Pastor Has Disabled Man Murdered For Insurance Money

That is false unless you changed it to say that X always leads to Y. Example: Interstate 75 leads to Florida (if you are going south) but what if I found a person who turned off and didnt go all the way to Florida? Would that mean that the statement "Interstate 75 leads to Florida" is incorrect? NO! But "Interstate 75 always leads to Florida" would be false.


Hmmmm

Some people think that going to high school leads to going to college. But I can "prove" that going to high school does not lead to college because I know a person who went to high school and never went to college.

There are some who think that having unprotected sex leads to STDs but I can prove that it does not because I know of people who had unprotected sex but never contracted STDs.

They say that smoking tobacco leads to lung cancer but I can prove that it does not because I know a guy who smoked all his life and never had lung cancer.

They say that having sex leads to women getting pregnant but I can prove that it does not because I know of women who had sex and never got pregnant.

 

Point of order:
If the thesis = "our morality is derived from religion", you cant disprove it by providing examples of people claiming to be religious who display immoral behavior. There are two holes in that "proof":

• 1- Some that *claim* to be religious may not be, so while their actions may taint the rep of others publicly, it tells you nothing about truly religious
  
• 2 - An exception (ie - immoral act) by true believers doesnt statistically disprove the theory

The proof needed to shoot down the thesis would be to prove that statistically believers are less prone to act morally than those that have no religious afilliation.

OK... as you were... just wanted to remove the logical fallacy from play. FTR... it is also a fallacy to shoot down in flames a weak argument the other isnt making, that's a "straw-man" argument. Drives me crazy when people do that.

Added: Actually, the thesis itself appears to be a history question anyway... and it's a simple historical fact that western civilization derived it's moral standards from Christianity. That sorta renders arguments on the topic moot.

 

Of course you can, because if religion is the basis for our morality how can the highly religious possibly act immorally? And more to the point, how could atheists behave morally? What we find in reality in no way supports the claim that we derive our morality from religion.

Absolute nonsense. Christianity took part of what it calls "moral" from what people already knew to be acceptable. Our "morality" contains hardly anything forbidden in christianity besides stealing and murder and we outright reject most of it, like working on the sabbath, having no other gods and converting other peoples property.

Ironically, this "morality" of christianity says nothing about child abuse and rape... things which we, well, me at least, find abhorrent.

 

Religion is merely man's effort to commune with a supreme being, not a magic wand that makes people incapable of fault. Perfection is an impossible standard, but then you know that. Another strawman argument (your forte). Nobody claimed religious people were perfect to start with.

 

Actually, in all honesty, he can't read. IMHO, he would definitely like people to draw that conclusion. You simply need to read his siggy, Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. How can that be interpreted any other way. When you engage him in a discussion, he will declare victory without any facts to back his claims. It makes the second part of his signature hilarious. Something about a chimp eating chips and declaring victory. Tempting to offer him a banana or two.

 

The sign on the post says, don't feed the troll

First clue, the signature which slanders a 84% of the people on the planet because they don't think like bright spark here.

Second clue:

Similar reasoning by the same logic.

• Atheism can't be the result of intelligence, scientific study, logic, and reason if some Atheists are complete idiots
• Having a small penis can't contribute to being contentious if some people with small penis' are entirely friendly
• Molestation by a priest can't be the cause of making the victims anti-religious if some victims continue to go to church.

Wheeee!!! Where's my crack pipe?

Shake n' Bake!!