Founding Fathers Debate -- Need Help

[Darth Wong]

But why oh why would two athiest, communicating in private corispondence maintain this facade you aledge to each other?

Obviously, because they haven't figured out whether the other guy is on their side yet, genius. Is this really the best you can do?

Beside, the burdun of proof is on you to prove what you claim - that these men were pretenders.
you might like it to be so but wishes ain't horses

Thomas Jefferson's anti-religious quotes have been presented before. You simply choose to ignore them in favour of your belief that you can disprove one quote with another, rather than simply establishing a double life.

Care to back that up?

Your words on this thread clearly demonstrate an open hostility towards Christians. If I demonstrate the same level of hostility towards Blacks, or Jews, or Gays, you would have little problem in calling me a bigot.

Find me the quotes from this thread where I demonstrate an open hostility toward Christians.

You have this tunnel vision that so many pagans have that it's not really wrong to be bigoted against Christians. they are the acceptable group to dispise.

I'm not a pagan, you idiot. I'm an atheist.

I've seen it enough to recognize it.

Either that, or you're very good at hastily applying stereotypes.

I've seen it on the other thread on this board where a Christian is titled "Fundamentalist Moron" for the amusment of you guys who have no problem mocking those who disagree with you which is EXACTLY the thing you complain about Christians for doing.

There are many Christians on this board who do not have this title. The last time we did a poll, more than a quarter of the respondents said they were Christian. Less than a dozen wear that title. Did that not occur to you?

And you guys call US "hypocrites"

You appear to be getting desperate. Your use of a vague accusation against me, not backed up with a single quote despite your assertion that such quotes exist in this thread, certainly seems indicative of such desperation.

[Edi]

QTG, thanks for an informative (if lengthy post). Seems you at least can participate and contribute.

Or he/she can at least copy-and-paste

I noticed... The relevant parts were largely near the end, so it made for lengthy reading.

Can't say your fellows are giving a good track record of themselves so far, though...

He/she says there's no shame in being part of Storm Rucker's posse (the one whose debate style so far seems to consist exclusively of calling people "faggot" and declaring himself the winner). Apparently, he/she has a distorted view of his/her little friends and their debating ability. He/she is certainly rather confident of victory for someone whose arguments so far have consisted mostly of appeals to authority and the fallacious assumption that you can make a quote go away by quoting a contradictory one from the same source (rather than concluding that they prove the existence of a double-life).

The in-your-face victory posturing from this group really does remind me of the Iraqi information minister.

There was that at the beginning, but QTG seems to me to be much more of a potential long term contributor than the rest of them, so I'm inclined to let those initial comments slide. Reading through the group's replies mostly gave me a mental image of a race car going 250 mph at a solid granite wall, though...

Edi

[GC]

How foolish.

You do not have a copy of the treaty in your hand do you?

If not you are quoting second hand information, as am I.

Except that your own article confirms my interpretation; the Barlow translation contains the text you object to so strenuously, and that is the version John Adams signed. You are attempting to evade the rebuttal without examining it.

My appeal to a well researched SC opinion is no different than your appeal to an interlretation of a translation of a document a century older than that which I appealed to.

Wrong; an appeal to someone's opinion is an assumption of logical infallibility in their methods, hence a fallacious appeal to authority. Completely different from the use of a factual source, particularly since your source agrees with mine on the Tripoli point.

furthermore, the "appeal to athority" argument doesn't even apply here anyway since every quote plagerized to start that thread by VR/Duke was an appeal to someone's reporting of the quotes as accurate (a couple of which are not, BTW)...so he and I and you are appealing to the athority of whomever provided the appropriate quote.

Appeal to athority applies to debatees of LOGIC.

And any CONCLUSION incorporates logic, hence your attempt to appeal to the CONCLUSION of the Supreme Court is a fallacious appeal to authority. You are certainly living down to my low expectations of your logical reasoning skills so far. Did this not occur to you?

This is not a debate of logic, it's a discussion of historically verifiable facts.

There is certainly no logic on your side of it, that's for sure.

I don't assume the logical infalability of their methods unless you mean the logic of my looking at a school bus and "logicly" concluding that it's yellow.

My only "appeal" is to methodology.

Research.

If I say that it has been my observation that taxes are higher and another takes out his calcualtor and does the math and finds they are lower it's not that his logic is superior, it's that his METHODS are superior.

Logic isn't on the table, except that is logical to trust he who uses better methods.
That's why I trust them over you.

[Darth Wong]

Ah, a debate on a logic principle without all the victory posturing! This is improving!

