Columbine father

[whatever]

Re: Columbine father

Sorry, mookie, but this is full of common fallacies of logic and rhetoric... I don't know where to begin, but you can mix and match these easily. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc applies well to this one. Several others do.

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

 

[gounhwildcats]

Re: Columbine father

I know plenty of atheists who have more morality than folks that believe in God. But, let's keep this line of rhetoric going.

They don't believe in God but they believe in morality do they? Well let's see morality is based on the concept that there is both good and evil. By positing that there is such a thing as good and evil on which to base your so called morality, you are then positing that there is a moral law that is transcendent to all of us, and that we all inherently know and understand. By positing that there is such a thing as a moral law you are then positing that there is a moral law giver who gave us the moral law that we all inherently know and understand on which to base our understanding of good and evil. Therefore if these people who call themselves atheists, believe they are moral agents then they aren't truly atheists at all. They may choose to ignore God, they may choose to reject Him, but they cannot deny His existence and say that they are or can act morally.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Columbine father

They don't believe in God but they believe in morality do they? Well let's see morality is based on the concept that there is both good and evil. By positing that there is such a thing as good and evil on which to base your so called morality, you are then positing that there is a moral law that is transcendent to all of us, and that we all inherently know and understand. By positing that there is such a thing as a moral law you are then positing that there is a moral law giver who gave us the moral law that we all inherently know and understand on which to base our understanding of good and evil. Therefore if these people who call themselves atheists, believe they are moral agents then they aren't truly atheists at all. They may choose to ignore God, they may choose to reject Him, but they cannot deny His existence and say that they are or can act morally.

William Lane Craig would be proud of this steaming pile of manure. Kirk Cameron would say it was excellent. Ray Comfort would toast you with a banana. I could go on and on by pointing out drifters who use this same fallacious reasoning but it's too early in the morning to come up with things they would all enjoy about it. In the end, it's just tiresome nonsense.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/buKRYwWj7vs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Columbine father

They don't believe in God but they believe in morality do they? Well let's see morality is based on the concept that there is both good and evil. By positing that there is such a thing as good and evil on which to base your so called morality, you are then positing that there is a moral law that is transcendent to all of us, and that we all inherently know and understand. By positing that there is such a thing as a moral law you are then positing that there is a moral law giver who gave us the moral law that we all inherently know and understand on which to base our understanding of good and evil. Therefore if these people who call themselves atheists, believe they are moral agents then they aren't truly atheists at all. They may choose to ignore God, they may choose to reject Him, but they cannot deny His existence and say that they are or can act morally.

Total nonsense. I don't believe in God AND I believe that this garbage you just posted is evil. On what basis can I define it as evil? *I* define it as evil, that's how. Funny - that didn't require a higher power at all.

 

[theprofromdover]

Re: Columbine father

They don't believe in God but they believe in morality do they? Well let's see morality is based on the concept that there is both good and evil. By positing that there is such a thing as good and evil on which to base your so called morality, you are then positing that there is a moral law that is transcendent to all of us, and that we all inherently know and understand. By positing that there is such a thing as a moral law you are then positing that there is a moral law giver who gave us the moral law that we all inherently know and understand on which to base our understanding of good and evil. Therefore if these people who call themselves atheists, believe they are moral agents then they aren't truly atheists at all. They may choose to ignore God, they may choose to reject Him, but they cannot deny His existence and say that they are or can act morally.

What a pantload of crap.

 

[geezer]

Re: Columbine father

Food for thought: Atheism Is a Religion (or at least it requires a God for you not to believe in)

An observation: A lot of people confuse atheism with agnosticism. Militant atheists (Foxton, here) are some of the most religious people around. For whatever reason they base their spiritual lives on attacking and attempting to discredit God. Their relationship with God is tied directly to their self-worth. Whereas agnostics don't care what you believe in.

 

[pirate]

Re: Columbine father

although most religions have the golden rule in there someplace, I don't think following the golden rule requires you to A) be religious B) believe there is a higher being

I'm really not sure how that fits in with moral law since I'm not sure exactly what the statutes are...but if it means following the golden rule I think I'm going to be ok at the end of it all, even if there is a guy up there with a notebook and a report card on me.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Columbine father

Food for thought: Atheism Is a Religion (or at least it requires a God for you not to believe in)

No, no it doesn't. It requires that you don't believe in any and all deities.

An observation: A lot of people confuse atheism with agnosticism.

