By popular demand

[Wicked Pilot]

Dude, you're done. You lost. Good-bye. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[GC]

Dude, you're done. You lost. Good-bye. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Thank you for that deep, obviously well thought out, response.
I'm honored by the presence of such a stunning intellect on my humble little thread.

[NapoleonGH]

im sorry did you give us evidence or someone's thoughts on the subject without any bibligraphical material or primary sources?


also most of the statemetns in those sections indicate that calvinism is a religion that supports democratic and republican ideas. Not that democratic and republican ideas are calvinistic.

[Wicked Pilot]

Thank you for that deep, obviously well thought out, response.
I'm honored by the presence of such a stunning intellect on my humble little thread.

Thank you. Now don't you have some more wanking to do over at Troll Kingdom? I'm sure your fundie minions are missing your talking shit about my country's founding fathers.

[GC]

im sorry did you give us evidence or someone's thoughts on the subject without any bibligraphical material or primary sources?


also most of the statemetns in those sections indicate that calvinism is a religion that supports democratic and republican ideas. Not that democratic and republican ideas are calvinistic.

Apologies.
I thought it was on the linked page.

Calvinism in History
Loraine Boettner
1932

Those "opinions" are those of the most respected historians of American History of their generation.

And the clear implication of their opinions is that Calvinism led directly to the American form of government (how could you possible call Calvin the founder of America and not be making that claim? And most if not all of the quoted historians make a similar remark)

[NapoleonGH]

Authority, Appeal To


Look it up

[GC]

Thank you for that deep, obviously well thought out, response.
I'm honored by the presence of such a stunning intellect on my humble little thread.

Thank you. Now don't you have some more wanking to do over at Troll Kingdom? I'm sure your fundie minions are missing your talking shit about my country's founding fathers.

Thou knowest not what thou speakest of.

I don't think I'll bother to explain it to you.

[Wicked Pilot]

Thou knowest not what thou speakest of.

I don't think I'll bother to explain it to you.

Are you still here? Thinking about pissing on the grave of Abraham Lincoln before leaving are we? After that are you going to explain to us how John F. Kennedy, Carl Sagan, and Darth Wong were/are Baptist?

[GC]

Authority, Appeal To


Look it up

I did.
Says on your own board that A2A does not occur when an athority is cited to back up a case already made.

So, either your own rules are wrong - or at best misleading (Wong said they were "general"...but even if general they must be generally right) - or this is not A2A.
Other readings in other places indicate that true A2A has to do with appealing to an athority outside of his own field of exepertise.

That said, it seems a proclivity of this board that if you can come up with a rule to quote, you feel it relieves you of the necessity to answer.

Even if this is A2A...which it's not...This is still a finding by a speacialist in the field...several of them in fact...how is it there the collective "No it's not" of a bunch of boardies proves something the collective "yes it is" of a bunch of men who have spent their life studying the matter doesn't?

I'm not speaking here of technical debate style, I'm talking about real life.

If your car breaks down on the side of the road, and you have your stoner brother in law with you - whom you know for a fact knows nothing about engines - and a truck stops with Mr Goodwrench in it ... and they start debating about what is wrong with your car, you don't figure out who's using the proper rules of logic - you go with the guy who knows what he's tallking about.

[NapoleonGH]

we already went through this GC, or at least Darth Wong did. Did you learn THAT little?

Your entire post is supporting this appeal to authority and you pretty much sum up an appeal to authority with this statement: "how is it there the collective "No it's not" of a bunch of boardies proves something the collective "yes it is" of a bunch of men who have spent their life studying the matter doesn't? "


Any Im sorry GC, but here we actually want people to discuss things using a little something called LOGIC. See your interpretation of "real life" is rediculus. We are attempting to hold an intellectual discussion that doesnt include wrong reasoning and a lack of logic. I am not talking about technical debate style, im talking about the KEYSTONE of all intellectual thought, LOGIC.

[GC]

we already went through this GC, or at least Darth Wong did. Did you learn THAT little?

Your entire post is supporting this appeal to authority and you pretty much sum up an appeal to authority with this statement: "how is it there the collective "No it's not" of a bunch of boardies proves something the collective "yes it is" of a bunch of men who have spent their life studying the matter doesn't? "


Any Im sorry GC, but here we actually want people to discuss things using a little something called LOGIC. See your interpretation of "real life" is rediculus. We are attempting to hold an intellectual discussion that doesnt include wrong reasoning and a lack of logic. I am not talking about technical debate style, im talking about the KEYSTONE of all intellectual thought, LOGIC.

So if the stoner is logical (or appears to be) and the mechanic appears to be illogical, your gonna let the stoner fix your car...right?

