• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DOC's Proof of Christianity Through Irrelavent Fact Attrition

Damien Evans said:
Here's One: All black people are better at basketball than white people.;)
Click to expand...


Okay, let's test this using more logic than DOC ever would.

1) All people are better at basketball than me.
2) I am white.
3) Some people are black.

Confirmed!
 
joobz said:
I believe DOC is attempting to "prove" that christianity is great and wonderful and is the only thing that is worthwhile because

...

2.) Jefferson was a church going christian

...
Click to expand...


I suspect that his point about Jefferson was that the separation of church and state is somehow unconstitutional. I have no idea what the point of his other threads might be.
 
Mojo said:
I suspect that his point about Jefferson was that the separation of church and state is somehow unconstitutional. I have no idea what the point of his other threads might be.
Click to expand...
That may be the case. However, it also turns out that he believes that christianity protected native american's from people like, Hitler and napoleon (you know, other christians).

Yes, DOC believes that Cortez (a christian) coming over and slaughtering an entire culture protected that culture from being slaughtered by another person (who would be christian).
 
And now, please update the list to reflect that no atheist could ever be elected president in the US. He just totally pwned us with further proof of Jesus.
 
Miss Anthrope said:
And now, please update the list to reflect that no atheist could ever be elected president in the US. He just totally pwned us with further proof of Jesus.
Click to expand...
yes he did
So far, the points DOC has raised have been

1.) Peter was in Rome
2.) Jefferson was a church going christian
3.) Communism would have succeeded if it was christian
4.) Athiesm can't rescue someone from drugs
5.) Secular humanism is a religion
6.) ACLU hates christianity
7.) Leif Errickson is a christian
8.) Christ and Paul are on some guys list of 100 most influential people.
9.) Native Americans Are better off on reservations
10.) Native Americans are better off becuase christianity allows for gambling
11.) Atheists won't get elected president
12.) US schools won't teach these "facts" because of the secular agenda
 
"ACLU Lawyer" Leo Pfeffer and Justice Hugo "KKK" Black invented the phrase separation of church and state out of thin air in 1947.

D. James Kennedy is a truthful and respected man.
 
You know, I got the funniest spam header ever today. Subject line: Sheepish Chain Saw. Made me think of this thread, but I don't know why.
 
joobz said:
DOC has started a number of threads which all raise a seemingly inconsequential point. (Was peter in rome, was Lief Erikkson christian, Communism better as christian,...). Whenever asked, "So what?", the question goes unanswered.

I wish to start this thread by presenting my believe as to what DOC's goal/view is here. I think it may provide interesting discussion and will hopefully shortcut further digressions down nonsensical paths.

I believe DOC is attempting to "prove" that christianity is great and wonderful and is the only thing that is worthwhile because

1.) Peter was in Rome
2.) Jefferson was a church going christian
3.) Communism would have succeeded if it was christian
4.) Athiesm can't rescue someone from drugs
5.) Secular humanism is a religion
6.) ACLU hates christianity
7.) Leif Errickson is a christian
8.) Christ and Paul are on some guys list of 100 most influential people.

The validity of any of these claims are not important to him. It is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for.

It is with the belief that by presenting enough small facts, these will add up to a large fact. This is obviously an example of either argumentum verbosium or fallacy of the consequent. But I would like for DOC to have a chance to prove me wrong.

Doc, why are these small "facts" relavent?
to what are they relavent?
and why I am wrong?
Click to expand...

It is a form of argument known as 'hyperfacts', ie a massive quantity of poor evidence equals good evidence (otherwise, "a million Frenchmen can't be wrong").

- So if you have enough unreliable UFO sightings it adds up to reliable evidence

- The fact that so many people believe in God must mean that God exists.

- A single experiment fails to show any statistically significant link between consciousness and the clipped output of a white noise generator. But thousands of statistically insignificant results over twenty five years adds up to a statistically significant result.

You could summarise it as follows:

For a sufficiently large n, nonsense * n = sense

Sounds reasonable to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom