Re: Creation Vs. Evolution



 Religions > Atheism > Re: Creation Vs. Evolution

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 2 of 8

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Puddleglum"
Date: 14 Nov 2005 09:35:42 PM
Object: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution
bob young wrote:

Puddleglum wrote:

bob young wrote:

Puddleglum wrote:

bob young wrote:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"The Truth Squad" <Flakey714@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1131380001.195100.58130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

"I have lost count of the number of times that this idiot has=

been

called
'Idiot'


Properly labled "A crossposting idiot"

Must be insanity.....Dickie keeps posting the same idiotic cr=

ap,

expecting a different outcome

People who hate God always focus their attention on His People =

and His

creations.
To hate God requires a person to actively participate in attemp=

ting to

debase his Things.
This makes you a God-Hating fool.


If you want someone to hate your god you need to produce him/her/=

it

first.


Not really. I think you're quite capable of hate without believing =

in

your saviour.

we simply feel sorry for weak minded idiots that grovel to imagin=

ary

things,
but that cannot be construed as hate, can it?


This is interesting since atheism is the cause of our decadent soci=

ety

today.


Care to provide a 'for instance'


Sure. For instance, only an atheist could condone the following: gay
marriage, gay priests, pedophilia, pornography, alcoholism, murder,
bestiality...etc.


HOW SICK you must be to catalogue those crimes they way you have.

I'm not trying to be *sick* on purpose. However, I agree that
alcoholism could be safely omitted. I only made one mistake.

You think this proves anything?

I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

Ever heard of the mums, [there are quite many each year in the USA] that =

kill

their children because they hear the 'voice of god telling them to do it'?

In reality they actually *don't* hear the voice of God. They're pawns
of Satan. Hence, atheists.

Remember Son of Sam:? He killed all those couples in their cars in cold b=

lood?

"God told me to kill them" he said
Have you EVER [no I thought not] studied the Spanish Inquisition and the =

mass of

murder and killings of innocents because some rampant fanatic turned them=

in

because he 'claimed' they did not follow your imaginary god??

False prophets will be numerous, and very successful:
Mat 24:11=C2=A0 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
2 Pet 2:1 [NIV] But there were also false prophets among the people,
just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly
introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who
bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Pet 2:2 [NIV] Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the
way of truth into disrepute.
2 Pet 2:3 [NIV] In their greed these teachers will exploit you with
stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging
over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
1 John 4:1=C2=A0 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits
whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into
the world.

You do not have the intelligence to understaand that there are:

'Religious fruitcakes' 'Atheists' 'Agnostics' plus those 'That just could=

not

care less'. The latter are not atheists, just try asking to one of them =

and you

will soon find out.

Nope. All of them are led by Satan as the Bible predicts; you either
believe in God, or you don't. It's that simple.

Don't be terrified of people that talk common sense about your silly supe=

rtition,

they mean no harm, they just feel sick at the sight of fellow human beings
groveling to 'NOTHING'

bob
Humanist Brit.

Opinion noted. The bit about common sense was humorous, too.
=E2=9C=A0 Pud
.

User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 16 Nov 2005 06:06:54 PM
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:

Puddleglum wrote:

Neil Kelsey wrote:

"You're simply unsatisfied with the truth so you resort to ad hominems.
Typical of the left."

OH! So you are vaguely familiar with logical fallacies! See if you can
identify the fallacy in YOUR quote below (from another post in this
thread):

"Also, Real Christians would NEVER molest children."


None present. If you think gay priests are actual Christians then you
are sorely mistaken. Reprobates are not under the grace of God.


Ah, bagpipes.

And you blow them well.

Reprobate -- A morally unprincipled person -- One who is predestined
to damnation -- Morally unprincipled; shameless -- Rejected by God and
without hope of salvation.


So god only forgives certain people? People like you?

Reprobates are the damned.
Pud
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 16 Nov 2005 09:50:33 AM
On 16 Nov 2005 06:38:09 -0800, "Puddleglum"
<ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote:


Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 15 Nov 2005 16:36:38 -0800, "Puddleglum"
<ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote:

<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:

"Puddleglum" <ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> suddenly spluttered:


Anaconda wrestlers for Jesus wrote:

"Puddleglum" <ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> suddenly spluttered:


Sure. For instance, only an atheist could condone the following: gay
marriage, gay priests, pedophilia, pornography, alcoholism, murder,
bestiality...etc.



Why? Please remember, you are talking to an atheist in alt.atheism, so
you are accusing me personally of rather a lot.


Incorrect. Not every atheist condones those things mentioned.


Big, or at least condescending of you, to admit it.


Sorry you're unhappy with the truth.


Calling it truth makes you a liar. A particularly nasty one given your
vicious slanders.


You're simply unsatisfied with the truth so you resort to ad hominems.

What "truth", liar? What "ad hominems", liar?
An extremely large subset of Christians see nothing wrong vicious
slanders against atheists, and turn even more nasty when we don't put
up with it. You seem to be one of them.

Typical of the left.

What "typical of the left"?, liar?
You have lied about atheists. The word for somebody who lie, is liar.
If you don't like it the solution is easy: stop lying. And stop being
a whining hypocrite as well.
.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 16 Nov 2005 12:26:08 PM
Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 16 Nov 2005 06:38:09 -0800, "Puddleglum"
<ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote:


Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 15 Nov 2005 16:36:38 -0800, "Puddleglum"
<ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote:

<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:

"Puddleglum" <ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> suddenly spluttered:


Anaconda wrestlers for Jesus wrote:

"Puddleglum" <ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> suddenly spluttered:


Sure. For instance, only an atheist could condone the follo=

wing: gay

marriage, gay priests, pedophilia, pornography, alcoholism,=

murder,

bestiality...etc.



Why? Please remember, you are talking to an atheist in alt.athei=

sm, so

you are accusing me personally of rather a lot.


Incorrect. Not every atheist condones those things mentioned.


Big, or at least condescending of you, to admit it.


