In response to the story of a wacked out creationist "science teacher"
burning a cross on some kids arm, Dimwit Dave said this:

On Jun 22, 10:21 am, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
wrote:

> Now, I know you know that this Teacher didnt follow biblical guidelines
> when he chose to do this absurd thing to the student, right ?  So,  all
> youve done by posting this, is to show what Christianity/Creationism is
> NOT.   In fact, im willing to bet that youd rather have your precious 16
> year old Daughter go out with someone who has a good foundation of
> absolute morality (the Christian ethic) versus someone who lives
> according to moral relativism (an atheistic tenet).  Am I correct Sir/Ms
> ???

Dimwitted Dave's reply was claiming his "No True
Christian" Fallacy....which is always his way of reinterpreting
evidence in order to prevent the refutation
of his position.

Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant
solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because
they
are not what the theory is about.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief
being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-
examples to it.
The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable
Example:
An argument often arises when people attempt to define religious
groups.
In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is
permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away.
Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have
faith believe but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No
True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t
true Christians.


Then I asked him to tell us which "other bible" he had on his desk,
which "other"
cross he tatooed on the kid's arm, and which "other" myth of creation
he was teaching, FOOL?

Ken wrote:
> In response to the story of a wacked out creationist "science teacher"
> burning a cross on some kids arm, Dimwit Dave said this:
> 
> On Jun 22, 10:21 am, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
> wrote:
> 
>> Now, I know you know that this Teacher didnt follow biblical guidelines
>> when he chose to do this absurd thing to the student, right ?  So,  all
>> youve done by posting this, is to show what Christianity/Creationism is
>> NOT.   In fact, im willing to bet that youd rather have your precious 16
>> year old Daughter go out with someone who has a good foundation of
>> absolute morality (the Christian ethic) versus someone who lives
>> according to moral relativism (an atheistic tenet).  Am I correct Sir/Ms
>> ???
> 
> Dimwitted Dave's reply was claiming his "No True
> Christian" Fallacy....which is always his way of reinterpreting
> evidence in order to prevent the refutation
> of his position.

Of course! This just exposes the lie of their "absolute morals".

If their morals were absolute, they'd still be keeping slaves and 
having KKK meetings in the back room of their churches and 
justifying it all with the bible.

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:jf6dnaXdWcsr1_7VnZ2dnUVZ8tHinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Ken wrote:
>> In response to the story of a wacked out creationist "science teacher"
>> burning a cross on some kids arm, Dimwit Dave said this:
>>
>> On Jun 22, 10:21 am, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)


>>> Now, I know you know that this Teacher didnt follow biblical guidelines
>>> when he chose to do this absurd thing to the student, right ?  So,  all
>>> youve done by posting this, is to show what Christianity/Creationism is
>>> NOT.   In fact, im willing to bet that youd rather have your precious 16
>>> year old Daughter go out with someone who has a good foundation of
>>> absolute morality (the Christian ethic) versus someone who lives
>>> according to moral relativism (an atheistic tenet).  Am I correct Sir/Ms


>> Dimwitted Dave's reply was claiming his "No True
>> Christian" Fallacy....which is always his way of reinterpreting
>> evidence in order to prevent the refutation
>> of his position.

> Of course! This just exposes the lie of their "absolute morals".

> If their morals were absolute, they'd still be keeping slaves and having 
> KKK meetings in the back room of their churches and justifying it all with 
> the bible.


Yes...!!
I refer our honourable friends to the poignant posting by Gordon Hudson 
recently explaining *his* personal experience of leaving this faith system 
and the 'behaviour' of those who remained within towards him...  it truly is 
a startling expose of the undelying character of these morally righteous 
devouts in a most shattering way.  Easy to point at the abusers, the child 
molesters, the crooks and thiefs who have hidden under the religious banner 
until being caught but here, with Gordon, we see a much more subtle,  and in 
some ways distasteful, behaviour pattern of people losing human perspective. 
A damning indictment of religious (in)tolerance if ever there were one...
Insofar as dilv is concerned, our resident playtime puppy, we all know he 
doesn't answer questions - he can't because he is incapable -  he merely 
poses the same questions over....and over.....and over....and over.....
It might be nice if he even re-worded them them from time to time....!


Mark

On Jun 26, 5:38 am, "mark"  wrote:

> It might be nice if he even re-worded them them from time to time....!
>
> Mark

But that would take a glimmer of intelligence, coupled with the
ability to process new informantion and the quality to see thru his
self-generated smokescreen of religious BS, and we all know that ain't
gonna happen without professional intervention

Ken.........scientist, atheist, and sentient human being

Ian Smith wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>> In response to the story of a wacked out creationist "science
>> teacher" burning a cross on some kids arm, Dimwit Dave said this:
>>
>> On Jun 22, 10:21 am, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, I know you know that this Teacher didnt follow biblical
>>> guidelines when he chose to do this absurd thing to the student,
>>> right ?  So,  all youve done by posting this, is to show what
>>> Christianity/Creationism is NOT.   In fact, im willing to bet that
>>> youd rather have your precious 16 year old Daughter go out with
>>> someone who has a good foundation of absolute morality (the
>>> Christian ethic) versus someone who lives according to moral
>>> relativism (an atheistic tenet).  Am I correct Sir/Ms ???
>>
>> Dimwitted Dave's reply was claiming his "No True
>> Christian" Fallacy....which is always his way of reinterpreting
>> evidence in order to prevent the refutation
>> of his position.
>
> Of course! This just exposes the lie of their "absolute morals".
>
> If their morals were absolute, they'd still be keeping slaves and
> having KKK meetings in the back room of their churches and
> justifying it all with the bible.
>
> regards, Ian

You mean they've stopped doing that now?

-- 
http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
Personalised Desktop Computers