Jerry Falwell

Hi I've been busy with school holidays and college deadlines. I just had to post this quote fromDreaming of Danzan Rajvaa

OK, last thing about transitions, this time about the “Rev.” Jerry Falwell being called home. Brother Palzang writes in to say that he and others are busy praying for his auspicious human rebirth – as a black lesbian. Amen!

hahahahahah  - v.funny

I wonder if any Roman Catholics are praying for Falwell's early release from Purgatory.

Atheists in the USA are probably very happy.  I watched a You Tube of Christopher Hitchen's summation of Falwell as a pickpocket which was an interesting angle.   The trouble  with that was not the content, so much as the delivery  made in a real heat of anger.  Bust a blood vessel!    Pickpocket or perhaps Ear Tickler to presidents and to ordinary people too.  People love to pay to listen to what they love to hear ... its market economics at work...

But more seriously......

those who do pray.......

pray for the still.....

living Jerry Falwells....

that they get to know the Jesus they ought to know.....

not the One they think they know.....

Amen.

Perhaps Falwell is meeting Jesus right now? Now that would be interesting to witness.  But then when I meet Jesus for the rest of eternity, after I have shed this tent, that might be interesting too.   I feel reluctant to point the finger in a way, I'm not so perfect either.  We are all being perfected by Grace.  And part of this is to say we forgive the Jerry Falwells of this world. Forgiving him releases us from the power of anger that his image or persona or person may hold over us.

Gosh, that got a bit religious didn't it?

Politics, religion and money should all get separate bedrooms; threesomes can be very damaging. 

 

 

Comments

[radical evangelical]

yes, I agree with the 'being non-judgemental' thing.

however, I remember saying this to a friend of mine, I was being all serence and peaceful and saying stuff like 'God uses who he uses, even if they are people we don't approve of' (cos I know someone who was healed by Benny Hinn - no joke) and he said to me 'well I want to climb into the TV and punch him in the face' - well, yes, I suppose that works too.

[sean]

Not just US atheists...

[Karen]

Hi Sean, you wasted no time!

Atheists - why should they have any emotional or even any emotive response to Falwell?

[sean]

Have a look here for an answer or two!
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/foulwell.htm

[Karen]

Thanks, if you want a good belly laugh click on the Pat Roberstson links on the page you mentioned. Robertson has a show called the 700 Club which is highly 'entertaining'. The greatest hoot is to be found on the Jan and Paul Crouch channels er, TBN Trinity Broadcast Network.

Thank God they don't quote scripture - well, certainly with no sense of hermeneutic in the way even a half decent theologian would understand it! HaHaHa!?! The scriptures simply do not support the claims these people are making about the scriptures or God or Jesus or homosexuals.

The real issue, in an everyday sense, with the fundie neo-con. scene in America is that at it's roots lie thousands of disgruntled black (yes) and white poorly educated, poverty stricken, unemployed or low wage blue and grey collar workers looking for answers. They've been shafted by the system and now they are being shafted by these so called ministers. These poor people, as well the Iraqis and Afghans and the rest of the Third World, are the real tragedy lying at the feet of Falwell and Bush et al.

Essentially people like Falwell are orchestrating a millenarian movement cum cargo cult.

A cursory glance at THE GOD CHANNEL shows these guys - and gals - in all their glory. This particular channel has been pumping it's thing into the UK for about eight years now. The channel was originally based near Newcastle but about four years ago it persuaded viewers to stump up the cash to move the company to the 'Holy Land'; hopefully so that their journalists could be the first to report the 'Rapture' or the Second Coming. The channel carries US programming which cuts along racial lines and is devoted to promoting something known as Prosperity Gospel in Christian circles.

Your positive atheist guy makes some good points here - http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#WHATISPOSATH
many of which I wholeheartedly agree with, but this made me 'wonder', "True morality, Gora says, is based entirely in the real world." Which, or whose real world would that be?