I don't assume the logical infalability of their methods unless you mean the logic of my looking at a school bus and "logicly" concluding that it's yellow.

You appeal to their CONCLUSION, therefore you appeal to their authority. This is fallacious unless they are infallible, which they are not.

My only "appeal" is to methodology.

Research.

Then you can find the source data and present your own argument instead of saying "these people said so, and they know a lot, therefore it's true".

If I say that it has been my observation that taxes are higher and another takes out his calcualtor and does the math and finds they are lower it's not that his logic is superior, it's that his METHODS are superior.

And if you do not understand all of the machinations by which he came to that conclusion but instead, simply appeal to his authority, then you are committing a logical fallacy. How do you know his methods are correct?

Logic isn't on the table, except that is logical to trust he who uses better methods.

That's why I trust them over you.

I suggest a basic course in elementary logic. Your argument is basically "they worked really hard, so they must be right".

[Edi]

I don't assume the logical infalability of their methods unless you mean the logic of my looking at a school bus and "logicly" concluding that it's yellow.

My only "appeal" is to methodology.

Research.

If I say that it has been my observation that taxes are higher and another takes out his calcualtor and does the math and finds they are lower it's not that his logic is superior, it's that his METHODS are superior.

Logic isn't on the table, except that is logical to trust he who uses better methods.
That's why I trust them over you.

Can you rephrase that in understandable English? You're claiming to use superior methods or trusting someone who does, yet when these "superior" methods seem to provide results where the conclusions drawn from facts seem illogical when compared to what Darth Wong has been getting with his method, and to me that seems to indicate some severe flaws in either methods or the logic used to derive the conclusions you subscribe to. In this thread you have amply demonstrated that your logical capability is lacking and your methods don't seem to be too rigorous either.

Edi

[CaptainChewbacca]

I try not to mock or ridicule anyone until I've determined they have nothing of value to contribute. I try to leave lines open for inteligent debate. Wong, you're still on my list of intelligent debators, and I may come back here now that I've found this place.

As for Raoul, he answers most responses on the TrekBBS with variations on "faggot", "fuck" and "idiot" even when I don't reciprocate profanity.

BTW, nice avatar.

[GC]

But why oh why would two athiest, communicating in private corispondence maintain this facade you aledge to each other?

Obviously, because they haven't figured out whether the other guy is on their side yet, genius. Is this really the best you can do?

You take these incredible leaps of wishful thinking and then accuse me of being logically weak...wow.

Beside, the burdun of proof is on you to prove what you claim - that these men were pretenders.
you might like it to be so but wishes ain't horses

Thomas Jefferson's anti-religious quotes have been presented before. You simply choose to ignore them in favour of your belief that you can disprove one quote with another, rather than simply establishing a double life.

It is possible to be antagonistic to the trappings and results of orginized religion - especially the track record of said religion through Jefferson's day - and not be opposed to the Book and it's contents. Jefferson clearly respected the later and hated the former. It's a not uncommon position

Care to back that up?

Your words on this thread clearly demonstrate an open hostility towards Christians. If I demonstrate the same level of hostility towards Blacks, or Jews, or Gays, you would have little problem in calling me a bigot.

Find me the quotes from this thread where I demonstrate an open hostility toward Christians.

The post where you infered that all these wise athiest had to hide their athiesm from "bigots" - obviously a clear implication that they feared these bigots - is a good one to start. By implication you are saying that athiest have something to fear from Christians because of their "bigotry".

You have this tunnel vision that so many pagans have that it's not really wrong to be bigoted against Christians. they are the acceptable group to dispise.

I'm not a pagan, you idiot. I'm an atheist.

pagan = non-Christian. I know there's a crew out there who define themselves as pagans, but I use the classic definition because it gets tiresome to constantly say "athiest" and someone says "not an athiest, an agnostic" or vice versa...pagan is simply a catch-all term for any non-Christian in my useage. I meant no guess at your beliefs though If i had guessed I would have figured athiest. Your words don't read as one who believes in a different God.

I've seen it enough to recognize it.

Either that, or you're very good at hastily applying stereotypes.

Recived a lot of that too. You should see "Raul"'s posts over on the TrekBBS

I've seen it on the other thread on this board where a Christian is titled "Fundamentalist Moron" for the amusment of you guys who have no problem mocking those who disagree with you which is EXACTLY the thing you complain about Christians for doing.

There are many Christians on this board who do not have this title. The last time we did a poll, more than a quarter of the respondents said they were Christian. Less than a dozen wear that title. Did that not occur to you?

