Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| cw10 wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | cw10 wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | shrox wrote: | | ^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated! |
cw10 doesn't seem to [want to?] understand the solution to this trivial quandary, unfortunately. Such is the nature of contrarianism, perhaps. He won't even agree with me when I'm defending his use of a quote!  |
But, I'm right.  |
You're not really wrong, or right. The quote itself is flawed, because it is using more than one standard for defining "Founding Fathers" but still making blanket statements in regards to them. |
Well no, because the quote is accurate as it's written. 55 delegates of the constitutional convention. Those were the 55 who were present. How can my math not be right or wrong, or is this another silly game?
My math is correct and the quote is accurate.
Just say it... "cw10 is right". Swallow some gin first if you have to.  |
Your math isn't wrong, you are just not realizing the context of the quote you used, which was the "Religion" tab in the US Founding Fathers wiki page.
[49 protestants.]
28 Church of England (Episcopalian)
8 Presbyterians
7 Congregationalists
2 Lutheran
2 Dutch Reformed
2 Methodists
+3 Roman Catholics
+TJ, BF, TP = 55
+ A few others= 55> (total 74 counting all invited delegates)
In the beginning the standard for "Founding Fathers" used is the 55, but it is clearly expanded afterwards when the author elaborates on the non-theistic members. That the other two are not Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson (who were not present) is all the proof you should need to show that two standards are being used. I don't really drink, thanks
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
cw10
Phoenix
Joined: May 24, 2011
Age: 40
Posts: 973
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vigilans wrote: | | cw10 wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | cw10 wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | shrox wrote: | | ^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated! |
cw10 doesn't seem to [want to?] understand the solution to this trivial quandary, unfortunately. Such is the nature of contrarianism, perhaps. He won't even agree with me when I'm defending his use of a quote! |
But, I'm right. |
You're not really wrong, or right. The quote itself is flawed, because it is using more than one standard for defining "Founding Fathers" but still making blanket statements in regards to them. |
Well no, because the quote is accurate as it's written. 55 delegates of the constitutional convention. Those were the 55 who were present. How can my math not be right or wrong, or is this another silly game?
My math is correct and the quote is accurate.
Just say it... "cw10 is right". Swallow some gin first if you have to. |
Your math isn't wrong, you are just not realizing the context of the quote you used, which was the "Religion" tab in the US Founding Fathers wiki page.
[49 protestants.]
28 Church of England (Episcopalian)
8 Presbyterians
7 Congregationalists
2 Lutheran
2 Dutch Reformed
2 Methodists
+3 Roman Catholics
+TJ, BF, TP = 55
+ A few others= 55> (total 74 counting all invited delegates)
In the beginning the standard for "Founding Fathers" used is the 55, but it is clearly expanded afterwards when the author elaborates on the non-theistic members. That the other two are not Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson (who were not present) is all the proof you should need to show that two standards are being used. I don't really drink, thanks |
TJ and TP _were not present_. 19 of them chose not to attend or accept the election.
According to the paragraph as it's written it's 52 of 55. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MCalavera
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 3977
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cw10 wrote: | | MCalavera wrote: | While we learn how to fix the pain, let's not give so much credit to God for all the loving things we humans (not God) do without blaming him for the suffering he's compelled us to have.
Otherwise, don't impose the existence of a loving God on us because we don't believe in such an entity. |
Then what are you doing in a philosophical and religious thread? |
To debate rationally and expect others to do the same. But, alas, there's just no hope for some of the members here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cw10
Phoenix
Joined: May 24, 2011
Age: 40
Posts: 973
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MCalavera wrote: | | cw10 wrote: | | MCalavera wrote: | While we learn how to fix the pain, let's not give so much credit to God for all the loving things we humans (not God) do without blaming him for the suffering he's compelled us to have.
Otherwise, don't impose the existence of a loving God on us because we don't believe in such an entity. |
Then what are you doing in a philosophical and religious thread? |
To debate rationally and expect others to do the same. But, alas, there's just no hope for some of the members here. |
What's rational about debating religion when you have none? I don't talk about cars to my hair stylist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MCalavera
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 3977
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't talk about cars to my hair stylist either. In fact, I don't even talk about cars much to anyone.