Sorry you're unhappy with the truth.


Calling it truth makes you a liar. A particularly nasty one given your
vicious slanders.


You're simply unsatisfied with the truth so you resort to ad hominems.


What "truth", liar? What "ad hominems", liar?

At least you're good for something, even if it is to serve as a bad
example.

An extremely large subset of Christians see nothing wrong vicious
slanders against atheists, and turn even more nasty when we don't put
up with it. You seem to be one of them.

What vicious slander? Let a spade be a spade.

Typical of the left.


What "typical of the left"?, liar?

Comprehension issues, eh?

You have lied about atheists. The word for somebody who lie, is liar.
If you don't like it the solution is easy: stop lying. And stop being
a whining hypocrite as well.

What have I lied about? Inform me if you are able.
=E2=9C=9C Pud
.


User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 15 Nov 2005 01:20:38 PM
On 15 Nov 2005 07:27:45 -0800, "Puddleglum"
<ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote:

Incorrect. Not every atheist condones those things mentioned. The point
is that an authentic, God-fearing Christian will not perform acts that
will lead to eternal damnation. Only an atheist could do horrendous
crimes. However, said atheist could turn his life over to Christ later
in life.

Why are so many lying Christians in denial about their own religion's
bloody history?
You are a disgusting, dishonest, thoroughly nasy piece of work. Was
Martin Luther Christian? The Crusaders? The witch-burners? The slave
owners?
Go ***** yourself, dishonest, lying, slanderous but all too typical
Christian.

.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 15 Nov 2005 07:11:23 PM
Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 15 Nov 2005 07:27:45 -0800, "Puddleglum"
<ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote:

Incorrect. Not every atheist condones those things mentioned. The point
is that an authentic, God-fearing Christian will not perform acts that
will lead to eternal damnation. Only an atheist could do horrendous
crimes. However, said atheist could turn his life over to Christ later
in life.


Why are so many lying Christians in denial about their own religion's
bloody history?

No one's in denial. The people that did those horrific acts of
brutality were faux-Christians practicing false doctrine. The real
Christian could not do those things.

You are a disgusting, dishonest, thoroughly nasy piece of work. Was
Martin Luther Christian? The Crusaders? The witch-burners? The slave
owners?
Go ***** yourself, dishonest, lying, slanderous but all too typical
Christian.

Actually, I've been very honest and open about my beliefs, and quite
understanding of yours. Lashing out wildly -- simply because you can't
accept a difference of opinion -- just validates the stereotype of the
far-left. Blindly, and like an automaton, you self-destruct to confirm
exactly how people get labeled in society. Your reputation is well
deserved. =20
=20
=E2=9C=9DPud
.
User: "John Baker"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 16 Nov 2005 12:59:38 AM
On 15 Nov 2005 17:11:23 -0800, "Puddleglum"
<ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote:


Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 15 Nov 2005 07:27:45 -0800, "Puddleglum"
<ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote:

Incorrect. Not every atheist condones those things mentioned. The point
is that an authentic, God-fearing Christian will not perform acts that
will lead to eternal damnation. Only an atheist could do horrendous
crimes. However, said atheist could turn his life over to Christ later
in life.


Why are so many lying Christians in denial about their own religion's
bloody history?


No one's in denial. The people that did those horrific acts of
brutality were faux-Christians practicing false doctrine. The real
Christian could not do those things.

<cue bagpipes>



You are a disgusting, dishonest, thoroughly nasy piece of work. Was
Martin Luther Christian? The Crusaders? The witch-burners? The slave
owners?
Go ***** yourself, dishonest, lying, slanderous but all too typical
Christian.


Actually, I've been very honest and open about my beliefs, and quite
understanding of yours. Lashing out wildly -- simply because you can't
accept a difference of opinion -- just validates the stereotype of the
far-left. Blindly, and like an automaton, you self-destruct to confirm
exactly how people get labeled in society. Your reputation is well
deserved.

A while back, you asked a quesion in alt.talk.creationism, I believe
it was, the gist of which was why do atheists dislike Christians.
Re-read your own posts and you'll have your answer.
If you spread falsehoods when you don't know any better, you're merely
mistaken. If you continue to spread the same falsehoods after you've
been corrected, you're a liar.
When it comes to the subject of atheists and atheism, the vast
majority of Christians are liars. You included.



?Pud

.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 16 Nov 2005 12:10:51 PM
John Baker wrote:

On 15 Nov 2005 17:11:23 -0800, "Puddleglum"
<ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote:


Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 15 Nov 2005 07:27:45 -0800, "Puddleglum"
<ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote:

Incorrect. Not every atheist condones those things mentioned. The poi=

nt

is that an authentic, God-fearing Christian will not perform acts that
will lead to eternal damnation. Only an atheist could do horrendous
crimes. However, said atheist could turn his life over to Christ later
in life.


Why are so many lying Christians in denial about their own religion's
bloody history?


No one's in denial. The people that did those horrific acts of
brutality were faux-Christians practicing false doctrine. The real
Christian could not do those things.


<cue bagpipes>

Now I remember you. You play the bagpipes.



You are a disgusting, dishonest, thoroughly nasy piece of work. Was
Martin Luther Christian? The Crusaders? The witch-burners? The slave
owners?
Go ***** yourself, dishonest, lying, slanderous but all too typical
Christian.


Actually, I've been very honest and open about my beliefs, and quite
understanding of yours. Lashing out wildly -- simply because you can't
accept a difference of opinion -- just validates the stereotype of the
far-left. Blindly, and like an automaton, you self-destruct to confirm
exactly how people get labeled in society. Your reputation is well
deserved.


A while back, you asked a quesion in alt.talk.creationism, I believe
it was, the gist of which was why do atheists dislike Christians.
Re-read your own posts and you'll have your answer.

Unfortunately I don't remember the exact conversation, so maybe next
time you can include it so I can understand what you're referring to.

If you spread falsehoods when you don't know any better, you're merely
mistaken. If you continue to spread the same falsehoods after you've
been corrected, you're a liar.

