Teacher Demands Her Students Deny the Existence of God

[ogibillm]

I love Texas

and I love

Alex Jones

And you're bat-shit crazy.
Coincidence?

sorry

I don't talk to Islamo Nazi terrorists like you.

Wow. You really are crazy.

But come on, show me the light... what did the teacher do wrong?

 

[bodecea]

I love Texas

and I love

Alex Jones

Well, that would certainly make sense.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I love Texas

and I love

Alex Jones

And you're bat-shit crazy.
Coincidence?

sorry

I don't talk to Islamo Nazi terrorists like you.

At the moment you are in a debate with yourself, which you are losing BTW...

 

[bodecea]

fire that teacher

burn in Hell teacher

what are true blood Americans going to do about that

what? fucking cowards

what are you going to do

Ah...the joy when christians turn on each other.

 

[bodecea]

fire that teacher

burn in Hell teacher

what are true blood Americans going to do about that

what? fucking cowards

what are you going to do

Ah...the joy when christians turn on each other.

^^^

silly billy

LOL

It is a joy....you are bashing a fellow christian who had everyone in the class, the paper assignment itself, etc. prove that the girl AND her parents completely misrepresented what the assignment was. That plus the parents went right to the school board without even trying to find out the truth by talking to the teacher.........talk about you being so gullible......*chuckle.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skylar continues to demonstrate his fallacy of false equivalency.

And you keep failing utterly to demonstrate that there's any evidentiary difference between your conception of god and your imagination.

Demonstrate the difference for us with evidence. If you can't, then how can you claim my equivalency is false? As even you can't show us a difference.

I don't have to is the point. And you can't.

Lets be clear: you can't. You lack the capacity to. You have no way of demonstrating the difference between your conception of god and your imagination factually.

And its that inability that also destroys your 'false equivalency' nonsense. As you can't back that up either.

Let's be clear, and let's tell the truth that you cannot disprove the existence of God. You have been floating around with a false equivalent fallacy and can't get away from it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Proving a negative is bit difficult; if god exists it seems an easier proof would exist.

They do exist, dude.

Why do you think the Greek Aristotlean school came to believe in a 'Crafter' of the Universe and the flow of time?

Why do you think the Greek Emanationists school proposed a threefold charcter to God, in the form of a Crafter, a Logos (preconception of the universe), and a Spirit of Life all using simple reason centuries before Christianity was started and a long time before the Greeks knew anything about Jewish religion?

Anyone who believes there is a proof for God is an utter damn fool. But then again, so it anyone who believes in God (or gods)...

Its just folks that accept their feelings as objective evidence. Literally arguing that god exists because they feel he does.

Its an argument that should come with its own running mascara and a fainting couch.

You have faith in your belief that God does not exist, and you can't prove it.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is up to the believer in atheism to prove his or her point.

I don't believe in atheism or god or the devil or the multitude of angel and demons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is up to the believer in atheism to prove his or her point.

I don't believe in atheism or god or the devil or the multitude of angel and demons.

You believe you don't believe. OK.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is up to the believer in atheism to prove his or her point.

I don't believe in atheism or god or the devil or the multitude of angel and demons.

You believe you don't believe. OK.

Nope. I believe life is an unfathomable mystery that one cannot fully understand until one is dead.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar continues to demonstrate his fallacy of false equivalency.

And you keep failing utterly to demonstrate that there's any evidentiary difference between your conception of god and your imagination.

Demonstrate the difference for us with evidence. If you can't, then how can you claim my equivalency is false? As even you can't show us a difference.

I don't have to is the point. And you can't.

Lets be clear: you can't. You lack the capacity to. You have no way of demonstrating the difference between your conception of god and your imagination factually.

And its that inability that also destroys your 'false equivalency' nonsense. As you can't back that up either.

Let's be clear, and let's tell the truth that you cannot disprove the existence of God.

I can't disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny either. Or Megatron. Or Voldemort. And this is where your 'Negative Evidence' fallacy becomes gloriously useless.

As it works just as well with any figment of your imagination as it does with your conception of god. With your conception of god being indistiguishable from imagination.

You have been floating around with a false equivalent fallacy and can't get away from it.

Then show us the evidence that demonstrates that your conception of god is distinguishable from imagination.

You can't. And 'poof', your 'false equivalency' nonsense collapses into meaningless dust. As even you can't show us how to distinguish one from the other.

Maybe its time for another one of your vague references to Thomas Aquinus. As you're clearly not carrying your argument alone.

 

[Skylar]

Proving a negative is bit difficult; if god exists it seems an easier proof would exist.

They do exist, dude.

Why do you think the Greek Aristotlean school came to believe in a 'Crafter' of the Universe and the flow of time?

Why do you think the Greek Emanationists school proposed a threefold charcter to God, in the form of a Crafter, a Logos (preconception of the universe), and a Spirit of Life all using simple reason centuries before Christianity was started and a long time before the Greeks knew anything about Jewish religion?

