alt.education

Martin Phipps wrote:
> On Sep 20, 12:33 pm, Danwood wrote:
>> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>>> Martin Phipps wrote in
>>> news: @ :
>>>> On Sep 19, 3:31 am, Dave Oldridge
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Christopher wrote
>>>>> innews:5qpse39k71pc75ab7lbetc7ni1jolflbqf@ :
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:15:45 -0700, Martin Phipps
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 16, 9:07 am, Dave Oldridge
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Martin Phipps wrote
>>>>>>>> innews: @ :
>>>>>>>>> "Dad", you're entitled to your religion, but all the evidence
>>>>>>>>> tells us that it is utter fiction.
>>>>>>>> All the evidence tells ME is that a lot of atheists BELIEVE it to
>>>>>>>> be utter fiction. That doesn't make them right.
>>>>>> Somebody tell the lying priest the difference between "conclude"
>>>>>> and "believe", and not to replace the one carrying the intended
>>>>>> meaning with one that doesn't.
>>>>> The only thing the lying atheist fundy pig CONCLUDES is that HE is
>>>>> the only god there is. Like all his fundy brothers, he's a flaming
>>>>> narcissist and a liar.
>>>>>>> Atheists also believe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are fiction.
>>>>>>> That doesn't mean they are real.
>>>>> Atheist fundies like Lee are a figment of their own imagination. The
>>>>> ego he worships is an illusion not shared by others. That's why he's
>>>>> such a nasty libeller.
>>>>> And I'm not attacking him because he's an atheist but because he's a
>>>>> fundy libeller. HONEST atheists exist, but he's not one of them.
>>>> The question is whether or not an honest Christian exists and, if so,
>>>> how long would they remain Christian against the overwhelming weight
>>>> of evidence that their gods don't exists and never existed? How long
>>>> would they be willing to continue to lie to themselves and others?
>>> Theists are not automatically liars. But fundies, both of the atheist
>>> and the theist kind seem to love lying.
>> Both you and Dr. Phipps _seem_ to think that anyone with a different
>> opinion cannot be honest. OW "they're lying". This accusation comes
>> across as a self serving defense. To accuse someone of lying is an
>> attempt to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.
>>
>> The accused then feels obligated to defend his integrity. The accuser
>> is off the hook. He has nothing to prove (in his own mind).
>
> It's more than that. If the accused dismisses the overwhelming
> evidence against his position and continues to present his opinion
> without even trying to refute the facts presented to him than he IS
> lying,
>
You haven't present any evidence against _my_ position. I do not
believe you don't know what my position actually is.
>
> both to himself and to the people whose opinions he is trying
> to sway. Read again what I wrote above and you will see that this is
> what I've said at least twice now already in this thread.
>
Sorry, Dr. Phipps, I have seen no evidence that you have presented
against my position.

Danwood
>
> Martin
>