Who has corrected me with my alleged falsehoods? What falsehoods?

When it comes to the subject of atheists and atheism, the vast
majority of Christians are liars. You included.

Maybe next time you can tell me exactly what I'm wrong about. So far
I've proven that people have the ability to worship God as the
scriptures demand, or do the exact opposite. I guess you'd find fault
with Mother Teresa?=20
=E2=9C=9FPud
.
User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 16 Nov 2005 12:33:57 PM
"Now I remember you. You play the bagpipes."
You are priceless. In another post on this very thread you say "No REAL
Christain would be involved in child molestation." YOU are the one
playing the bagpipes, or are you not familiar with fallacies other than
ad hominems?
.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 16 Nov 2005 12:48:15 PM
Neil Kelsey wrote:

"Now I remember you. You play the bagpipes."

You are priceless. In another post on this very thread you say "No REAL
Christain would be involved in child molestation." YOU are the one
playing the bagpipes, or are you not familiar with fallacies other than
ad hominems?

I'm quite aware of other fallacies, but for the moment could you
explain which logical fallacy falls under telling the absolute truth?
Didn't think so.
=E2=9C=9C Pud
.
User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 16 Nov 2005 01:17:01 PM
On 16 Nov 2005 10:48:15 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Puddleglum" <ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132166895.030085.149960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:


Neil Kelsey wrote:

"Now I remember you. You play the bagpipes."

You are priceless. In another post on this very thread you say "No REAL
Christain would be involved in child molestation." YOU are the one
playing the bagpipes, or are you not familiar with fallacies other than
ad hominems?


I'm quite aware of other fallacies, but for the moment could you
explain which logical fallacy falls under telling the absolute truth?
Didn't think so.

? Pud

While I agree with you that a child molester does not seem to be a
follower of Jesus's teachings, I'm not sure how I can objectively state
that they are not Christians. My understanding is that the proper and
very longstanding definition of a Christian is that he accepts the
Nicene Creed as the correct teachings about God. Do you accept that
definition?
.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 16 Nov 2005 05:46:00 PM
David Jensen wrote:

On 16 Nov 2005 10:48:15 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Puddleglum" <ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132166895.030085.149960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:


Neil Kelsey wrote:

"Now I remember you. You play the bagpipes."

You are priceless. In another post on this very thread you say "No REAL
Christain would be involved in child molestation." YOU are the one
playing the bagpipes, or are you not familiar with fallacies other than
ad hominems?


I'm quite aware of other fallacies, but for the moment could you
explain which logical fallacy falls under telling the absolute truth?
Didn't think so.

? Pud


While I agree with you that a child molester does not seem to be a
follower of Jesus's teachings, I'm not sure how I can objectively state
that they are not Christians.

Mainly because "religious" gays refuse to accept the scripture and
continue in their lust towards one another. Damnable behavior for a
Christian to approve of.

My understanding is that the proper and
very longstanding definition of a Christian is that he accepts the
Nicene Creed as the correct teachings about God. Do you accept that
definition?

Baptists don't accept creeds.
Pud
.
User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 16 Nov 2005 06:13:58 PM
On 16 Nov 2005 15:46:00 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Puddleglum" <ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132184760.674929.61260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:


David Jensen wrote:

On 16 Nov 2005 10:48:15 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Puddleglum" <ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132166895.030085.149960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:


Neil Kelsey wrote:

"Now I remember you. You play the bagpipes."

You are priceless. In another post on this very thread you say "No REAL
Christain would be involved in child molestation." YOU are the one
playing the bagpipes, or are you not familiar with fallacies other than
ad hominems?


I'm quite aware of other fallacies, but for the moment could you
explain which logical fallacy falls under telling the absolute truth?
Didn't think so.

? Pud


While I agree with you that a child molester does not seem to be a
follower of Jesus's teachings, I'm not sure how I can objectively state
that they are not Christians.


Mainly because "religious" gays refuse to accept the scripture and
continue in their lust towards one another. Damnable behavior for a
Christian to approve of.

Not all child molesters are gay. I have no idea how you confused
molester with gay.

My understanding is that the proper and
very longstanding definition of a Christian is that he accepts the
Nicene Creed as the correct teachings about God. Do you accept that
definition?


Baptists don't accept creeds.

So, by the oldest known definition, Baptists are not Christian.
.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 17 Nov 2005 08:41:26 AM
David Jensen wrote:

On 16 Nov 2005 15:46:00 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Puddleglum" <ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132184760.674929.61260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:


David Jensen wrote:

On 16 Nov 2005 10:48:15 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Puddleglum" <ChroniclesOfNarnia@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132166895.030085.149960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:


Neil Kelsey wrote:

"Now I remember you. You play the bagpipes."

You are priceless. In another post on this very thread you say "No REAL
Christain would be involved in child molestation." YOU are the one
playing the bagpipes, or are you not familiar with fallacies other than
ad hominems?


I'm quite aware of other fallacies, but for the moment could you
explain which logical fallacy falls under telling the absolute truth?
Didn't think so.

? Pud


While I agree with you that a child molester does not seem to be a
follower of Jesus's teachings, I'm not sure how I can objectively state
that they are not Christians.


Mainly because "religious" gays refuse to accept the scripture and
continue in their lust towards one another. Damnable behavior for a
Christian to approve of.


Not all child molesters are gay. I have no idea how you confused
molester with gay.

I must have been tired last night :-). I apologize for confusing the
two.

My understanding is that the proper and
very longstanding definition of a Christian is that he accepts the
Nicene Creed as the correct teachings about God. Do you accept that
definition?


Baptists don't accept creeds.


So, by the oldest known definition, Baptists are not Christian.

We consider ourselves Christian, and we agree with most of the Nicene
Creed, but for some reason we don't accept it.
Pud
.




