religion

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I believe this particular logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".

By the way, theologians have PHD's also. Does that qualify them to decide for everyone what is correct or incorrect?

Mail order PHDs don't count. A PHD in religious education is not a PHD in education.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mail order PHDs don't count. A PHD in religious education is not a PHD in education.

http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs...y/religion.php

I don't know what you are referring to as PHD in education, because any PHD is a PHD in education.

schools like Harvard offer

http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs...y/religion.php

and actually have a pretty extensive requirement and learning required for this field.

I feel the implication you are trying to imply is that someone with a PHD in religion is a retard, when that is on the contrary.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mail order PHDs don't count. A PHD in religious education is not a PHD in education.

A PHD in biology is not a PHD in education either. There are actual PHD's for educational studies. What's your point?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You keep talking about reading comprehension. He literally said that a PHD in religion is not a PHD in education. Maybe you are having a hard time reading, or not understanding what everyone is saying.

No I didn't. Read it again.

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mail order PHDs don't count. A PHD in religious education is not a PHD in education.

A PHD in "religious education" is not a PHD in "education". What don't you understand?

[paulgiamatti]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion. They can't even differentiate between the ideas of belief and atheism, or religion and evolution. If you want to be caught in their web of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims, then by all means go right ahead. They are not approaching this conversation from a rational standpoint and are therefore removed from consideration for any semblance of rational debate.

I do have a response for Toofliss though, but I don't think I have time to get around to it today.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion. They can't even differentiate between the ideas of belief and atheism, or religion and evolution. If you want to be caught in their web of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims, then by all means go right ahead. They are not approaching this conversation from a rational standpoint and are therefore removed from consideration for any semblance of rational debate.

I do have a response for Toofliss though, but I don't think I have time to get around to it today.

So sayith the pualyG. So it shall be done.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion. They can't even differentiate between the ideas of belief and atheism, or religion and evolution. If you want to be caught in their web of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims, then by all means go right ahead. They are not approaching this conversation from a rational standpoint and are therefore removed from consideration for any semblance of rational debate.

I do have a response for Toofliss though, but I don't think I have time to get around to it today.

Lawls, you are a good read. I would quote you definitions some more, but apparently can't comprehend definitions through your thick skull. It's ok though, real issue at hand with you is you don't want people to preach to you in your house anything that would be detrimental to your opinion, or your children's, but you let said people into your house, just for the sake of ridiculing them, then get mad that they preached to you. You lost and respect a long time ago.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion. They can't even differentiate between the ideas of belief and atheism, or religion and evolution. If you want to be caught in their web of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims, then by all means go right ahead. They are not approaching this conversation from a rational standpoint and are therefore removed from consideration for any semblance of rational debate.

I do have a response for Toofliss though, but I don't think I have time to get around to it today.

Do you know how the theory of evolution was formed and its origins? It wasn't from honest scientific observation. There you have the first part of the answer.

[G13]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion.

Really?

Our posting privileges have been removed from this thread? Could have fooled me.

What a hilarious Fascist you are. Typical mouth dragging simpleton. When you can't refute facts you declare the debate over and everyone who doesn't buy into your Materialism and Evolution lies is "disqualified"

You are only making yourself look weak and small. Keep it up.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion. They can't even differentiate between the ideas of belief and atheism, or religion and evolution. If you want to be caught in their web of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims, then by all means go right ahead. They are not approaching this conversation from a rational standpoint and are therefore removed from consideration for any semblance of rational debate.

I do have a response for Toofliss though, but I don't think I have time to get around to it today.

"Neither lastly would our observer be driven out of his conclusion, or from his confidence in its truth, by being told that he knows nothing at all about the matter. He knows enough for his argument; he knows the utility of the end; he knows the subserviency and adaptation of the means to the end. These points being known, his ignorance concerning other points, his doubts concerning other points, affect not the certainty of his reasoning. The consciousness of knowing little need not beget a distrust of that which he does know."
Paley's '_Natural Theology_,' chap. i