A lot of people, surprisingly they are almost all ignorant theists who confuse the lack of belief with a belief. I wonder how often they also think not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Militant atheists (Foxton, here) are some of the most religious people around. For whatever reason they base their spiritual lives on attacking and attempting to discredit God. Their relationship with God is tied directly to their self-worth. Whereas agnostics don't care what you believe in.

Well that's nice, care to show what a spiritual life is or some kind of positive proof of this god being? Can you tell me one other aspect of your life where you went about accepting someone's claims without any shred of proof? Especially when they make such ridiculously offensive claims as the ones made about personal deities who not only are responsible for all of creation but give one.... nevermind I'll let someone who has already made a more eloquent speech about it go on.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BnoH95tITic" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But go right ahead acting as though saying "well you're just like us" says something positive about you.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Columbine father

I actually expected the resident religion hatred expert to toss his/her .02 in much earlier than this. Must have been a busy day at the local WalMart.

 

[duper]

Re: Columbine father

Atheism is a religion. Absurd.

I'll give you this; evangelical atheists, by which I mean atheists who go around trying to prove that there is no god, or that the idea of god is nonsense, are just as annoying to me as evangelical Christians. But evangelism is not religion, and I wish that Christians could get that through their ****ing heads! (Obviously, if you are a Christian who does not feel the need to tell me how you are right and I am wrong, I'm not talking to you, here.) I think the world would be a much better place if everyone would just let people believe what they believe. Discuss it, sure. Debate it with people with whom you share a mutual respect. But stupid ****ing bickering about it, from either side, is just, well

tiresome nonsense.

 

[pirate]

Re: Columbine father

Interesting point, would I rather have somebody try to shove their belief about God down my throat or somebody's belief there is no God? That would be a tie. Both are trying to foist their beliefs on me and both have equal proof they are right.

I try to make the distinction between belief and religion...I have no issues with belief, I'm not a big fan of organized religion, especially those that start with "how much you believe is measured by how much money you give".

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Columbine father

Can we go back to talking about guns? This religion stuff is boring.

 

[SanTropez]

Re: Columbine father

They don't believe in God but they believe in morality do they? Well let's see morality is based on the concept that there is both good and evil. By positing that there is such a thing as good and evil on which to base your so called morality, you are then positing that there is a moral law that is transcendent to all of us, and that we all inherently know and understand. By positing that there is such a thing as a moral law you are then positing that there is a moral law giver who gave us the moral law that we all inherently know and understand on which to base our understanding of good and evil. Therefore if these people who call themselves atheists, believe they are moral agents then they aren't truly atheists at all. They may choose to ignore God, they may choose to reject Him, but they cannot deny His existence and say that they are or can act morally.

Hogwash I say.

I believe science can explain most things and do not believe in any way there was a creator of all, having a moral compass does not require a belief in fairy tales.

 

[whatever]

Re: Columbine father

Hos****.

Morality is simply logical. You just don't need a Him to dictate it.

 

[Jon]

Re: Columbine father

Can we go back to talking about guns? This religion stuff is boring.

What kind of gun would Jesus use?

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Columbine father

What kind of gun would Jesus use?

I'd like to think that Jesus is the kind of guy that would appreciate a good classic rifle. Something simple but reliable. I am thinking he'd have a good old Winchester Model 70.

 

[duper]

Re: Columbine father

What kind of gun would Jesus use?

I'd like to think that Jesus is the kind of guy that would appreciate a good classic rifle. Something simple but reliable. I am thinking he'd have a good old Winchester Model 70.

Seems like pretty sound logic.

 

[FiveHole12]

Re: Columbine father

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this, hmm? On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton , Colorado , was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &*evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers. "The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA -because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent. I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.*Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.*
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,*
That God is what we need!*"*Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.*"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine*your own heart before casting the first stone!*My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"*Darrell ScottDo what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech. Please send this out to everyone you can.*God Bless
*
*

Thanks for sharing mookie.
Amen.

 

[pirate]

Re: Columbine father

I'd like to think that Jesus is the kind of guy that would appreciate a good classic rifle. Something simple but reliable. I am thinking he'd have a good old Winchester Model 70.

I dunno, maybe more of a handgun guy,something small and easy to hide in the flowing robes. For firepower, he has 11 guys in his posse, they could carry something a little bigger, maybe a few automatics. Thomas would probably have a backup strapped to his leg, he never trusts his primary weapon.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Columbine father

I'd like to think that Jesus is the kind of guy that would appreciate a good classic rifle. Something simple but reliable. I am thinking he'd have a good old Winchester Model 70.