• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teachers suspended for spraying non-Christian teacher w/ squirt bottle

The fallacy lays in the fact that you are asking for negative proof.

Actually, that would be you.

This fallacy is often employed in the criticism of a new scientific theory, by arguing that the theory is false because a phenomenon it predicts has not yet been observed. More formally:

1. P has not been observed
2. Therefore P does not exist
3. Therefore the theory predicting P is false


God has not been observed. Therefore God does not exist. This is your argument. You just defined your own fallacy. Well done :)

The burden of proof is on those who believe there is a God.

There is no burden. You can either believe or not believe.

Not those who do not admit it as a fact without any evidence. It's not about "faith". It's about "evidence". You say there is a God. I say sure, show me proof that can withstand scrutiny. You can't. So I conclude that there isn't. Welcome to the world of rational thought.

You have no factual data God doesn't exist so your argument is also based on faith.

Funny how you speak of rational thought and accuse me of a fallacy that fits your own belief system :)
 
Actually, that would be you.

This fallacy is often employed in the criticism of a new scientific theory, by arguing that the theory is false because a phenomenon it predicts has not yet been observed. More formally:

1. P has not been observed
2. Therefore P does not exist
3. Therefore the theory predicting P is false


God has not been observed. Therefore God does not exist. This is your argument. You just defined your own fallacy. Well done :)

There is no burden. You can either believe or not believe.

Not if you state it as a fact.

You have no factual data God doesn't exist so your argument is also based on faith.

Funny how you speak of rational thought and accuse me of a fallacy that fits your own belief system :)

The mental acrobatics in your argument are Cirque Du Soleil worthy. What you fail to understand is one key element. You should have kept reading from your copy and paste job:

Negative Proof

The argument becomes valid if P has not been observed in an experiment in which the theory predicts that P must occur.

There is indeed a burden of proof when you state God is a fact ('God exists') and you refuse to provide any experiments which can validate your claim to such a fact.

Example, I state that chickens exist. You ask for proof. I provide the proof:

chickens.jpg


Atheism is a demand for evidence from theism. Because theists can not provide any such evidence or experiments to validate their claim to a fact - at all - atheists have no reason to take the "facts" stated by theists to be true.

See the gist of the argument yet? I'm not stating God doesn't exist. I'm asking you to provide evidence that God exists so that I can verify your claim. If you said, God 'may' exist. I would consider it a theory.

But lets approach this form a scientific perspective shall we? Let's say you're right and God does exist. If God exists within our universe, he clearly exists after the creation of the Universe and thus could not have created it. God cannot exist outside of our universe because it is impossible for anything to exist outside of the boundaries of space and time. Do you agree? So if God as per the rules of physics which are universal cannot exist outside the boundaries of time and space, and could not possibly live inside our universe because then he would not be the Creator, where does God exist and how much of your dogmatic claims are now true?
 
This is literally debating semantics and is a waste of time.
 
What these women did to the atheist teacher was wrong and not what Christ would do.

Unless done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen!
 
Unless done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen!

Actually Jesus was a pretty swell guy. Not a jerk like these teachers.
 
This is literally debating semantics and is a waste of time.

Agreed.

The only question that should asked is how credible are the teachers' stories, did the students witness this.

If so, then reprimand the teachers, ask them to make an apology, and move on.

Oh, and force the two fatty's to take the Jesus fish off their cars and replace them with AC/DC bumper stickers...
 
Oh, and force the two fatty's to take the Jesus fish off their cars and replace them with AC/DC bumper stickers...

Or at least with the Atheist Fish:

atheistfish.jpg
 
Or at least with the Atheist Fish:

atheistfish.jpg

Not being a Christian I don't really understand the "Jesus Fish" thing in the first place. Did Jesus like fish?

edit: Ahh. Wiki says it's just an ancient symbol that happens to look kindof like a fish.
 
Last edited:
Not being a Christian I don't really understand the "Jesus Fish" thing in the first place. Did Jesus like fish?

Yes, he ate them for every meal, especially on Fridays.
Mackerel was a particular Messianic fave, thus the term "Holy Mackerel".
 
Yes, he ate them for every meal, especially on Fridays.
Mackerel was a particular Messianic fave, thus the term "Holy Mackerel".

Which inevitably leads to a "holy crap."
 
Not being a Christian I don't really understand the "Jesus Fish" thing in the first place. Did Jesus like fish?

edit: Ahh. Wiki says it's just an ancient symbol that happens to look kindof like a fish.