A. why should it apply to ANYONE if there is no bigotry in play?
B. I just got here, for all I know all that implies is that you only have about 50 posters.
C. So, there are acceptable Christians who don't get labeled but if they get out of line you tag them. but it's not bigotry. If you say so.

And you guys call US "hypocrites"

You appear to be getting desperate. Your use of a vague accusation against me, not backed up with a single quote despite your assertion that such quotes exist in this thread, certainly seems indicative of such desperation.

[/quote]
Actually, the accusation was intended to be more general than just you except in my first use of the word bigot quoted from your post.

I mean the generic, general "you" as in all you athiest - not even just on this board - exibit far more hostility towards Christians than you would ever tolerate from us without calling us "bigots"


Still, I didn't come here expecting to change minds.

As I replied on the other thread, my purposesin that list of quotes were two and only two:

1. that you can produce an impressive list of quotes on either side and neither is much proof of anything. It was simply refuting a weak argument with a like argument

2. I NEVER aledged that America is or was an OFFICIALLY governmentaly Christian nation. It's not now - it wasn't then. What I do claim, and consider overwhelmingly obvious, is that it was a CULTURALY Christian nation. It customs and practices, worldview, and sociatal assumptions were indesputable Christian.
And to a large extent, they still are - though it gets less so with each passing year.

Look, despite your first impression, It's not really my style to get in this sort of slugfest. I'm not about to come over hear and be the kind of troll that I despise on TNZ. There was a certain amount of glee in finding out Raul's secret (for which he will recive no small amount of grief back there) but I really can't maintain the agressive facade for very long. I have to leave that to others.

It's almost 4 AM here and my energy for this foolishness is spent. I may or may not come back here regularly and invite the label of "moron" to be applied to me.

So you guys can relish the fact that I "ran" and you "won" if you like.
After all, isn't that what these boards are for in the long run is ego stroking...

G'night all.

[Darth Wong]

I try not to mock or ridicule anyone until I've determined they have nothing of value to contribute. I try to leave lines open for inteligent debate. Wong, you're still on my list of intelligent debators, and I may come back here now that I've found this place.

I must admit that I did not expect you to say that.

As for Raoul, he answers most responses on the TrekBBS with variations on "faggot", "fuck" and "idiot" even when I don't reciprocate profanity.

Well, he doesn't do that here, and that's all I know of him. And the way Storm Rucker thundered in, it created a ... shall we say, unfavourable impression of your group. But everyone deserves a chance to be judged anew on a new day.

BTW, nice avatar.

Thanks. I love Gimp.

[Darth Wong]

Obviously, because they haven't figured out whether the other guy is on their side yet, genius. Is this really the best you can do?

You take these incredible leaps of wishful thinking and then accuse me of being logically weak...wow.

How is it a leap of wishful thinking? I know people who do that.

Thomas Jefferson's anti-religious quotes have been presented before. You simply choose to ignore them in favour of your belief that you can disprove one quote with another, rather than simply establishing a double life.

It is possible to be antagonistic to the trappings and results of orginized religion - especially the track record of said religion through Jefferson's day - and not be opposed to the Book and it's contents. Jefferson clearly respected the later and hated the former. It's a not uncommon position.

And you don't think it odd that a believer in the Bible would say "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence."?

Or how about "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."?

When would a believer say that?

The post where you infered that all these wise athiest had to hide their athiesm from "bigots" - obviously a clear implication that they feared these bigots - is a good one to start. By implication you are saying that athiest have something to fear from Christians because of their "bigotry".

So because I used the word "bigot", you assumed that I must be saying that all Christians are bigots? Does the term "leap in logic" mean anything to you? That's the weakest argument I've ever seen

I'm not a pagan, you idiot. I'm an atheist.

pagan = non-Christian. I know there's a crew out there who define themselves as pagans, but I use the classic definition because it gets tiresome to constantly say "athiest" and someone says "not an athiest, an agnostic" or vice versa...pagan is simply a catch-all term for any non-Christian in my useage. I meant no guess at your beliefs though If i had guessed I would have figured athiest. Your words don't read as one who believes in a different God.

Interesting that you lump everyone in the world not of your own faith into a single group.

Either that, or you're very good at hastily applying stereotypes.

Recived a lot of that too. You should see "Raul"'s posts over on the TrekBBS

Irrelevant to our discussion even if true.

There are many Christians on this board who do not have this title. The last time we did a poll, more than a quarter of the respondents said they were Christian. Less than a dozen wear that title. Did that not occur to you?

A. why should it apply to ANYONE if there is no bigotry in play?

Because some fundamentalists really are morons. We are talking about people who are incapable of admitting that it's ALWAYS wrong to deliberately kill a small child.

