- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,218
- Reaction score
- 1,859
- Location
- DFW, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Of course it does. You cannot prove God doesn't exist so if you believe He doesn't that requires faith.
So you approve that this Christan teacher assaulted a person, because of their beliefs? I thought the continuation was something that the conservatives fought for instead it looks like you are someone who is a hypocrite.
Are you aware of the massive fallacy in your logic?
It is Liberal to interpret the Constitution is a loose constructionist way, which is exactly what you are doing.
Sure, if you say so...
If you can prove God doesn't exist feel free to display it :rofl
There's no scientific evidence that God exists which is why it doesn't really require faith to NOT believe. There's also no scientific evidence that Space Monkeys are inhabiting Jupiter, so it's not an act of faith to disbelieve that they exist. Nobody claims proof that God doesn't exist, at least nobody intellectually honest does.
God can't be proved scientifically one way or the other.... that's kindof the whole idea of God anyway. That there's something behind those things we can't explain. That there's a point to all of this beyond our understanding. Belief that there is no God is not the same thing as faith that there is no God. There's really no reason to debate semantics here.
More on-topic, the teacher does not appear to have been "teaching Atheism in class," at least not in the way you think it was happening.
Discussing atheism is not the same thing as trying to convert people. If we can't even discuss things academically in school anymore we're pretty screwed because our children are going to have large gaps in their knowledge. There's also some controversy over nuclear energy. Maybe we shouldn't tell our children it exists?
"Spraying" someone with water ("magic" or not) uninvited, is called battery, by law. As such, the violators should have been arrested for their crime and prosecuted.
I watched the video. I seriously doubt we have full information on exactly what happened. The Christian teachers deny spraying her with anything.
My question is this: if a Christian teacher is not allowed to expound upon her beliefs to a classroom full of public school children, why would an atheist teacher be allowed to do so? If we allow the one, we must allow the other.
I watched the video. I seriously doubt we have full information on exactly what happened. The Christian teachers deny spraying her with anything.
My question is this: if a Christian teacher is not allowed to expound upon her beliefs to a classroom full of public school children, why would an atheist teacher be allowed to do so? If we allow the one, we must allow the other.
You have zero evidence of that. You are basing conclusions off nothing. We do not know either way since we have no specific information.
As I said which you obviously failed to read discussing atheism is not an issue. Teaching it, is.
I understand you can't debate it. Its ok, you aren't the first
You are very quick to jump to conclusions. I simply asked a question and you did not give me a proper answer. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
You don't have any evidence she was "teaching" atheism either. So, aren't you also "basing conclusions off of nothing?"
Me, I'm basing my conclusion off what the teacher said.
A Christian teacher can discuss Christianity.
You are basing it off of what one side said. The other teachers have a different story and I just told you neither side knows what really happened. How did you miss this when you quoted me saying exactly that?
I'm sorry you misinterpreted my post.No you asked a childish attack question not a question of substance.
I find it hard to believe that you have no knowledge of the equivocation fallacy: Logical Fallacy: EquivocationIf you want to start actually debating, try explaining your claim of "massive fallacy" and I'll be happy to tear it apart
No you asked a childish attack question not a question of substance. If you want to start actually debating, try explaining your claim of "massive fallacy" and I'll be happy to tear it apart
I'm sorry you misinterpreted my post.
I find it hard to believe that you have no knowledge of the equivocation fallacy: Logical Fallacy: Equivocation
You are equating "faith" based on empirical data(measurable, objective, mutually agreed upon) to "faith" based off of religious views, gut feelings, experiental facts(subjective, unverifiable, anecdotal). You use the same word but they do not apply to both sides. This is equivocation.
Actually I didn't but keep on squirming
Now this is amusing. You think because you don't believe in God that is basing it on empirical data?
What "mutually agreed upon" theories are you citing?
What experiments have you performed proving their is no God?
How do you know what God would look like or do if He existed?
Its sad to watch someone try to rationalize their faith as factual data. You cannot prove God does not exist yet you believe it to be so.
That is the very definition of faith.
As I said before, Agnostics are the only ones without religion because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?