So far this is the best example of absurd rationalizations by those determined to discredit Christians and perpetuate evil!
Note:
To say Christians "shake their finger" more often than atheist only proves that many atheists are not intelligent enough to realize they are not in a position to rationally make claims regarding right and wrong. To do so, contradicts the mindless platform atheism demands!
Public Opinion Isn't Opposed to a 67-Year-Old Getting a Lap Dance
SodaHead Infographics
2012/05/23 00:41:46
You might remember the story of a 67-year-old man who died of "natural causes" at a strip club after spending the night "face-deep in pelvic gyrations," in the words of the manager. However, reporting sources suggest the man actually died of a heart attack, and given the setting of his death, that wouldn't be too surprising. At 67 years old, a strip club can't be easy on the ol' ticker. We asked the public if it was OK for a man of that age to get a lap dance, and now we have the answers. Let's dive.
Top Opinion
-
Dr. John 2012/05/26 07:38:36
![Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003329051/thanksgiving-93109325925_crop.png "Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC]")
![A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003194651/stealing-88440771717_crop.png "A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC]")
i'm sorry but if I was a guy i'd much rather watch a perky 20 year old than a 53 year old, no matter how good she looked for her age.
Note:
To say Christians "shake their finger" more often than atheist only proves that many atheists are not intelligent enough to realize they are not in a position to rationally make claims regarding right and wrong. To do so, contradicts the mindless platform atheism demands!
That's a very interesting opinion. Sadly, you are blind to your own ignorance. Initially, I had no intention of singling out any one individual. That's the beauty of ignorance and pride. Those who basque in either or both have an uncanny ability to single themselves out! Let me explain (substantiate).
First, your reply begins with a fallacy fallacy. That is, although I didn't provide the "proof" to substantiate my position, it doesn't logically allow for the dismissal of my assertion. More simply put, Just because I didn't provide the proof, it doesn't mean there isn't any! Hence, the fallacy fallacy.
Second...my statement, as you have agreed was, "...only proves". Considering, my statement is referring to the actions or the position held by some atheists, it seems a no brainer to me, however, the proof is everywhere. Especially in the forums you mention. I apologize I didn't see the need to provide a source or reference for my statement when the proof is so blatant and obvious.
Third. Does truth change with age or time? If you believe so, you are a relativist and quite frankly incapable of forming ratio...
That's a very interesting opinion. Sadly, you are blind to your own ignorance. Initially, I had no intention of singling out any one individual. That's the beauty of ignorance and pride. Those who basque in either or both have an uncanny ability to single themselves out! Let me explain (substantiate).
First, your reply begins with a fallacy fallacy. That is, although I didn't provide the "proof" to substantiate my position, it doesn't logically allow for the dismissal of my assertion. More simply put, Just because I didn't provide the proof, it doesn't mean there isn't any! Hence, the fallacy fallacy.
Second...my statement, as you have agreed was, "...only proves". Considering, my statement is referring to the actions or the position held by some atheists, it seems a no brainer to me, however, the proof is everywhere. Especially in the forums you mention. I apologize I didn't see the need to provide a source or reference for my statement when the proof is so blatant and obvious.
Third. Does truth change with age or time? If you believe so, you are a relativist and quite frankly incapable of forming rational conclusions for the most part.
Truth is not subject to time. For example, I assume, you believe in some form of evolution. We may have different thoughts regarding this but that has no relevance in this situation, so I won;t discuss it. However, the reality is this. If you believe what science is theorizing you are guilty of holding a position from the 6th century BC. Darwin simply added something new to a very ancient theory. In fact, for those living in the period you refer to as primitive, would have considered the idea of "evolution" (not titled yet) ancient and primitive! Therefore, by your logic, YOU ARE MINDLESS AND BLINDLY FOLLOWING ANCIENT DOCTRINE WITH FAITH IN SCIENCE, IN THAT SCIENCE WILL ONE DAY PROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IN IT'S ENTIRETY.
TALK ABOUT MINDLESS!
Okay, so you have pointed out that because you didn't provide proof, it doesn't mean that there isn't any. Very clever, this is theoretically true, and I have found this to be a frequently used tactic by Christians to avoid actually responding to a question with an answer. I didn't say that I believed in evolution. Even if I did, Evolutionists do not presume to dictate the behaviour of an individual (or society) based on scientific beliefs. I've not seen a thread on here where someone posted 'Strip clubs are evil because life evolved from primordial ooze'. No, instead, religious zealots attempt to besmirch things like same-sex relationships, pornography, abortion, and - in this case - an old man getting his rocks off, all in the name of 'ancient doctrine'.
Would you consider the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians to be accurate today? No, you renounce thie gods, as you do with every other religion today.
We're both Atheists, Dr John, I just believe in one less god than you
I love intelligent people on the Internet. Makes my day much better.
Only an atheist would revel in the absoluteness of ignorance and think that "no evidence" has substance on which to build a conclusion
Also, you seem a bit free with the word ignorant. Care to look it up before you make yourself look the part?
Lets look at some definitions as you suggest:
Atheism as defined by you, "Atheism states that anything that cannot be proven doesn't objectively exist."
Atheism as defined in the dictionary,
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
ignorance (ˈɪɡnərəns)
— n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant
You were saying?
And I never claimed that was the meaning of atheism. I am well aware that atheists don't believe in any god. I was stating the basis behind their thought structure.
Agreed.
Some are also wise enough to live accordingly! Sadly, some are not!
"Perpetuate evil."
Think about it: how many crimes have been committed in the name of Christianity? Quite a few. Then think about how many have been committed in the name of atheism? My point exactly.
"Then think about how many have been committed in the name of atheism? My point exactly." WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Tell me how this statement is a rational one considering atheists claim to believe in nothing. In reality any crime NOT committed in the name of Christianity can be attributed to atheism. Not to mention, any crime committed in the name of Christianity, contradicts Christianity in it's most basic understanding. Christianity doesn't support or demand any criminal activities. It never has, and it never will! Those making the claim are quite literally and absolutely NOT Christian!
In addition, I may not be the Dr. John you have decided I am possibly impersonating, but you may have forgotten that there is in fact the possibility that more than one Dr. John exists and you don't know all of them, making your statement regarding my level of intelligence both illogical and mindless!
You can't attribute any non-Christian crime to atheism. Have you ever thought that there may be other religions? Islam? Taoism? Judaism? Buddhism? Atheism isn't not being done in the name of God, it's the belief in no deity. If I were to attack someone with a knife and yell "God isn't real!" that would be in the name of atheism. As of yet, I have not heard of such a crime being committed, while the holocaust, the crusades, and the inquisition all were done for God. Frankly, a god that demands bloodshed isn't worth believing in.
Honestly, I don't care how many people hate me for saying this. I have my beliefs, and I'm entitled to them.
The other logically invalid assertion you have made consists of a "category mistake." To say that crimes committed in the name of Christianity contradicts Christianity is absolutely true. However the error with this statement is in what the statement implies. The statement implies that God is bound by the moral same morals and laws we as his creation are. He isn't! You confuse justified killing with murder!
Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to p...
Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell, or “anathema,” upon those who would reject the authority of the pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).
While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through the following:
Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),
Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),
The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).
While there have been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as pope of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church related to us in the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel, and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves, but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9).