Anyone who believes there is a proof for God is an utter damn fool. But then again, so it anyone who believes in God (or gods)...

Its just folks that accept their feelings as objective evidence. Literally arguing that god exists because they feel he does.

Its an argument that should come with its own running mascara and a fainting couch.

You have faith in your belief that God does not exist, and you can't prove it.

And faith is a feeling. Which is exactly my point. Your evidence is emotion.

God exists because you feel he does. A standard of 'evidence' which would 'prove' the existence of anything you chose to believe in.

When your process 'proves' the existence of anything you can possibly imagine, it objectively demonstrates evidence of nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is up to the believer in atheism to prove his or her point.

I don't believe in atheism or god or the devil or the multitude of angel and demons.

You believe you don't believe. OK.

Nope. I believe life is an unfathomable mystery that one cannot fully understand until one is dead.

Thus you believe in something.

That's the point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Skylar continues with the fallacy of false equivalency, because he cannot use empirical data to prove or disprove God. Tough to be Skylar.

 

[Skylar]

And Skylar continues with the fallacy of false equivalency, because he cannot use empirical data to prove or disprove God. Tough to be Skylar.

Then show us the evidence that demonstrates that your conception of god is distinguishable from imagination.

Go ahead. I'll wait.


......


...


..


.


Still nothing, huh? So much for your claims of 'false equivalence'. Even you can't show us how to distinguish one from the other.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Skylar continues with the fallacy of false equivalency, because he cannot use empirical data to prove or disprove God. Tough to be Skylar.

Then show us the evidence that demonstrates that your conception of god is distinguishable from imagination.

Go ahead. I'll wait. Still nothing, huh? So much for your claims of 'false equivalence'. Even you can't show us how to distinguish one from the other.

The merit of the second paragraph means nothing in relationship to the third sentence of your final paragraph. The point is that your empircal data approach fails to disprove God. You can't do it, and since you can't, I can dismiss your disagreement as unimportant to the discussion. Go to, Skylar, go to.

 

[Skylar]

And Skylar continues with the fallacy of false equivalency, because he cannot use empirical data to prove or disprove God. Tough to be Skylar.

Then show us the evidence that demonstrates that your conception of god is distinguishable from imagination.

Go ahead. I'll wait. Still nothing, huh? So much for your claims of 'false equivalence'. Even you can't show us how to distinguish one from the other.

The merit of the second paragraph means nothing in relationship to the third sentence of your final paragraph. The point is that your empircal data approach fails to disprove God. You can't do it, and since you can't, I can dismiss your disagreement as unimportant to the discussion. Go to, Skylar, go to.

Then lets reduce this two one sentence:

Show us the evidence that demonstrates that your conception of god is distinguishable from imagination.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is up to the believer in atheism to prove his or her point.

I don't believe in atheism or god or the devil or the multitude of angel and demons.

You believe you don't believe. OK.

Nope. I believe life is an unfathomable mystery that one cannot fully understand until one is dead.

Thus you believe in something.

That's the point.

Correct(or 'You better believe it'). Contrary to your prior post where you claimed "I believe I don't believe"

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Skylar continues with the fallacy of false equivalency, because he cannot use empirical data to prove or disprove God. Tough to be Skylar.

Then show us the evidence that demonstrates that your conception of god is distinguishable from imagination.

Go ahead. I'll wait. Still nothing, huh? So much for your claims of 'false equivalence'. Even you can't show us how to distinguish one from the other.

The merit of the second paragraph means nothing in relationship to the third sentence of your final paragraph. The point is that your empircal data approach fails to disprove God. You can't do it, and since you can't, I can dismiss your disagreement as unimportant to the discussion. Go to, Skylar, go to.

Then lets reduce this two one sentence:

Show us the evidence that demonstrates that your conception of god is distinguishable from imagination.

Why? I am satisfied God exists. I am satisfied that you have no relevance, moral or intellectual, as my inquisitor. Trot along if you don't believe in God.

 

[Skylar]

And Skylar continues with the fallacy of false equivalency, because he cannot use empirical data to prove or disprove God. Tough to be Skylar.

Then show us the evidence that demonstrates that your conception of god is distinguishable from imagination.

Go ahead. I'll wait. Still nothing, huh? So much for your claims of 'false equivalence'. Even you can't show us how to distinguish one from the other.

The merit of the second paragraph means nothing in relationship to the third sentence of your final paragraph. The point is that your empircal data approach fails to disprove God. You can't do it, and since you can't, I can dismiss your disagreement as unimportant to the discussion. Go to, Skylar, go to.

Then lets reduce this two one sentence:

Show us the evidence that demonstrates that your conception of god is distinguishable from imagination.

Why? I am satisfied God exists. I am satisfied that you have no relevance, moral or intellectual, as my inquisitor. Trot along if you don't believe in God.

If even you can't show us how to distinguish your conception of god from imagination....how can you claim false equivalency when comparing your conception of god to imagination?

Um....Thomas Equinus?