B. I just got here, for all I know all that implies is that you only have about 50 posters.

We have more than a thousand members. At least one of the moderators is a Christian. Get over yourself.

C. So, there are acceptable Christians who don't get labeled but if they get out of line you tag them. but it's not bigotry. If you say so.

Do you know what "bigotry" means? By your own words shall you be judged. That is not bigotry. Bigotry is the assumption that people MUST be morons or evildoers simply for belonging to a certain group, even without inspection of their personal values.

Actually, the accusation was intended to be more general than just you except in my first use of the word bigot quoted from your post.

And how does that make it right?

I mean the generic, general "you" as in all you athiest - not even just on this board - exibit far more hostility towards Christians than you would ever tolerate from us without calling us "bigots"

Ah, so in one breath you complain that Christians on this board suffer generalizations ... and then it turns out that most of them don't ... and then it turns out that they are judged on their own actions as individuals ... which is not really bigotry at all ... and then you turn around and generalize about all atheists. Gotcha

Still, I didn't come here expecting to change minds.

Then why did you come here? I have successfully changed peoples' minds before. Adults too, not a malleable child. It's not that difficult, if you have a sound logical argument.

As I replied on the other thread, my purposesin that list of quotes were two and only two:

1. that you can produce an impressive list of quotes on either side and neither is much proof of anything. It was simply refuting a weak argument with a like argument

Except that you are ignoring the fact that self-contradictory quotes merely prove a double-life, which is what we've been saying all along. What is your explanation for the anti-religious statements quoted? None. Then you complain that my explanation for the pro-religious statements does not sit well with you, as if it's somehow weaker than your solution of "no explanation at all".

2. I NEVER aledged that America is or was an OFFICIALLY governmentaly Christian nation. It's not now - it wasn't then. What I do claim, and consider overwhelmingly obvious, is that it was a CULTURALY Christian nation. It customs and practices, worldview, and sociatal assumptions were indesputable Christian.

What of it is unique to Christianity? Democracy? No. Human rights? No. Litigation? I'm afraid not, although that's not something to be proud of

What about American culture is unique to Christianity?

And to a large extent, they still are - though it gets less so with each passing year.

Look, despite your first impression, It's not really my style to get in this sort of slugfest. I'm not about to come over hear and be the kind of troll that I despise on TNZ. There was a certain amount of glee in finding out Raul's secret (for which he will recive no small amount of grief back there) but I really can't maintain the agressive facade for very long. I have to leave that to others.

Fair enough.

It's almost 4 AM here and my energy for this foolishness is spent. I may or may not come back here regularly and invite the label of "moron" to be applied to me.

By your OWN words shall ye be judged. That is not bigotry, QC. Everyone deserves that chance.

So you guys can relish the fact that I "ran" and you "won" if you like. After all, isn't that what these boards are for in the long run is ego stroking...

So says the one who came in bragging about how we would be struck down from our ignorance by the light of his superior arguments You can't seem to make up your mind about whether you want to flame or be conciliatory.

[Queen Tamar Garish]

Well, he doesn't do that here, and that's all I know of him. And the way Storm Rucker thundered in, it created a ... shall we say, unfavourable impression of your group. But everyone deserves a chance to be judged anew on a new day.

We really aren't this bad normally. You have to understand, from what you say and what I have seen so far, Raoul comports himself very differently at TrekBBS than he does here. I admit we all were a bit reactionary tonight/this morning, but from our point of view Raoul has been insufferable for awhile and to find out his arguments are not even his own despite his claimed "intellectual superiority" lit the match so to speak.

I am sorry for any trouble caused here tonight, if not for revealing Raoul's hypocricy. Maybe we can let bygones be bygones.

Heck, I love Star Wars too, I just never heard of this board before, maybe I'll stick around for some debate and Boba Fett appreciation.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I have a feeling "first contact" between the TrekBBS and the SDBBS has gone poorly. I'm hoping that can change, though.

I blame Raoul. If you've been reading the SWNJO, you'll understand me when I call him Nom Anor. Serving multiple empires, he foments anger and frustration on our board, and has colored our opinions of you all.

GC, you need to be nicer and give them a chance.

Queen Tamar, stop flying around posting in stickies. Its an undignified thing for a queen to do.

Storm... well, don't hurt me. Or anyone else... but especially me.

Wong, try to smooth things out with Storm. Believe it or not, he's a pretty fair guy and one of our better debators, but Raoul really gets to us when he just slams out arguments he didn't even write. Check out the TrekBBS link in the Troll Droppings thread. I don't know if you want to get enough posts to get into our "serious" forum, but I think he goes there to be the jerk he doesn't want to be in here.