I do love discussing the flaws of religion, though. Can't stop me from doing so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cw10
Phoenix
Joined: May 24, 2011
Age: 40
Posts: 973
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MCalavera wrote: | I don't talk about cars to my hair stylist either. In fact, I don't even talk about cars much to anyone.
I do love discussing the flaws of religion, though. Can't stop me from doing so. |
Well love isn't rational is it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:19 am Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| AudaciousLarue wrote: | Hello everybody, I'm new to this forum and would like to first of all start off with something that has bothered me for around two years. Here goes nothing.
My parents believe that I am going to Hell. Period, no questions asked as to why I am destined to go to Hell, beyond the fact that I have decided to choose not to believe in God and apparently that means my soul is in peril.
My journey down towards atheism began around a year or two ago(9th or 10th grade in high school). I was(and am) really big into philosophy.
I read more of course, and had at that point totally questioned the existence of a higher power. My parents tried to limit my philosophy intake, but didn't based on the assumption that free-thinking is good(and they've mostly given up on trying to control my beliefs).
We would get into bitter fights over religion, with my parents always concluding that to have purpose in life one must believe that a higher being is watching over us, every day.
I tried refuted this, arguing that one can still live life to the fullest, even more so without the fear of eternal damnation hanging over one's head. The fear of hell is not necessary to have a solid moral compass.
But, I feel guilty. My parents pray for me a lot, because they really do worry about my soul. And I seem to have chosen my path, and i don't see how I can go back. I just cannot believe in God.
They want me to become a born-again Christian "when I'm ready" but I feel right now that I just can't do it.
Is questioning everything really a "sin?" Is having free will putting you at odds with God, whom I really sometimes feel does exist, yet at the same time don't?
The biggest problem I have is this: How do my parents KNOW I will go to Hell, as if they are God?
They also think that I will overtime take up bad morals, even though right now they don't believe I have them yet. They argue that atheism=bad morals.
What do you think?
Anyways, I'd like to hear your opinions. |
I am an atheist with some bad morals (ie i drink too much, I smoke too much). I will admit that, but to say that atheism implies bad morals is a fallacy and it is absurd and this mentality needs to stop.
There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is also such a thing as internalizing negative beliefs that others impose on you. If people tell you over and over and over and over again that you are immoral because you are an atheist, then you may in fact become immoral.
There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever why atheism should imply immorality. Actually, I am surprised more Christians aren't immoral considering how immoral their God is. I am sorry if that is offensive but it is the truth in my opinion. I think what keeps them from being more immoral than they are is the fact that their religion is well accepted and they are not being constantly oppressed.
I am going out on a limb here, but I mean come on, atheism is not equal to immorality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cw10 wrote: | | Well love isn't rational is it. |
You could make a case for love being rational, yes.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:02 am Post subject: Re: Free-will and Atheism |
|
|
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | I am an atheist with some bad morals (ie i drink too much, I smoke too much). I will admit that, but to say that atheism implies bad morals is a fallacy and it is absurd and this mentality needs to stop.
There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is also such a thing as internalizing negative beliefs that others impose on you. If people tell you over and over and over and over again that you are immoral because you are an atheist, then you may in fact become immoral.
There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever why atheism should imply immorality. Actually, I am surprised more Christians aren't immoral considering how immoral their God is. I am sorry if that is offensive but it is the truth in my opinion. I think what keeps them from being more immoral than they are is the fact that their religion is well accepted and they are not being constantly oppressed.
I am going out on a limb here, but I mean come on, atheism is not equal to immorality. |
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. An atheist will likely have some slightly different morals in peripheral areas, while the core of the morals found in almost all religions hold pretty true for atheists too. (As a generalized statement about averages)
I have some morals and ethics most theists don't place any value in either. I consider certain acts the equivalent to a sin, and these things are not written on any stone tablet. But "I" think they are as important and sometimes more so. I see Christians in particular "sinning" in my eyes all the time, almost continuously. If I wanted to be as much of a hypocrite, I could try to get them to repent, and call them all immoral for sinning against the natural world of reason and intellectual honesty!! Hold picket rallies outside churches condemning the sin of teaching purposeful ignorance. (I don't)
Just because people have differing moral codes, does not mean any one is more or less moral. This is very subjective.
