVFRyPfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence.
Not if we can deprogram the sheep, show them that believing things without
evidence is not the right thing to do
How does that change the fact that they are doing it?
Simple Septic is again having reading problems. "DanielSan" merely says
you must accept the fact of what the religious are doing.
That is, unless one does as Simple Septic often does and denies what is
actually going on.
Wow. You spelled my name correctly. I've found people that get pissed
off at me spell my name "DanialSan." Wonder why this is. I mean, it's
not hard to spell, is it? Who in this world is named "Danial?" If it's
a bridge to "DenialSan," I'll let you in on something: Playground
mentality is for children. Grow up.
Thanks. Now please spell my name correctly as Virgil has done. :-) A
before E, folks. A before E.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
27 Jun 2005 01:48:48 AM |
|
|
... Now please spell my name correctly ...
Okay, DenialSan.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
27 Jun 2005 01:52:53 AM |
|
|
Virgin:
How does that change the fact that they are doing it?
Well DUH! If they stop doing it, that changes the fact, moron.
We can deprogram the sheep, show them that believing things without
evidence is not the right thing to do, because it is contrary to one of
mankind's most basic principles:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of [is convinced,
believes] the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That which Agnostics deny
and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are
propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" 1889
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do
not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
then accept it and live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
28 Jun 2005 03:01:31 AM |
|
|
In article <8-CdnZgCj9OmPyLfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgin:
How does that change the fact that they are doing it?
Well DUH!
The previus peak of Simple Septic's eloquence has just been surpassed!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
28 Jun 2005 01:27:59 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3B01EE.02013128062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <8-CdnZgCj9OmPyLfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgin:
How does that change the fact that they are doing it?
Well DUH! If they stop doing it, that changes the fact, moron.
We can deprogram the sheep, show them that believing things without
evidence is not the right thing to do, because it is contrary to one of
mankind's most basic principles:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of [is convinced,
believes] the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That which Agnostics deny
and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are
propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" 1889
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do
not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
then accept it and live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
The previus peak of Simple Septic's eloquence has just been surpassed!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
30 Jun 2005 05:24:50 PM |
|
|
In article <g7Wdnch-FKwyC1zfRVn-rA@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3B01EE.02013128062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <8-CdnZgCj9OmPyLfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgin:
How does that change the fact that they are doing it?
Well DUH!
Simple Septic at his eloquent best again?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DenialSan |
28 Jun 2005 04:55:05 PM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3B01EE.02013128062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <8-CdnZgCj9OmPyLfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgin:
How does that change the fact that they are doing it?
Well DUH! If they stop doing it, that changes the fact, moron.
We can deprogram the sheep...
Or we can allow them free reign to do what they want... as long as it
stays within the church.
(If you snip this qualifier, I'm going to have to point out the fallacy
of diversion of "ignoratio elenchi".)
Good luck refuting this without snipping.
show them that believing things without
evidence is not the right thing to do,
Why?
because it is contrary to one of
mankind's most basic principles:
You mean, one of Huxley's most basic principles.
Do something for me:
Prove "love" exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
29 Jun 2005 01:01:43 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:ZGjwe.8370$Xr6.4093@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3B01EE.02013128062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <8-CdnZgCj9OmPyLfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgin:
How does that change the fact that they are doing it?
Well DUH! If they stop doing it, that changes the fact, moron.
We can deprogram the sheep...
Or we can allow them free reign to do what they want...
Of course. In a free country people are free to be part of any idiotic cult.
But also in a free country, I am fee to try to help the sheep see the folly
of believing things without evidence. You don't like to see people being
sold snake oil by slick salesmen, do you sir? Don't we owe it to the people
to protect them from scams?
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
30 Jun 2005 05:38:43 PM |
|
|
In article <ov6dncanKe-bf1_fRVn-uw@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:ZGjwe.8370$Xr6.4093@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3B01EE.02013128062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <8-CdnZgCj9OmPyLfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgin:
How does that change the fact that they are doing it?
Well DUH! If they stop doing it, that changes the fact, moron.
We can deprogram the sheep...
Or we can allow them free reign to do what they want...
Of course. In a free country people are free to be part of any idiotic cult.
But also in a free country, I am fee to try to help the sheep see the folly
of believing things without evidence. You don't like to see people being
sold snake oil by slick salesmen, do you sir? Don't we owe it to the people
to protect them from scams?
Then 'they' must have equal right to protect people from what they see
as your scams. And 'they' are in the majority.
Or does Simple Septic feel that he is more equal that others?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DenialSan |
29 Jun 2005 04:14:13 PM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:ZGjwe.8370$Xr6.4093@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3B01EE.02013128062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <8-CdnZgCj9OmPyLfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgin:
How does that change the fact that they are doing it?
Well DUH! If they stop doing it, that changes the fact, moron.
We can deprogram the sheep...
Or we can allow them free reign to do what they want...
Of cour | | | | | | | |