(By the way, post a reply only the once. You are sending me each post several times. Once you've gone past the encryption password thingy I've got the comment.)

Any way I must put some groceries away.

[sean]

You'd have to ask him what he meant by "true" "morality" "real" and "world". These are all words which mean different things to different people. Some think it a moral imperative to kill women for going to nightclubs for reasons which elude many of us.

[Karen]

"These are all words which mean different things to different people."

Exactly.

[sean]

Seen this? http://objectiveministries.org/

[Karen]

Yeah, and I've seen its allied site Landover Baptist Church too. Try this site from the UK, http://ship-of-fools.com/

[sean]

Ah yes, Landover had something to say about Falwell too..http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0507/falwell.html

[Karen]

The spoof sites are OK as far as they go...I have found it more useful to look at the sites run by these people themselves.

Incidentally, I have been 'investigating', in an ad hoc way, American televangelism and fundamentalism since c1998 and it is a far more complex picture than the media here portray. Once I've graduated I'm hoping to MA/Phd in this area - unless of course something more exciting comes up, which knowing myself as I do is highly likely.

The best critiques of these Falwell types comes from within Protestantism itself. It's not enough to simply slag these people off, no matter how hurtful their comments. In fact the spoof sites as mentioned above are more likely to harden their resolve and 'beliefs'.

The background of these ministers, minstries and their congregations, their theology together with the historical and the socio-economic factors have to be synthesised to be understood. There is also the culture or mythology of THE OLD WEST which plays a large part in informing how many american fundamentalists view themselves.

And lets face it how many humans succumb to fantasy of their ancestors lives or the struggle of their racial group against oppression? I think you know what I'm getting at!

Many of the people in the bible-belt are descendents of Scots and Irish Presbyterian immigrants with a set of views and values which has become isolated and intensified by the way americans live their lives.

Most Americans in the midwest have never gone beyond their own home town - not even for a vacation or a road trip. Most Americans do not own a passport. Most Americans stay at home for holidays and have never held a passport. Most Americans are too low paid to enjoy the basic cultural outlets which might expand their worldview. They are badly educated and not eligible for higher education. They have jobs that do not qualify them for them paid holidays. I have been told this by various Americans I have met and was quite shocked. These aspects have to be taken into consideration.

Moreover these people remember their ancestors' struggles as pioneers, probably through rose tinted glasses; religion is a key part of that story.

The other issue in the bible-belt is that in this low employment opportunity, poor life-chance location, the major steady source of employment is the military and armaments manufacture. Christian or not, that is going to colour your view if you are dependant on American imperialism to put bread on your table.

Colorado Springs which is the Televangelist mega-ministry hub of the USA just also happens to be where NORAD is based nearby at Cheyenne Mountain.

In the USA Sojourners at http://www.sojo.net are probably just as indicative of another massive swathe of Christian opinion in the USA which never gets any media attention here because it doesn't fit the stereotypes we have of American christians.

[sean]

Hmm.

1. I'm not sure how one would determine which critiques were "better" in this area by any objective criteria. In the absence of such criteria, I have only this to say: These people are vermin. End of.

2. Everyone is subject to confirmation bias, not just fundie morons. Everyone's views are hardened by challenge. Most people have no grounding in logical deduction, and therefore cannot differentiate what they wish to be true from what would seem to be true. Therefore at a first approximation, attempting to discuss more or less anything with anyone who subscribes to any "truth" which they believe to exist outside of physical evidence is a waste of time. It's fun if you have the time to bait people in full flight from reality, but I just don't any more.

3. As far as further degrees are concerned, my personal experience was that I was thoroughly sick of academia by the time I finished my Master's, and that my interests and outlook on life changed quite dramatically whilst I was studying.

[Karen]

'Therefore at a first approximation, attempting to discuss more or less anything with anyone who subscribes to any "truth" which they believe to exist outside of physical evidence is a waste of time.'

That is a first approximation.