This is why Christians think atheists are immoral, and they think everyone else is too. To them, the only moral code is their moral code. It’s natural behavior to be blind to the ways of “others”, people only want to know the ways of “themselves”.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Thom_Fuleri
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Posts: 801
Location: Leicestershire, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shrox wrote: | True of many things, and funny with all of them. This guy comes to mind.
Is a guy who thinks it was aliens an "Alienist"? |
No, I think he's an alien. He doesn't look quite human enough... |
|
| Back to top |
|
kg4fxg
Snowy Owl
Joined: Feb 08, 2012
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:37 am Post subject: What's in it for me? |
|
|
With age comes wisdom. I don't want to imply that I have the best answers but experience is a good teacher.
I went to Catholic Seminary for three years. The bad side is all the sexual scandals, the good side is my getting to study philosophy. For me, I most likely fall in as an atheist or agnostic. I believe in God like Aristotle does. The first mover or intellect that created the universe. But that is far from the Christian belief in God.
I have been in many churches since from Catholic to Baptist to Methodist. It just isn't for me. It is not a place where I have made friends. I have studied philosophy meaning the great philosophers for many years and I have floor to ceiling books on the various areas of philosophy. Philosophy questions everything. It does not necessarily provide you with answers but allows you to think outside the box. It will allow you to question things that most Christians find unacceptable.
Here is a book that is an easy read and too deep. Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". It puts forth questions you may have never asked. It one place there is a prayer experiment with patients in different hospitals to see if prayer makes any difference. Some know they are being prayed for while others do not. It is quite interesting. Be open to question everything and in the end it does come down to faith which can not be proven.
Take it home point:
Just be open, read and question everything like the book above it will make you a better Christian or Atheist. I have no reason to pitch any belief accept reason. I don't think it is good to follow any faith blindly.
B |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cw10 wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | cw10 wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | cw10 wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: | | shrox wrote: | | ^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated! |
cw10 doesn't seem to [want to?] understand the solution to this trivial quandary, unfortunately. Such is the nature of contrarianism, perhaps. He won't even agree with me when I'm defending his use of a quote! |
But, I'm right. |
You're not really wrong, or right. The quote itself is flawed, because it is using more than one standard for defining "Founding Fathers" but still making blanket statements in regards to them. |
Well no, because the quote is accurate as it's written. 55 delegates of the constitutional convention. Those were the 55 who were present. How can my math not be right or wrong, or is this another silly game?
My math is correct and the quote is accurate.
Just say it... "cw10 is right". Swallow some gin first if you have to. |
Your math isn't wrong, you are just not realizing the context of the quote you used, which was the "Religion" tab in the US Founding Fathers wiki page.
[49 protestants.]
28 Church of England (Episcopalian)
8 Presbyterians
7 Congregationalists
2 Lutheran
2 Dutch Reformed
2 Methodists
+3 Roman Catholics
+TJ, BF, TP = 55
+ A few others= 55> (total 74 counting all invited delegates)
In the beginning the standard for "Founding Fathers" used is the 55, but it is clearly expanded afterwards when the author elaborates on the non-theistic members. That the other two are not Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson (who were not present) is all the proof you should need to show that two standards are being used. I don't really drink, thanks |
TJ and TP _were not present_. 19 of them chose not to attend or accept the election.
According to the paragraph as it's written it's 52 of 55. |
I know. I just said that.
Its not that complicated.. you're just not getting the standards used to define "founding fathers", which I pretty clearly explained, and which two different ones are used in that paragraph which leads to the nonsensical numbers leading to more than 55
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thom_Fuleri wrote: | | shrox wrote: | True of many things, and funny with all of them. This guy comes to mind.
Is a guy who thinks it was aliens an "Alienist"? |
No, I think he's an alien. He doesn't look quite human enough... |
It's the haircut.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Thom_Fuleri
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Posts: 801
Location: Leicestershire, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hurrah! I am not alone!
Sorry, what was this thread about again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What's rational about debating religion when you have none? I don't talk about cars to my hair stylist. |
Car-ists don't try to pass laws to install car values on non-carists. They also don't deny science or try to get anti-science taught to promote car-ism. But seeing as they just drive around in cars all day, I'm less interested in their hobbies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