The "Jesus Fish" was how early Christians were able to tell others that they were Christians. Christianity was heavily persecuted, and Christians would draw the Jesus Fish in the dirt in front of secret places of meeting so that they could enter and not risk having guards or law enforcement from coming in and arresting everyone for their faith.
 
Not being a Christian I don't really understand the "Jesus Fish" thing in the first place. Did Jesus like fish?

edit: Ahh. Wiki says it's just an ancient symbol that happens to look kindof like a fish.

If I remember correctly, Pagans used the symbol as did other cultures. A lot of people think the ichthys is a Christian symbol.
 
If I remember correctly, Pagans used the symbol as did other cultures. A lot of people think the ichthys is a Christian symbol.

And it appears to have had very little to do with fish ;)
 
Actually the common belief in the Christian community, is that the fish symbol was adopted because of what Jesus told the disciples who were fishermen: "Come with me, and I will make you fishers of men," (a reference to the evangelical calling of the apostles, to find and convert those who would believe.)
 
Actually the common belief in the Christian community, is that the fish symbol was adopted because of what Jesus told the disciples who were fishermen: "Come with me, and I will make you fishers of men," (a reference to the evangelical calling of the apostles, to find and convert those who would believe.)

I always assumed it was in reference to the loaves-and-fishes miracle thingie.
 
LOL Assult with a bottle of water. Now thats rich.
Legally it's assault. They had no business trying to silence her just because they disagree with her views and hate the 1st Amendment. You also have no proof that she was proselytizing her atheism in the class. Just saying "I'm an atheist" isn't proselytizing.

And thats assuming she is telling the truth. The other teachers deny doing it.
They said it was perfume, not water.
 
They said it was perfume, not water.

I thought "holy water" was a Catholic thing. Only.
And Catholics typically aren't big proselytizers. It's not like they go around trying to get people to join their church. Converting to Catholicism is a tedious and time-consuming process.
None of this "Just accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, yay now you're one of us, welcome to the club" malarkey for Catholics.

Also, I'm not sure how one would go about obtaining holy water, even if one were Catholic.
It's kept in a font attached to the wall near the entrance of the sanctuary. One dips one's fingers in it and crosses oneself.
One doesn't fill up one's Super-Soaker 5000 with it.

So I imagine they're telling the truth; it probably wasn't holy water.
 
Last edited:
Very true, Catholics don't proselytize and it would be sacrilegious to to put Holy Water in a squirt gun. Catholicism has stricter etiquette and even liberal Catholics would never disrespect Holy Water.
 
As far as obtaining Holy Water, Catholic Churches have a Holy Water urn with a spigot for the faithful to take as they wish.
 
As far as obtaining Holy Water, Catholic Churches have a Holy Water urn with a spigot for the faithful to take as they wish.

I spent the whole first half of my life in catholic churches and catholic schools, and I've never yet encountered any spigot that dispenses holy water.
I imagine one could fill up a small vial with it, if necessary.... but one had better have a darned good reason for doing so- such as a sick relative in a hospital- and it would probably go better if one asked for permission first.
 
Last edited:
I spent the whole first half of my life in catholic churches and catholic schools, and I've never yet encountered any spigot that dispenses holy water.
I imagine one could fill up a small vial with it, if necessary.... but one had better have a darned good reason for doing so- such as a sick relative in a hospital- and it would probably go better if one asked for permission first.

Really? I suggest that you haven't noticed this. Usually it's easily obtainable. Out of curiosity you can always contact your local Catholic Church. It's usually quite discretely positioned in a variety of locations within said church.
 
Really? I suggest that you haven't noticed this. Usually it's easily obtainable. Out of curiosity you can always contact your local Catholic Church. It's usually quite discretely positioned in a variety of locations within said church.

Well, perhaps I just never noticed.
I never had occasion to fill a container with holy water, so I wouldn't have noticed a spigot even if there was one.
I never saw anyone else filling containers at spigots either, though.
 
I do like ten's idea of filling a super soaker with holy water though... bad ass.
 
Well, perhaps I just never noticed.
I never had occasion to fill a container with holy water, so I wouldn't have noticed a spigot even if there was one.
I never saw anyone else filling containers at spigots either, though.

I don't think too many people have home Holy Water fonts these days. That custom has sadly mostly died out, at least in the White community. I wouldn't be surprised if Hispanic Catholic didn't still have them, or use Holy Water more than Anglos.

Also, there's a growing Traditionalist movement that cherishes all things pre-Vatican II, for better or worse.
 
Back
Top Bottom