Why rely on notions of objective or subjective when discussing "truth". Science, engineering, even humanities to some extent then yes. But objectivity is very argued about in science and in humanities.

'...any "truth"' Sometimes those who are "closer" to the vermin may understand the vermin's truth more than the rat-catcher. Poachers turned gamekeepers perhaps...

My own christian perspective is that our views should be softened by challenge and towards the challenger themselves.

[sean]

Your response illustrates my point, if not perfectly, then to some extent. That I am then tempted to discuss this is ridiculous, but just this once...I'm avoiding doing some really dull research...

1. There "are" such things as objective truths, or what might be called facts. People may be entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. I invite anyone who genuinely doubts the existence of a real world with consistent laws to jump from something very high. If you jump and walk away, I'll concede the point. If you are not willing to carry out the experiment, perhaps your sophistry is just an exercise in mental masturbation. The different flavours of religion and the humanities will seemingly argue for ever, achieving nothing, as they do not seem to have, (or in some cases even to wish to) proved their basic assumptions. They simply trade opinions, no major issue ever being resolved, completely isolated from opposing viewpoints by their confirmation bias.

2. I can understand your confusion on the following point, having not trained as a scientist, but objectivity is not "very argued about" in Science. Scientists think it good to be as objective as possible. They design experiments to try to do this. No-one ever argues for less objectivity in science. That we fall short of perfect objectivity is axiomatic. Science is not about perfect truth, but our best interpretation of what we observe. We try not to have "beleifs" at all in our professional life. Some like me try to extend this to all areas.

If we do not draw a line between those things we can prove to be true(objective truth) and those things we think or more usually wish were true(subjective truth), we will be caught in our fantasy of how the world might be. A quick look at the internet will show where this leads.

3. Whether fundies are "good" or "bad" is not a matter of objective truth. It is a matter of opinion. This is not however to say that it's all relative. Unlike the "positive atheism" guy, I think that the balance of probability is that our basic morality comes from within us, and was hardwired into us by our evolution as social apes. Morality is entirely illogical, and has no foundation in the real world as such, but certain aspects of ethics are provably highly conserved, irrespective of nationality or religion. That it is illogical has not prevented bodies of pseudo-knowledege and pseudo-explanation from arising, which proceed by post-hoc reasoning and other sophistry from bad axioms to attempt to prove how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or why goodness is good.

We more or less all know right from wrong, and on some level we know we know. We might not listen, but that is another matter.

Whatever else the bible might be, it's a really bad science text. The positive atheism guy gives some examples. I object to the fact that the fundies want their retarded religion taught as objective fact. It is facile to prove that the bible is not an inerrant description of the history of the physical world. My in-built, illogical morals consider it bad to deceive children. My opinion is that all of those who spread ignorance and superstition are bad people.

4. I think it good from my illogical moral standpoint that you think views should be softened by challenge, but I suspect on reasonably good authority that the real world does not work that way. Your opinion of what you beleive a Christian should think or do is irrelevant to the truth of whether challenge in general hardens beliefs. This is something which can be measured, though we have to venture into the rather fluffy world of psychology to see the evidence. Quite a few psychological studies confirm that challenging people's views harden them. I am not aware of any which challenge this conclusion. Be honest with yourself, is my challenge actually causing you to question any of your core beliefs? As far as I can remember, your core moral judgements have not altered since the eighties. That you now wrap them in Christian language, rather than politics seems to have altered none of your core value judgements.

Talking of Christian language, you may have a few things to learn about god-bothering. Born-agains tend to not to use the word "twats", in my experience. LOL.

[Karen]

Best critiques...you're a scientist which positions you to critique science in way not open me; the same applies in theology. I'm not "qualifed' to comment on science but you are "qualified" to comment on theology some scientists would call that a category error.

Calling people vermin limits possibilities of engagement and debate. It is not my call to judge Jerry Falwell as human being or even the "twats" I mentioned on another post - Thanks.

Was it a problem that I prayed for people like Falwell in my above post?