I'd link the thread to you, but we're being discouraged not to.

How's about we all have some blue milk?

[Darth Wong]

Fair enough. As I said, everyone deserves a new chance on a new day.

I eventually forgave my in-laws after they told me that I should "stay with people of your own kind" (we're an interracial couple). If I can forgive that, I can forgive anything (well, within reason ).

[Dalton]

*grunt* I approve of this cease-fire.

*sheathes sword*

[CaptainChewbacca]

Good. Now I can sleep.


P.s. how does rank progression work here? Its not in your FAQ.

[Darth Wong]

Good. Now I can sleep.


P.s. how does rank progression work here? Its not in your FAQ.

You will need a few dozen more posts before you shed the hated Newbie title

IIRC, it's in the Announcements forum, under "user ranks/titles". Although it might be changed in the future; we have so many users now who are so far above the post requirements for top rank that it's a bit ridiculous.

[Dalton]

Good. Now I can sleep.


P.s. how does rank progression work here? Its not in your FAQ.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=568

[Slartibartfast]

[1789 address to military]
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Well, this one is obvious. On one hand, you have the moral people. On the other, you have the religious people. The moral people can tell right from wrong. The religious people are spoon-fed what is right and what is wrong since they can't decide for themselves. Which is a good thing, because they'd go berserk otherwise.

[written in 1813]
"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society"

Again, note how religion is a makeshift substitute for "virtue", whatever you want virtue to be. I suppose it means a respect for lawful values and stuff. Those who lack in virtue, can resort to religion as a crutch.

<snip another 1,000,000 lines of text praising the almighty Cthulhu>

Enjoy!

Man, you do have a knack for spamming, don't you.

[Slartibartfast]

Once the Queen pointed out this cesspool of self-congratulation, none of us could have resisted the fun.
Storm just happened to be the first to get registered and fire off a shot.

Your little enclave of narcassism will never be the same.

Pot calling the kettle black. Hilarious

[Durandal]

Good. Now I can sleep.


P.s. how does rank progression work here? Its not in your FAQ.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=568

You might wanna update my title, Mike.

[Peregrin Toker]

The post where you infered that all these wise athiest had to hide their athiesm from "bigots" - obviously a clear implication that they feared these bigots - is a good one to start. By implication you are saying that athiest have something to fear from Christians because of their "bigotry".

When they referred to "bigots", they didn't refer to christians in general, they only referred to those who would persecute atheists. You're assuming that aknowledging the fact that some christians are bigots is connected to assuming all christians to be bigots.

Hmmm.... I think we have a description of this logic.... and that term is "slippery slope fallacy."

pagan = non-Christian. I know there's a crew out there who define themselves as pagans, but I use the classic definition because it gets tiresome to constantly say "athiest" and someone says "not an athiest, an agnostic" or vice versa...pagan is simply a catch-all term for any non-Christian in my useage. I meant no guess at your beliefs though If i had guessed I would have figured athiest. Your words don't read as one who believes in a different God.

That is a very unusual definition of "pagan." Most people define it as "non-Hindu polytheist" rather than just "non-christian." (I speak as an European, and here it is most often used to describe those who worship the pantheons which were in Europe before Christianity arrived)

[CaptainChewbacca]

You guys need to revise your ranks. I can hit 1500 posts by the end of the summer. If you wanna give me a spiffy title, I'm partial to Official Arm Remover.

[Rye]

Isn't "pagan" just the roman word for "country folk beliefs"?

rassafras...christianity bastardising things again...rsfrs

[Hotfoot]

You guys need to revise your ranks. I can hit 1500 posts by the end of the summer.

So long as it's not spam and trolling, kudos. Doesn't make much of a difference though.

If you wanna give me a spiffy title, I'm partial to Official Arm Remover.

How about saving the CT requests until after you earn it?

[Slartibartfast]

pagan = non-Christian. I know there's a crew out there who define themselves as pagans, but I use the classic definition because it gets tiresome to constantly say "athiest" and someone says "not an athiest, an agnostic" or vice versa...pagan is simply a catch-all term for any non-Christian in my useage. I meant no guess at your beliefs though If i had guessed I would have figured athiest. Your words don't read as one who believes in a different God.

Interesting that you lump everyone in the world not of your own faith into a single group.

Well, pagan is used interchangeably with infidel or follower of Satan. See also "godless commie".

[Darth Servo]

Isn't "pagan" just the roman word for "country folk beliefs"?

According to the movie 'Dragnet'

People
Against
Goodness
And
Normalcy