Language is universal

[Whateverman]

In any case, as photosynth also intimated, this whole discussion about the signs of lying is beside the point.

Is it really? Talking authoritatively about the source of our ethics while showing signs of dishonesty is CENTRAL to the point.

But - I guess that's the dead horse I choose to whip...

[zilch]

In any case, as photosynth also intimated, this whole discussion about the signs of lying is beside the point.

Is it really? Talking authoritatively about the source of our ethics while showing signs of dishonesty is CENTRAL to the point.

But - I guess that's the dead horse I choose to whip...

I guess I'll have to disagree here, wem- I don't really care that much if theists are honest or dishonest, but rather whether they are mistaken or not.

[Vagon]

I would argue the rational thing to do here is realise Dan is beyond helping and save your posts for his blog where you are likely to have more of an impact on his fence-sitting audiences.

Bump.

[Photosynthesis]

Oh, by the way, "absolute" and "objective" do not mean the same thing.

Yeah, good luck getting him to be honest enough to understand that...

Oh I have quitted the idea that Dan could possibly be honest since he got married to he-who-should-not-be-named-the-pressupo. It's in their vows that Dan has to remain dishonest. Otherwise Dan would have to get a divorce. An expensive one at that, because he-who-should-not-be-named is so much better at lying than Dan that he would easily convince the court that Dan signed a prenup that should Dan break his vows he would give everything to he-who-should-not-be-named. Heck, Dan probably signed such a prenup.

[zilch]

Yeah. And neither one can write a creditable limerick.

[Debunking Atheists]

Yeah. And neither one can write a creditable limerick.

My presupp lyrics:

For you're snide comments
using the knowledge you think you have, you
cannot actually do what I ask, You have no
knowledge of your own knowledge.

You say you do,
oh you try, but you
use my worldview to account for your worldview.

[Debunking Atheists]

Oh, by the way, "absolute" and "objective" do not mean the same thing.

Because of the follow up comments, apparently Atheists believe fallacious arguments, like this straw man, must be addressed. Whatever.

To appease though, I will say that I agree to a degree. Absolutes are unrestricive and definite, whereas objective is not influenced, or colored, by outside influences or personal prejudices. So what point does everyone want to make here?

[IntellectualNinja]

There once was a fundie named Dan
Who could only use a straw man
He tried to use logic
But his language was just demagogic
And his "limerick" belongs in a garbage can

[zilch]

Yeah, Kait!

Dan: at the risk of opening a can of worms that's already dead and rotting: how do I use your worldview to account for mine?

[E-lad]

There once was a fundie named Dan
Who could only use a straw man
He tried to use logic
But his language was just demagogic
And his "limerick" belongs in a garbage can

Exactly!

Danny, lil buddy, it is always hilarious when you try to operate outside the scope your limited knowledge. Utter failure every time.
Since you don't have a clue what a limerick is here is the definition:
"A limerick is a kind of a witty, humorous, or nonsense poem, especially one in five-line anapestic or amphibrachic meter with a strict rhyme scheme Mmmmmkay?

To Dan
A real Limerick
From Froggie

Don't try to be intellectual
it is absolutely not effectual
and makes you look like a dummy
Stay on you're ( see what you did there?) message
or we'll count the wreckage
while watching you kick yourself in the bummy