"My response illustrates your point but not perfectly"...but the jump from a high building scenario has already been extensively discussed by Christians: the general conclusion tends towards why should God change the law of physics to save your life. You have free will. Choose life, choose death.

Then a again would He push you off a high building? You might say no, because He doesn't exist, but you can't prove He doesn't exist; I would say no because in His revealed nature in Christ shows that He wouldn't do such a thing - but I can't prove it either! But if you did fall He would fall with you and be with you until your last gasp whether you were conscious or not.

How many Christians do you know personally who advocate your experiment? How many splattered Born Agains have you seen? Is it that they are afraid of your experiment or because they know the God who said do not put Me to the test? Either way I can see that it lets Him and the Christian off the hook. But then I not setting out to prove God to you. You are on my site afterall by your own free will.

Scientists are always striving towards objective truth about their work. Probably mostly most of them are, but we know that sometimes some of them are not...lets not bother with some of the scientific pursuits of some scientists...that would be below the belt. That wasn't what I meant about objectivity...

What happens to any scientist who cites findings which are a bit on the edge, or appears to have not completed a proper peer review?

And then what happens when someone passes through a paradigm? Sooner or later science seems to have the fortunate habit of breaking new ground; it does not seem to be a finite knowledge.

Why do I know medical doctors and scientists from various disciplines who are also Born Agains and even vicars or sisters in Anglican orders.

By the way the term Born Again is heavily disputed in Christian circles even amongst those who would describe themselves as BA as a short hand for Evangelical - but in turn evangelical can mean various things, not necessarily fundie.

Young Earth Creationism is a relatively new theological development dating back to the 60's and 70's and should not be confused with earlier theological views held during earlier history. Far from what we are commonly told about the CofEs reception science bishops were are warm to scientific findings and were also encouraging of developing scientific geology from the eighteenth century. The prime focus of Christianity should always be Christ not disputing modern science or trying to match science to the bible. Have I said that the bible is a scientific document?

Do my core values date back to the eighties? The eighties was experiential as well as formative for me. I would argue that I was already formed with core Judeo-Christian values before I went to college by my upbringing. When I was 15 I had what could be described as an epiphany about Jesus. During that time at college, because I was less well versed Judeo-Christian thinking, the various theologies that explore the texts and because I did not have an opportunity to meet with Christians freely, (my parents would never have approved), I couldn't learn to voice or argue or even reflect upon what it was I was believing. So I kept my mouth shut and tended to go along with others in a people pleaser kind of way. Not anymore. LOL

I think also the fact that my parents, whilst going along with many Christian view points, were wisely wary of organised religion - as am I.

My dad was a lapsed catholic from age 14 but that is not the same thing as not believing in Jesus. He wasn't aggressively lapsed like some people. My mother was kind of methodist in outlook and never sympathetic to catholicism. There was never any chance of catholicism seeping into our family. My parents married in a CofE church and we were baptised in the CofE. Catholicism was only a vague presence of no real import in my life and has remained so.

I wouldn't count my late teens as a pleasant experience but certainly part of my formation as a person and probably the greatest challenge to my belief in this Jesus. It almost finished it but not quite. I remember when I was 17 reading the Communist Manifesto for the first time and probably only time and thinking that Marx had ripped off The Sermon on the Mount. LOL

What you are saying is the challenge you intend, but I can't depart from the person of Jesus, he is too real! My core beliefs about social justice existed since childhood when I became conscious of Third world injustice through the things my father taught me and through some very basic childish understanding of scripture. In the late seventies and the eighties the injustices in our own society were in the fore of my mind as they were in many others of some belief or none. These concerns are not an anathema to a follower of Jesus nor are they a convenient nice add-on, although I fully accept that some Christians (like some aforementioned) of a right-wing neo-con, pro-Capitalist stance may have a different view of poverty.

For me and many other christians justice is a core aspect of Jesus as demonstrated in his life and His followers should seek to emulate him.