User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 17 Nov 2005 11:14:25 AM
You think you are telling the absolute truth? I think you're
delusional, and I think I'm telling the absolute truth. And I think I'm
correct about what a Christian is. A Christian is someone who worships
Christ as god, independent of their own behaviour. Your personal
subjective definition is irrelevant. You guys are hilarious, as soon as
someone misbehaves in your estimation they are no longer a Christian?
How convenient. From the outside looking in Christians (and other
cults) look like a bunch of squabbling babies.
And nice bit of sophistry answering your question for me. Moron.
.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 20 Nov 2005 05:57:29 PM
Neil Kelsey wrote:

You think you are telling the absolute truth? I think you're
delusional, and I think I'm telling the absolute truth. And I think I'm
correct about what a Christian is. A Christian is someone who worships
Christ as God, independent of their own behaviour.

And the only difference is some claim to worship Christ while others
actually *do*.

Your personal
subjective definition is irrelevant. You guys are hilarious, as soon as
someone misbehaves in your estimation they are no longer a Christian?

Untrue. Christians sin, but if you're a real Christian your sins will
pale in comparison to serial killing, pederasty...etc...etc, acts far
removed from any semblance of rationale.

How convenient. From the outside looking in Christians (and other
cults) look like a bunch of squabbling babies.

Just imagine how atheists look after dragging society in the gutter
with them. Something to ponder about.
Pud
.
User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 20 Nov 2005 09:38:25 PM
"> Your personal

subjective definition is irrelevant. You guys are hilarious, as soon as
someone misbehaves in your estimation they are no longer a Christian?

Untrue. Christians sin, but if you're a real Christian your sins will
pale in comparison to serial killing, pederasty...etc...etc, acts far
removed from any semblance of rationale."
OK. Take Dennis Rader (sp?) the BTK Killer. He was a Christian Serial
Killer. He was also a devout Christian, and an elder in his church. I
don't know, but I whink he would still call himself a Christian. In
fact, isn't forgiveness one of the central tenets of Christ's
teachings? If he calls himself a CHristian, and worships Christ, aren't
YOU going against Christ if you deny him his faith, and you don't
forgive him for his sins? If you say he wasn't a Christian while he
committed these crimes, then you prove what I said. You're quick to
drop people when they don't measure up to your subjective standards.
I assume you're American. There has never been an atheist American
President. Hell, I'd be surprised if there were even an atheist Senator
or Congressman. So if you think your society has been dragged into the
gutter, then it is Christian politicians who have let it happen.
Personally, I do not take such a dim view of your society, and
generally appreciate the many great things the US has offered the
world.
.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 21 Nov 2005 11:01:40 AM
Neil Kelsey wrote:

"> Your personal

subjective definition is irrelevant. You guys are hilarious, as soon as
someone misbehaves in your estimation they are no longer a Christian?


Untrue. Christians sin, but if you're a real Christian your sins will
pale in comparison to serial killing, pederasty...etc...etc, acts far
removed from any semblance of rationale."

OK. Take Dennis Rader (sp?) the BTK Killer. He was a Christian Serial
Killer. He was also a devout Christian, and an elder in his church. I
don't know, but I whink he would still call himself a Christian.

As deranged as he is I'm sure he'd call himself a disciple of God's.
Thankfully, actions speak louder than words.

In
fact, isn't forgiveness one of the central tenets of Christ's
teachings? If he calls himself a CHristian, and worships Christ, aren't
YOU going against Christ if you deny him his faith, and you don't
forgive him for his sins?

His true faith is apparent; he's a servant of Satan. And yes, it's easy
to forgive someone, but I'm not the one that's going to grant him
salvation. Also, how do you know he wants forgiveness?

If you say he wasn't a Christian while he
committed these crimes, then you prove what I said. You're quick to
drop people when they don't measure up to your subjective standards.

"If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death,
he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not
leading to death. There is sin leading to death: I do not say that he
should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is sin
not leading to death". (I John 5:16-17)
A "sin which does not lead to death" is one that is genuinely repented
of and for which forgiveness is available because the attitude of the
sinner is meek and truly sorrowful. A person may have this attitude,
yet still sin on occasion out of weakness, ignorance, bad judgment or
even inadvertently.
Rader was apparently a sociopath, like most serial killers; he used
Christianity to blend in with the environment in order to "bind,
torture and kill" innocent people. A real Christian would never murder
an innocent person just to satisfy a depraved lust that defies logic.

I assume you're American.

Yes.

There has never been an atheist American
President. Hell, I'd be surprised if there were even an atheist Senator
or Congressman. So if you think your society has been dragged into the
gutter, then it is Christian politicians who have let it happen.

So, you think a real Christian President/Senator would condone gay
marriage, alcohol, gay priests, abortion, gay tv shows, explicit sex
scenes, spoiled children, removal of the Ten Commandments from public
buildings, removal of prayer from school, removal of the word
"Christmas" DURING Christmas...etc...etc...etc? America is loaded with
faux-Christians just waiting to corrupt.

Personally, I do not take such a dim view of your society, and
generally appreciate the many great things the US has offered the
world.

There are many things I love about America, but at the same time there
are many things I dislike about her. Namely the war, bias towards obese
people, the nasty way women dress, culture of sex, pathetic border
control, homosexuality being taught in some schools, crystal meth
addiction among teens, dissolving family unit, unfit parents,
faux-Christians and more. Yet, I still have hope that America will be
restored.
Pud
.
User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 21 Nov 2005 03:21:33 PM
Clearly you do not see/understand the One True Scotsman fallacy you
keep committing. There is no point debating with you about "true
christians" any further.
As for America being restored, I think you are idealizing it's history
in a way that suits you. America has always prided itself on being a
place where people are free. And that means free to be fat (and free to
say people are fat, freedom of speach and all), free to dress in a sexy
way (the US gave us the movies, and movie stars, and women dressed in
sexy clothes), free to be homosexuals (it is not taught in schools-
toleration is), some people have always been addicted, whether it is to
alcohol or crystal meth, family units have always had struggles,
sometimes it is best for everyone if the family breaks apart, BECAUSE
of unfit parents, including some very opressive Christian parents, and
your faux-Christians" phrase doesn't mean a thing to me.
America at it's best is FUN. America at it's worst is when NO FUN
people like you are voted in every once in a while and decide you know
what's best for everyone else, run around implementing policies that
***** off the majority of your population, if not the world, get tossed
out on your assand then spent the next few administrations snivelling
about the rampant moral decay.
.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 21 Nov 2005 06:06:54 PM
Neil Kelsey wrote:

Clearly you do not see/understand the One True Scotsman fallacy you
keep committing. There is no point debating with you about "true
christians" any further.

