Teacher Demands Her Students Deny the Existence of God

[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.

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?

Thomas Horse? Never heard of him. I gave you a link above to his owner, Thomas Aquinas. Go do some reading if you are interested.

 

[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?

Thomas Horse? Never heard of him. I gave you a link above to his owner, Thomas Aquinas. Go do some reading if you are interested.

Yawning....

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

 

[Dr Grump]

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

If you want to persuade people to your point of view, you do. And if you are not trying to do that, why comment on this thread at all?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

I suspect the whole "she's really a Christian" thing is a complete fabrication.

 

[Kondor3]

Today I was given an assignment in school that questioned my faith and told me that God was not real. Our teacher had started off saying that the assignment had been giving problems all day. We were asked to take a poll to say whether God is fact, opinion or a myth and she told anyone who said fact or opinion was wrong and God was only a myth,” Wooley told board members,” according to EAG News.


The teacher “started telling kids they were completely wrong and that when kids argued we were told we would get in trouble. When I tried to argue, she told me to prove it, and I tried to reference things such as the Bible and stories I have read before from people who have died and went to heaven but came back and told their stories, and she told me both were just things people were doing to get attention.”

“I know it wasn’t just me who was affected by it. My friend, she went home and started crying. She was supposed to come with me but she didn’t know if she could” because she was so upset, Wooley said.”

The march of radical Marxist ass holes has only just begun. This is just a start, much worse is yet to come.

Any chance there was a larger point to it than simply attacking kids' religious faith? Faith should be tested. Easy to have faith if no one ever disagrees with you about it, but what kind of faith is that?

Our tax dollars should not be used to attack it.

 

[koshergrl]

The school admitted the lesson was inappropriate and apologized for it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you want to persuade people to your point of view, you do. And if you are not trying to do that, why comment on this thread at all?

No one is going to persuade another poster to the point of view. That rarely ever happens on any topic as most posters post because they are already certain that what they post is either True or a manifestation of their beliefs that they are comfortable with.

It is the lurkers who outnumber posters by ten-to-one easily that might change their minds or form a more complete view provoked by things they have read here.

Which is why it is a waste of time to fuck with Marxist Tar Babies who are intent on nothing more than wasting your time responding to their stupid shit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The school admitted the lesson was inappropriate and apologized for it.

WHAT? You are trying to persuade libtards with facts?

I promise you that they are immune to such inoculation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the anti-Godists deny without any proof.

What a boring, mindset group they are.

 

[Skylar]

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

If you want to persuade people to your point of view, you do. And if you are not trying to do that, why comment on this thread at all?

I suspect to insinuate an argument that he can't support. Lacking any evidence to back his case, he can allude to it.

Which is better than nothing, I suppose.

 

[Skylar]

And the anti-Godists deny without any proof.

What a boring, mindset group they are.

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

 

[Skylar]

If you want to persuade people to your point of view, you do. And if you are not trying to do that, why comment on this thread at all?

No one is going to persuade another poster to the point of view. That rarely ever happens on any topic as most posters post because they are already certain that what they post is either True or a manifestation of their beliefs that they are comfortable with.

It is the lurkers who outnumber posters by ten-to-one easily that might change their minds or form a more complete view provoked by things they have read here.

Which is why it is a waste of time to fuck with Marxist Tar Babies who are intent on nothing more than wasting your time responding to their stupid shit.

Yeah, but alluding to evidence you don't have and an argument you can't factually support isn't a 'complete view'. Its an excuse for an argument.

You make vague reference to 'all the evidence' that supports your case. But when we ask you to actually present it......you can't.

Which speaks volumes. If your argument actually had merit you wouldn't have to allude to imaginary evidence to support it.

 

[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.

I suspect the whole "she's really a Christian" thing is a complete fabrication.

You "suspect" . Well, I guess we can built an entire case on that.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I suspect the whole "she's really a Christian" thing is a complete fabrication.

You "suspect" . Well, I guess we can built an entire case on that.

You're dealing with folks that are using their feelings as evidence of the very nature of the universe. Surely their feelings can define the religion of someone they don't know nor have ever met.

Right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

If you want to persuade people to your point of view, you do. And if you are not trying to do that, why comment on this thread at all?

I suspect to insinuate an argument that he can't support. Lacking any evidence to back his case, he can allude to it. Which is better than nothing, I suppose.

You lack any evidence to back your case is right, and that is the best you can do, at best.

 

[Skylar]

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

If you want to persuade people to your point of view, you do. And if you are not trying to do that, why comment on this thread at all?

I suspect to insinuate an argument that he can't support. Lacking any evidence to back his case, he can allude to it. Which is better than nothing, I suppose.

You lack any evidence to back your case is right, and that is the best you can do, at best.

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

Yawning......keep running.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

If you want to persuade people to your point of view, you do. And if you are not trying to do that, why comment on this thread at all?

I suspect to insinuate an argument that he can't support. Lacking any evidence to back his case, he can allude to it. Which is better than nothing, I suppose.

You lack any evidence to back your case is right, and that is the best you can do, at best.

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

Yawning......keep running.

Don't have to and you can't. Boring.

 

[Skylar]

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

If you want to persuade people to your point of view, you do. And if you are not trying to do that, why comment on this thread at all?

I suspect to insinuate an argument that he can't support. Lacking any evidence to back his case, he can allude to it. Which is better than nothing, I suppose.

You lack any evidence to back your case is right, and that is the best you can do, at best.

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

Yawning......keep running.

Don't have to and you can't. Boring.

Then so much for your claims of a false equivalency fallacy. As even you can't factually distinguish your conception of god from imagination.

Keep running.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you want to persuade people to your point of view, you do. And if you are not trying to do that, why comment on this thread at all?

I suspect to insinuate an argument that he can't support. Lacking any evidence to back his case, he can allude to it. Which is better than nothing, I suppose.

You lack any evidence to back your case is right, and that is the best you can do, at best.

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

Yawning......keep running.

Don't have to and you can't. Boring.

Then so much for your claims of a false equivalency fallacy. As even you can't factually distinguish your conception of god from imagination. Keep running.

That's merely your unproven assertion. Your false equivalency fallacy failed a long time ago in this thread.

 

[Skylar]

I suspect to insinuate an argument that he can't support. Lacking any evidence to back his case, he can allude to it. Which is better than nothing, I suppose.

You lack any evidence to back your case is right, and that is the best you can do, at best.

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

Yawning......keep running.

Don't have to and you can't. Boring.

Then so much for your claims of a false equivalency fallacy. As even you can't factually distinguish your conception of god from imagination. Keep running.

That's merely your unproven assertion. Your false equivalency fallacy failed a long time ago in this thread.

Oh, you're demonstrating it right now. As you've never been able to factually distinguish your conception of god from imagination.

And thus have never been able to demonstrate a 'false equivalency fallacy'. You're stuck, Jake. Your claims fall apart without factual backing. And you have no factual backing.

I just have to sit back and watch the collapse of your argument.