(I'm going to be busy now and for the next few days so I might not pick up immediately - also I've got teenagers who want to use the computer like yesterday!?!)

[sean]

As I said, there is no possibility of useful dialogue with any beleiver, but I seem to have been misunderstood here, so I will clarify.

You seem to beleive I have some agenda other than what I am writing, as you address in your reply things which I am not saying. I am not classing you with Falwell. I do not believe I have criticised you personally at all, though I may have inadvertently poked holes in some ideas you hold dear.

If you read again what I have written, I have not in fact attempt to dispute the existence of any god or gods at any point. I know the pointlessness of doing this with a believer. It does however seem to me disingenuous for you to be publishing your opinions on the internet, and then to decline to explain them when challenged on the grounds that a person can leave if they don't like them. Unless of course you concede that the challenge has simply hardened your beliefs.

I am unsure where you believe I have ventured into theology. I do not consider theology to rightly encroach upon any areas where there can be testable hypotheses. Theology is of course groundless nonsense to me in its entirety, consisting as it does of wild speculation about a hypothetical being for whom there is no physical evidence at all. It is not therefore an area in which any amount of perceived expertise has any value. There is no category error.

There is absolutely no possibility of debate
between a rational person, and people who believe all truth to have been written in a book 2000 years ago, despite all evidence to the contrary. It matters not what we call them, they seem beyond help.

Your "questions" about science seem leading. What do you believe happens in these scenarios? Do you actually care, or do you believe science has a concept of heresy? If this is the case, you are mistaken, though scientists are human, and act as humans will. Science is not perfect, but it is self-correcting, given time. The link to objective truth is the key. Appeals to supposed authority cannot hold back paradigm shifts in the case of reproducible evidence of error. No-one controls all of science, and plenty of scientists would love to be the maverick who proved everyone wrong.

That there are religious scientists proves nothing. As I implied earlier, when I said
"Some like me try to extend this to all areas.", some do not. They may have been brainwashed at an early age, or lose their desire for objectivity later in life due to some personal crisis. Many of the first category believe in the god of the gaps, existing only where science has not yet succeeded in penetrating.

You miss the point about my high building scenario. I am simply saying that there are consistent laws of matter, energy, time, and so on. You seem to think so too. There is therefore such a thing as objective truth, and I hold that it trumps wishful thinking every time. Anyone who thinks differently should jump, and prove me wrong. Or better yet, prove me right. Improve the gene pool.

[Karen]

"You miss the point about my high building scenario. I am simply saying that there are consistent laws of matter, energy, time, and so on."

Did you read my reply? What did I say about the laws of physics? I did mention laws of physics. Was the appearance of the word God in the same sentance the problem?

The jump from a high building premise betrays a view of the sovereignty of God which is very similar to the view of some of the fundamentalists themselves ... which rather caught my attention.

You have made an assumption about the scientific views of many christians. It's my objective view that you don't KNOW as many christians as I do. You make comments about scientists who are Christians - can you point to a study that confirms your viewpoint.

What about those Christians or people of other faiths, not just those who might be scientists, but in general, who on balance were not brainwashed as children into a religion and have not experienced some sort of life crisis. It's quite some step to make an assumption like that. Epiphanies aren't necessarily related to crisis; the word simply means a moment of awareness.

Your comments about theology do not take into account that large numbers of theologians and theology students are not people of any faith, especially where the secular university departments are concerned. Secular theology courses are currently experiencing a boost in applicants. An admissions tutor recently told me that this was being driven largely by the Iraq War/ War on Terror and that students want to learn about the various "religious" drivers behind current events, rather than any exploration of their personal faith because that faith is usually non-existent. Many of these students graduate into the upper civil service and the stock exchange where their analytical abilities are highly prized. Very very few graduates from secular courses go on to be ministers. Moreover, a large proportion of theological work is the study of history with reference to language, linguistics, papyrology and archaeology - this applies to both secular and religious theological faculties and establishments.