The only problem we're having is your denial that *some* people are
quite capable of living a good, decent Christian life; they will NEVER
become serial killers, child molesters, homosexuals, dishonest & the
like. Are you actually in denial of this obvious right?

As for America being restored, I think you are idealizing it's history
in a way that suits you. America has always prided itself on being a
place where people are free. And that means free to be fat (and free to
say people are fat, freedom of speach and all), free to dress in a sexy
way (the US gave us the movies, and movie stars, and women dressed in
sexy clothes), free to be homosexuals (it is not taught in schools-
toleration is), some people have always been addicted, whether it is to
alcohol or crystal meth, family units have always had struggles,
sometimes it is best for everyone if the family breaks apart, BECAUSE
of unfit parents, including some very opressive Christian parents, and
your faux-Christians" phrase doesn't mean a thing to me.

You're obviously confusing 'freedom' with 'free-for-all'. I guess it
would also be okay if skinny people were targeted, or people with large
noses, or all red-headed women...etc? That's why we try to nominate
people that aren't like you.

America at it's best is FUN. America at it's worst is when NO FUN
people like you are voted in every once in a while and decide you know
what's best for everyone else, run around implementing policies that
***** off the majority of your population, if not the world, get tossed
out on your assand then spent the next few administrations snivelling
about the rampant moral decay.

LOL. If it wasn't for people like me society would've fell apart a
looooooong time ago. OTOH -- *you* seem to be a slave to pleasure; a
useless commodity in a world that needs proper guidance.
Pud
.
User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 21 Nov 2005 06:46:49 PM
"The only problem we're having is your denial that *some* people are
quite capable of living a good, decent Christian life; they will NEVER
become serial killers, child molesters, homosexuals, dishonest & the
like. Are you actually in denial of this obvious right?"
[What does this have to do with rights? And *some* people are quite
capable of living a good, decent Atheist life, they will NEVER become
serial killers, child molesters, (I don't care if they're homosexual,
maybe your children will become gay, what are you going to do about
it?), dishonest (like you- you're not even being honest with YOURSELF),
and the like.]
"You're obviously confusing 'freedom' with 'free-for-all'. I guess it
would also be okay if skinny people were targeted, or people with large
noses, or all red-headed women...etc? That's why we try to nominate
people that aren't like you."
[Don't look at me, I don't care if someone is fat or skinny, red-headed
or bald. That is what you call a Strawman argument and it is totally
dishonest. Next thing I know you'll probably be turning into a gay
serial killer.]
"LOL. If it wasn't for people like me society would've fell apart a
looooooong time ago. OTOH -- *you* seem to be a slave to pleasure; a
useless commodity in a world that needs proper guidance."
The society people like you came up with is a nightmare. Hello Spanish
Inquisition. Hello Third Reich. If it weren't for people like you we
would have world peace and would be at least 1000 years ahead
technologically.
And you know nothing about me. I find pleasure in reading a good
science book, or a book about history. How is that being a "slave" to
pleasure? And don't underestimate the value of pleasure, just because
YOU don't like it. I take it you've never had sex then?]
.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 21 Nov 2005 08:42:45 PM
Neil Kelsey wrote:

"The only problem we're having is your denial that *some* people are
quite capable of living a good, decent Christian life; they will NEVER
become serial killers, child molesters, homosexuals, dishonest & the
like. Are you actually in denial of this obvious right?"

[What does this have to do with rights?

'Right'; singular. And with no bearing on the law.

And *some* people are quite
capable of living a good, decent Atheist life, they will NEVER become
serial killers, child molesters, (I don't care if they're homosexual,
maybe your children will become gay, what are you going to do about
it?), dishonest (like you- you're not even being honest with YOURSELF),
and the like.]

Nice combo; Slothful Induction with a big Strawman in the mix. My point
is confirmed because many devout Christians have existed, even in our
times, and they would NEVER condone depravity like the faux-Christian
has done throughout history. You claim people like Mother Teresa,
Corrie Ten Boom, certain missionaries and the like do not exist because
the real Christian doesn't exist. BTW -- yes, I've said before many
good atheists exist and have done good things for society, but they are
also responsible for producing Hitlers..etc.

"You're obviously confusing 'freedom' with 'free-for-all'. I guess it
would also be okay if skinny people were targeted, or people with large
noses, or all red-headed women...etc? That's why we try to nominate
people that aren't like you."

[Don't look at me, I don't care if someone is fat or skinny, red-headed
or bald. That is what you call a Strawman argument and it is totally
dishonest. Next thing I know you'll probably be turning into a gay
serial killer.]

Wrong. I gave a proper definition of Strawman above. Also, if you
support the right for people to use the media to humiliate and
dehumanize large people then you're no better than them; same applies
to any person of difference.

"LOL. If it wasn't for people like me society would've fell apart a
looooooong time ago. OTOH -- *you* seem to be a slave to pleasure; a
useless commodity in a world that needs proper guidance."

The society people like you came up with is a nightmare. Hello Spanish
Inquisition. Hello Third Reich. If it weren't for people like you we
would have world peace and would be at least 1000 years ahead
technologically.

I may not be able to live up to your standards but that is irrelevant
when trying to serve God; also, I agree that faux-Christianity is
damning behavior of an alleged Christian.

And you know nothing about me. I find pleasure in reading a good
science book, or a book about history. How is that being a "slave" to
pleasure? And don't underestimate the value of pleasure, just because
YOU don't like it. I take it you've never had sex then?]

I know enough about you to conclude that you condone acts that would
send a real Christian to Hell.
Pud
.
User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 22 Nov 2005 10:36:19 AM
"> [What does this have to do with rights?
'Right'; singular. And with no bearing on the law"
[Okay then, "right." What "right" are you referring to?]
"Nice combo; Slothful Induction with a big Strawman in the mix. My
point
is confirmed because many devout Christians have existed, even in our
times, and they would NEVER condone depravity like the faux-Christian
has done throughout history. You claim people like Mother Teresa,
Corrie Ten Boom, certain missionaries and the like do not exist because
the real Christian doesn't exist. BTW -- yes, I've said before many
good atheists exist and have done good things for society, but they are
also responsible for producing Hitlers..etc."
[You're doing it again. I have never claimed anything about Mother
Teresa's existence, and if I did, I would say she existed and that she
was a real Christian. And I've never heard of Corrie Ten Boom. So that
makes what you're doing a Strawman argument because you're putting
words in my mouth. Show me where I put words in your mouth.
Also, Hitler was a theist. I don't think atheists OR christians are
responsible for producing Hitler though, to be fair (please take note).
Hitler was a psychopath ( a mental condition) in the right place at the
right time, and his religious beliefs (which are documented) had little
to do with his rise to power. Get your nose out of the bible and read
some actual history.]
"Wrong. I gave a proper definition of Strawman above. Also, if you
support the right for people to use the media to humiliate and
dehumanize large people then you're no better than them; same applies
to any person of difference."
[You didn't define "Strawman" anywhere. And I support freedom of
speach, even if I don't particularly like it (and I don't when it comes
to commenting on people's weight), and I'm not even American. One of
the great things I've noticed about the US is the passion people have
for the right to speak freely. I think your blatant desire for a
biblically based country and censorship is anti-American.]
"> The society people like you came up with is a nightmare. Hello
Spanish

Inquisition. Hello Third Reich. If it weren't for people like you we
would have world peace and would be at least 1000 years ahead
technologically.

I may not be able to live up to your standards but that is irrelevant
when trying to serve God; also, I agree that faux-Christianity is
damning behavior of an alleged Christian."
[Another Strawman, I see. I don't think there is such a thing as a
"faux-Christian," which I've already said. Please try to restrain
yourself from putting words in my mouth, it's embarrassing. To me, if
you worship Christ you're a Christian, I don't care what your
particular cult says.]
"> And you know nothing about me. I find pleasure in reading a good

science book, or a book about history. How is that being a "slave" to
pleasure? And don't underestimate the value of pleasure, just because
YOU don't like it. I take it you've never had sex then?]

I know enough about you to conclude that you condone acts that would
send a real Christian to Hell."
[You'd be surprised. I don't condone serial killing, child molesting,
and all sorts of other crimes. However, I am happy and relieved that a
secular legal system takes care of these issues, and defines what is
criminal and what is not, rather than a group like yours who seems
perfectly willing to stomp on people's rights (e.g. the right to be
gay, atheist, etc.). Notice how in your society gives you the right to
practice your belief's, but tough luck, majority rules. In your society
would you permit me to be an atheist, or would you throw me in jail?
And I don't want you to go to hell, good thing there isn't one."
.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 22 Nov 2005 07:31:27 PM
Neil Kelsey wrote:

"> [What does this have to do with rights?

'Right'; singular. And with no bearing on the law"

[Okay then, "right." What "right" are you referring to?]

Re-read the paragraph below and substitute "right" with "fact". That
was the context I was using.
"The only problem we're having is your denial that *some* people are
quite capable of living a good, decent Christian life; they will NEVER
become serial killers, child molesters, homosexuals, dishonest & the
like. Are you actually in denial of this obvious right?"
It's a "fact" that devout Christians exist.

"Nice combo; Slothful Induction with a big Strawman in the mix. My
point
is confirmed because many devout Christians have existed, even in our
times, and they would NEVER condone depravity like the faux-Christian
has done throughout history. You claim people like Mother Teresa,
Corrie Ten Boom, certain missionaries and the like do not exist because

the real Christian doesn't exist. BTW -- yes, I've said before many
good atheists exist and have done good things for society, but they are

also responsible for producing Hitlers..etc."

[You're doing it again. I have never claimed anything about Mother
Teresa's existence, and if I did, I would say she existed and that she
was a real Christian. And I've never heard of Corrie Ten Boom. So that
makes what you're doing a Strawman argument because you're putting
words in my mouth. Show me where I put words in your mouth.

You allege there is no difference between a devout Christian and the
BTK killer, who claims Christian faith. Clearly the Bible emphasizes
such a difference by warning us of these reprobates in order to SAVE us
from an eternal Hell. Your Strawman accusal is ridiculous.

Also, Hitler was a theist. I don't think atheists OR christians are
responsible for producing Hitler though, to be fair (please take note).
Hitler was a psychopath ( a mental condition) in the right place at the
right time, and his religious beliefs (which are documented) had little
to do with his rise to power. Get your nose out of the bible and read
some actual history.]

All irrelevant. The Bible gives us signs to watch for, in order to save
us from eternal damnation. Exactly how these events are spawned are not
important. My nose remains in the Bible.

"Wrong. I gave a proper definition of Strawman above. Also, if you
support the right for people to use the media to humiliate and
dehumanize large people then you're no better than them; same applies
to any person of difference."

[You didn't define "Strawman" anywhere.

Not by definition, anyway. I merely highlighted the Strawman you
resurrected; it was a true example of a Strawman.

And I support freedom of
speach, even if I don't particularly like it (and I don't when it comes
to commenting on people's weight), and I'm not even American. One of
the great things I've noticed about the US is the passion people have
for the right to speak freely. I think your blatant desire for a
biblically based country and censorship is anti-American.]