If there is 'no useful dialogue with a believer' why engage in the first place? That is a simple enough question, not an invitation to leave! You are over-reading.

Your propositions and actions don't seem to be cohesive in this instant...you don't seem to be reading what you yourself are saying, let alone what I have written.

You also said, 'That I am then tempted to discuss this is ridiculous, but just this once..', well you have been tempted several times now. (A gentle LOL)

Again, by your own criteria I cannot understand why you are engaging with me; that does rightfully arouses some question in my mind as to your motivation which seems to include an attempt to provoke me to demonstrate some sort of hardening of my core beliefs - something which you have variously alluded, Why haven't you named the studies that support your viewpoint on hardening of core beliefs under stress so that I can look at them? History might demonstrate that that idea could be a fallacy - how many Christians stood up for what they believed in Nazi Germany - very few. Most tacitly endorsed what was happening by their inactivity. A very few actively led the Reichkirke. A very few became active in the German resistance. Most laid low. I'm not condemning them, far from it, who knows what anyone will do when they are afraid for their lives. Yes christians notably in the middle ages and early reformation have died for their beliefs and interstingly that was due to conflicting theology rather than an ati-christian enemy with an alternative worldview. it might suggest that Christians are more stubborn with one another than with non-christians. Take note. LOL

Jesus said love your neighbour as yourself, do unto others as you would be done by and intriguingly pray for your enemy. He also exhorted his followers to carry baggage* for an extra mile for anyone who is in some sort of 'opposition', and to even give them all your clothes when they demand your coat. Some might call this supine; I'd call it peaceable and about trying to be conscious of what I say and do. I do fluctuate and fail, but His intention is before me. This teaching suggests to me that softness towards opposition as opposed to hardening is the correct course - and 'of course' this view isn't always demonstrated by Christians either today or in the past. Nor are these views unique to Christianity or people of any other Faith, because Atheists share these considerations too.

This discussion cannot be a level discussion because you have demonstrated by your comments that you believe that I am wrong in my worldview / faith and that accordingly I have nothing insightful to say about Falwell ( your comments on Protestant insights upon Protestant fundamentalism?). This is further illustrated by the fact that you have not engaged with my information about Falwell in a reflective manner but have instead led a digression from the point. I have followed your lead and have tried to respond fairly. Your responses indicate that my information about Falwell / fundamentalists is of less value than your opinion and polemic.

As to my blog advertising my opinions which I cannot apparently justify, I would say it is a blog as opposed to a web site and accordingly is part of my personal musings and is part of my experiment with writing, albeit public. And you have freely advertised your opinions here, I haven't stopped you even though I think have you not fully engaged with the Falwell issue but have instead diverted into trying create a science versus Karen scenario. Most of my writing is done on pieces of paper. I can write faster than I can type! Blogs are blogs and everyone knows that they are riddled with subjective viewpoints. Isn't that the upside/downside of freedom of speech?

*Roman soldiers had a legal right to demand that civilians carry their baggage a certain distance, about a mile.

[sean]

I was going to clarify the many ways in which you have understood me, but I can see there is no point in going into this in detail in that way. You simply do not understand what I have written. You do not have an understanding of logical deduction, as I will demonstrate below, if you wish to be educated.

Neither do you understand my motivations. I had assumed after your comments on the positive atheism site that you were reasonable, in the sense of amenable to reason. My intention has been a little intellectual debate, and some gentle teasing.

It was never science versus Karen. Most of my criticism was about those who believe in the literal truth of the bible. I never thought you fell into this category. In any case, I have said nothing against Karen, but at worst against your ideas. They are just ideas. They may possibly define you, but they are not you.

I don't think you need a paper now to confirm the hardening of attitudes in those who irrational beleifs are challenged. In any case, you conceded that point right that the start of the discussion, when you said that "the spoof sites as mentioned above are more likely to harden their resolve and 'beliefs"". It is not I who am contradicting myself. I could dig the papers out, but 1. I can't be arsed and 2. Until you can use logical inference, there is no point in you looking at them. They will simply run into your confimation bias.