I support freedom of speech also, but I don't support a biased *media*
that promotes hate speech.
This is a good example of why we need laws to protect minorities, or
likely candidates, from such condemnation. Also, I doubt if it's
anti-American since it's the current law anyway, plus most of us would
never allow an unrestricted media; it would bring about the destruction
of our society.

"> The society people like you came up with is a nightmare. Hello
Spanish

Inquisition. Hello Third Reich. If it weren't for people like you we
would have world peace and would be at least 1000 years ahead
technologically.


I may not be able to live up to your standards but that is irrelevant
when trying to serve God; also, I agree that faux-Christianity is
damning behavior of an alleged Christian."

[Another Strawman, I see. I don't think there is such a thing as a
"faux-Christian," which I've already said. Please try to restrain
yourself from putting words in my mouth, it's embarrassing. To me, if
you worship Christ you're a Christian, I don't care what your
particular cult says.]

This logical fallacy is called "slothful Induction"; you deny factual
truth despite evidence. That speaks volumes about your character.

"> And you know nothing about me. I find pleasure in reading a good

science book, or a book about history. How is that being a "slave" to
pleasure? And don't underestimate the value of pleasure, just because
YOU don't like it. I take it you've never had sex then?]


I know enough about you to conclude that you condone acts that would
send a real Christian to Hell."

[You'd be surprised. I don't condone serial killing, child molesting,
and all sorts of other crimes. However, I am happy and relieved that a
secular legal system takes care of these issues, and defines what is
criminal and what is not, rather than a group like yours who seems
perfectly willing to stomp on people's rights (e.g. the right to be
gay, atheist, etc.). Notice how in your society gives you the right to
practice your belief's, but tough luck, majority rules. In your society
would you permit me to be an atheist, or would you throw me in jail?
And I don't want you to go to hell, good thing there isn't one."

You practice atheism -- you direct people away from God online; and
probably IRL, too -- You're for a biased media that has the 'freedom'
to viciously target minorities or undesirables, leading to their
possible deaths. You're playing your role according to the Bible. Other
than that you might be a nice fellow, a good dad and an animal lover.
Also, I'm definitely for your right to be an atheist.
Pud
.
User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 23 Nov 2005 02:09:19 AM
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted
version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the
position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing
of a person to hurt the person.
The above is the definition of a Strawman Fallacy. Show me one instance
where I've done this to you. I can show you half a dozenthat you've
done to me. Reread your last paragraph...it is one big Strawman. It is
full of instances where you state I have position X (e.g. X = I favour
biased media), then you attack me for having that position. Show me
ANYWHERE ever, in my entire life, where I favour biased media. Show me
where I favour targeting minorities or undesirables. I don't even know
what an undesirable is. You are being completely dishonest with me and
with yourself.
.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 23 Nov 2005 11:02:01 AM
Neil Kelsey wrote:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This is irrelevant since you've been attacking a weaker version of my
strongest argument for a while now. Once again, I can PROVE there is a
difference between a real Christian and a faux-Christian. You say all
who claim the Christian faith are Christians when that is simply not
true. Why do I need a Straw Man when you deny factual proof that devout
Christians exist?

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted
version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the
position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing
of a person to hurt the person.

The above is the definition of a Strawman Fallacy. Show me one instance
where I've done this to you. I can show you half a dozenthat you've
done to me. Reread your last paragraph...it is one big Strawman. It is
full of instances where you state I have position X (e.g. X = I favour
biased media), then you attack me for having that position. Show me
ANYWHERE ever, in my entire life, where I favour biased media. Show me
where I favour targeting minorities or undesirables. I don't even know
what an undesirable is. You are being completely dishonest with me and
with yourself.

Ok, Let's start from scratch. I mentioned my disdain for the way
Americans spotlight obese people; you stated that you think it should
be acceptable for people to have the freedom to say what they want,
even if they don't like it. Basically, I said if this happened the
media would be able to implement this freedom of speech to devastating
effect [against minorities and people that are ripe for dehumanization;
I call them *undesirables*]. I don't remember you clarifying whether
you meant to include the media in your freedom of speech, so I
apologize for assuming you were for a biased media since I see that you
are not.
Pud
.
User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 23 Nov 2005 11:55:53 AM
"> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a

person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This is irrelevant since you've been attacking a weaker version of my
strongest argument for a while now. Once again, I can PROVE there is a
difference between a real Christian and a faux-Christian. You say all
who claim the Christian faith are Christians when that is simply not
true. Why do I need a Straw Man when you deny factual proof that devout
Christians exist?"
[And THAT'S another Strawman argument. Show me one place where I denied
that devout Christians exist. Anywhere. You can't, can you? That's
because I never said that, in fact, I don't even THINK that. YOU, for
example, seem to be a very devout Christian. Unbelievable. Stop putting
words in my mouth. And nice dishonest way to snip the example I had
already given of your Strawman argument (I support a "biased media"
crap).
As for there being a difference between "faux-Christians" and "real
Christians," that is a simple disagreement, not a fallacy. I'm not
alone in thinking that the definition of a Christian is someone who
worships Christ. You're not alone in thinking you have to behave in a
certain way in addition to worshipping Christ to be a Christian. We
disagree. I think I'm right, you think you're right. You can't prove
I'm wrong, I think I can haul out any dictionary and prove you're
wrong. I'll let others decide.]
"Ok, Let's start from scratch. I mentioned my disdain for the way.
Americans spotlight obese people; you stated that you think it should
be acceptable for people to have the freedom to say what they want,
even if they don't like it. Basically, I said if this happened the
media would be able to implement this freedom of speech to devastating
effect [against minorities and people that are ripe for dehumanization;
I call them *undesirables*]. I don't remember you clarifying whether
you meant to include the media in your freedom of speech, so I
apologize for assuming you were for a biased media since I see that you
are not."
Thanks. I DO include the media in freedom of speech. I think it is
important that the media can speak freely. I think the uncensored media
has done everything for civil rights and freedom in your country. I
also think you might want to rewrite your sentence "...against
minorities and people that are ripe for dehumanization; I call them
*undesirables;" you are saying that YOU think minorities and people
ripe for dehumanization are "undesirables," and I don't think that is
what you meant to say. Correct?]
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 23 Nov 2005 02:09:04 PM
Neil Kelsey wrote:

"> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a

person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


This is irrelevant since you've been attacking a weaker version of my
strongest argument for a while now. Once again, I can PROVE there is a
difference between a real Christian and a faux-Christian. You say all
who claim the Christian faith are Christians when that is simply not
true. Why do I need a Straw Man when you deny factual proof that devout
Christians exist?"

[And THAT'S another Strawman argument. Show me one place where I denied
that devout Christians exist. Anywhere. You can't, can you? That's
because I never said that, in fact, I don't even THINK that.

Again, no Straw Man on my part. You said the following: "I don't think
there is such a thing as a
"faux-Christian". So, you think ALL who claim to be Christians
actually are?? Explain what you mean by that, since I have proven
countless times that there IS such a thing as a faux-Christian.
You even called the BTK killer a "devout Christian", which is
absolutely insane.

YOU, for
example, seem to be a very devout Christian. Unbelievable. Stop putting
words in my mouth. And nice dishonest way to snip the example I had
already given of your Strawman argument (I support a "biased media"
crap).

I didn't snip anything. You're the one that doesn't fully respond to
posts. Regarding the media, I posted this previously:
"Also, if you
support the right for people to use the media to humiliate and
dehumanize large people then you're no better than them; same applies
to any person of difference."
And you said this:
"I support freedom of speach, even if I don't particularly like it"
I mentioned using the MEDIA to dehumanize large people and you did NOT
disagree. You went on to say that you support freedom of speech even if
you don't like it. What am I left to think? You appeared to agree with
the idea that the media should be able to say anything they want about
anyone they want, regardless of truth or cause.

As for there being a difference between "faux-Christians" and "real
Christians," that is a simple disagreement, not a fallacy. I'm not
alone in thinking that the definition of a Christian is someone who
worships Christ. You're not alone in thinking you have to behave in a
certain way in addition to worshipping Christ to be a Christian. We
disagree. I think I'm right, you think you're right. You can't prove
I'm wrong, I think I can haul out any dictionary and prove you're
wrong. I'll let others decide.]

You think you're right, but according to the Holy Bible you are not.
Faux-Christians pretend to worship Christ; they may go through the
actions every sunday, but in the end they'll be known for their fruits.
If you really worship Christ you'll be a good Christian; you'll live as
a Christian. Who is better to decide what a real Christian is than the
Bible? Did the BTK killer live as a Christian? No.

"Ok, Let's start from scratch. I mentioned my disdain for the way.
Americans spotlight obese people; you stated that you think it should
be acceptable for people to have the freedom to say what they want,
even if they don't like it. Basically, I said if this happened the
media would be able to implement this freedom of speech to devastating
effect [against minorities and people that are ripe for dehumanization;
I call them *undesirables*]. I don't remember you clarifying whether
you meant to include the media in your freedom of speech, so I
apologize for assuming you were for a biased media since I see that you
are not."

Thanks. I DO include the media in freedom of speech. I think it is
important that the media can speak freely. I think the uncensored media
has done everything for civil rights and freedom in your country.

I agree that the media has a right to freely present the news in the
manner in which it happened. I don't agree that the media should be
able to utilize their personal agendas by picking on people that the
majority dislike (obese people, minorities...etc).

I also think you might want to rewrite your sentence "...against
minorities and people that are ripe for dehumanization; I call them
*undesirables;" you are saying that YOU think minorities and people
ripe for dehumanization are "undesirables," and I don't think that is
what you meant to say. Correct?]

Correct. I was merely putting emphasis on people that the media would
spotlight first. It's no secret that racism exists throughout the US.
Pud
.

User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 23 Nov 2005 02:47:49 PM
On 23 Nov 2005 09:55:53 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1132768553.700359.226470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

"> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a

person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


This is irrelevant since you've been attacking a weaker version of my
strongest argument for a while now. Once again, I can PROVE there is a
difference between a real Christian and a faux-Christian. You say all
who claim the Christian faith are Christians when that is simply not
true. Why do I need a Straw Man when you deny factual proof that devout
Christians exist?"

Please, show us how anyone can use objective criteria to determine who
is a real Christian and who is a Fox, er, faux-Christian.
....
.
User: "Puddleglum"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 23 Nov 2005 03:28:03 PM
David Jensen wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 09:55:53 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1132768553.700359.226470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

"> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a

person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


This is irrelevant since you've been attacking a weaker version of my
strongest argument for a while now. Once again, I can PROVE there is a
difference between a real Christian and a faux-Christian. You say all
who claim the Christian faith are Christians when that is simply not
true. Why do I need a Straw Man when you deny factual proof that devout
Christians exist?"


Please, show us how anyone can use objective criteria to determine who
is a real Christian and who is a Fox, er, faux-Christian.

The human make-up suggests that people can be quite devout in the faith
of their choosing, even atheism. Most faux-Christians don't want to be
exposed, so it is hard to objectively differentiate between the two
unless you witness an occurrence. To deny these devout Christians exits
is a bit silly. Mother Teresa was obviously a devout Christian; Dennis
"BTK" Rader also professed Christianity, but he turned out to be a
faux-Christian. These people will be known by their fruit.
Pud
.
User: "Neil Kelsey"

Title: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution 23 Nov 2005 04:11:26 PM
"The human make-up suggests that people can be quite devout in the
faith
of their choosing, even atheism."
[I'll say this before someone else does- atheism is a LACK of faith. We
have NO faith. None. See where your sentence is inaccurate? And I'll
let the distinguished Cristopher Lee and David Jensen address the rest
of your post, which is an issue you and I have already discussed. I
simply disagree with you about the existence of faux-Christians. See if
they can do better than I did.]
.























  Page 2 of 8

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

 


Related Articles