If you are a genuine seeker after truth, as I had assumed you were, rather than an unquestioning believer, you may wish to note the following formal logical fallacies in your writings here:

Argumentum ad Numerum/Argumentum ad Populum: The Argumentum ad Numerum maintains that the more people who are convinced about something, the more likely it is to be true. This does not in fact logically follow. You use this in your argument about theology being a very popular field of study, and therefore worthwhile.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam: Quote authorities to support your statements. That someone said something does not say anything about whether it is true or not, irrespective of their title. You use a variant of this in your argument about religious doctors and scientists.

Deligitimisation of the opponent, a version of Ad Hominem, attacking the arguer and not the argument. You seem to be attempting to argue that any things which theology might consider under its remit are outside the scope of other forms of enquiry, or that a lack of theological qualifications means that one cannot notice the absence of gods, or comment on the behavior of the followers of a god or gods. Therefore anyone untrained in theology cannot have any valid comment on these things. This does not follow logically.
Your several claims to have special knowledge of the subject ar ein nay case undemonstrated by any qualifications of which I am aware. You are no more formally qualified to interpret scripture or offer thological interpretation than I, as far as I know. That a knowledge of scripture represents any useful form of knowledge is in any case disputable. As it does not rest on any objective truth, but is merely a form of Argumentum ad Verecundiam it tells us nothing useful.

Straw man: you have not countered my arguments, rather you have countered what are at best parodies of them. There are numerous examples, but consider your argument about Nazi Germany. You say that the lack of an uprising amongst christians shows that their attitudes were not hardened. The lack of an uprising may in fact tell us nothing about the degree of hardening of christian attitudes, but rather about their willingness to take on Hitler in combat. You even go half-way towards noting this yourself. This is also an example of what is formally known as confounding, where we have too many possible variables to draw any conclusion as to the cause of an event.

Proof by assertion: it does not matter how many times you assert something, I'm afraid it never gets any truer. There is of course a great deal of this fallacy throughout your writings. When you say that "The scriptures simply do not support the claims these people are making about the scriptures or God or Jesus or homosexuals." you combine this fallacy with your claim of special knowledge. Nice work.

The relativist fallacy is where it is argued that whilst something may be true for one person it may not be for someone else. "Why rely on notions of objective or subjective when discussing "truth"?. Whilst this is fine when applied to whether one likes cheese, it isn't logical to apply this to areas where there are provable truths.

Burden of proof- I have no responsibility to prove to you the nonexistence of all possible gods, or your god. Just as well, as it is impossible to absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. This also carries a second implicit logical fallacy. A straw man is set up, where Atheism is taken to be a denial of the existence of a god or gods. Atheism is to me an acknowledgement of the obvious lack of any physical evidence of their existence. I do not say there are no gods, just that they are undetectable. Hence I have nothing to prove, unless you believe there is a scientifically measurable parameter which demonstrates god's existence, unnoticed by science until now.

Now, no part of the above is intended as a criticism of Karen herself. You have clearly never studied formal logic. Nothing to be ashamed of. I'm trying to help you get closer to the truth, if you care about that.

How certain are you now of those things you attempted to demonstrate to me with this false logic? If you are just as certain, after you have looked up these logical fallacies, and seen that I am factually correct, are you going to continue to contradict yourself about hardening of attitudes under challenge?

It's just supposed to be a bit of fun, Karen. As you clearly neither enjoy it, nor benefit from it, I will stop now.

[Karen]

You understand my motivations, but I don't understand yours. LOL

Your earlier comments are highly emotive... 'vermin. End of' - so objective; so logical and so scientific!?! - LOL Was that your training in logic on display? Only when challenged do you fall back your superiority and your desire to educate me. LOL

This conversation is so so so similar to the discussions I have with male university educated christian fundamentalists. You have no idea!