There are many other illustrations from life. There can be no logic at all among those who claim equal validity between the opinion of the unlearned and the opinion of the expert.

We could discuss medicine all we want, and I might use every rule of logic perectly and a surgeon might stumble on them...but if your appendix bursts...you don't want ME with the scapal.

Call it an A2A if you want, I readily concede the POSSIBILITY that it might break real rules of logic (though it doesn't break the ones you post here) if that's all you really want to know about the world is how to conduct a logical esoteric debate, then you can have it.

But it has been rightly said that Logic is the BEGINING of wisdom, not the end.

If you seriously believe that you will be better served in life by chosing your source of information based on these "rules of logic" you will die, many years from now, incredibly ignorent.

[NapoleonGH]

First off I know quite a few first rate automechanics who use the 100% harmless psychoactive drug that you are refering to, and take offence at you making a sterotype and saying that a stoner is in some way inferior.

You are making a false analogy anyway.


Saying logic is the begining of wisdom, is not right. logic is the ROOT of wisdom.

I seriously give up, i simply will not respond to any post that refuses to engage in the fundamental aspect for all intellectual pursuits and thought. Either be logical or dont bother.

And your DAMNED right that i will be better off in life by using logic and actually wanting proof of something rather than following appeals to authority. I will also be right considerably more often.

[GC]

First off I know quite a few first rate automechanics who use the 100% harmless psychoactive drug that you are refering to, and take offence at you making a sterotype and saying that a stoner is in some way inferior.

You are making a false analogy anyway.


Saying logic is the begining of wisdom, is not right. logic is the ROOT of wisdom.

I seriously give up, i simply will not respond to any post that refuses to engage in the fundamental aspect for all intellectual pursuits and thought. Either be logical or dont bother.

And your DAMNED right that i will be better off in life by using logic and actually wanting proof of something rather than following appeals to authority. I will also be right considerably more often.

No comment on the primary source quotes from the Bill of Rights debate in the House of Reps?

Or is that an A2A as well?

[NapoleonGH]

umm i dont see a single quote in your entire post that is said to come from the bill of rights debate. Please repose only the parts that came from said debate, who said them, and which house recorded minutes the statements can be looked up in.

Also i doubt your entire article's veracity and its validity in that the person couldnt even spell Armenian correctly, it wasnt a simple typo either but a consistant and constant mispelling indicating ignorance, rather than a mistake. Plus the Armenian brand of christianity is an Apostolic religion, and i would definitely not say thatt roman catholicism is practically armernian gregorian, there are many differences. Being a half armenian, quarter italian, (thus one side of my family are Armenian Gregorian, the other side are Roman Catholic) I most certainly can vouch for the fact that there are quite a few differences in the versions of christianity of both churches.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Riiight.
Far be it one might get SPECIFIC with you...nice safe generalities that don't make folks THINK too much are to be prefered.

GC, it's my obligation to point out that that, right there, is a load of crap. You weren't being specific -- you omitted most of the definition you gave. Nitram posted the full definition from the dictionary.

Come on, don't try that here.

With respect, the first definition is a general definition, the latter is a specific one:

Chevrolet:
1. An automobile
2. One of several types of automobiles manufactured by General Motors.

Republican:

1. One who favors a form of government known as a republic
2. One who is a member of one of the two major political parties in the United States known as the Republican Party.

President
1. Generally the cheif officer of a group or orginization
2. the holder of highest elected office in the United States.

See a pattern?
The more specific definition is more relevant in most cases.

I can't speak to specificity of reference, but I think you see my point -- the more generalized definition is the one used by Darth Wong, and it is still perfectly applicable.

Can you agree on that?

[GC]

GC, it's my obligation to point out that that, right there, is a load of crap. You weren't being specific -- you omitted most of the definition you gave. Nitram posted the full definition from the dictionary.

Come on, don't try that here.

With respect, the first definition is a general definition, the latter is a specific one:

Chevrolet:
1. An automobile
2. One of several types of automobiles manufactured by General Motors.

Republican:

1. One who favors a form of government known as a republic
2. One who is a member of one of the two major political parties in the United States known as the Republican Party.

President
1. Generally the cheif officer of a group or orginization
2. the holder of highest elected office in the United States.

See a pattern?
The more specific definition is more relevant in most cases.

I can't speak to specificity of reference, but I think you see my point -- the more generalized definition is the one used by Darth Wong, and it is still perfectly applicable.

Can you agree on that?

You are right. but I did not aledge his correct.

He asked for mine and when he got it he aledged mine as incorrect.

If there is a dectionary definition whch supports my definition - and there obviously is - then my useage was not incorrect.

He just simply refuses to aknowledge it as A valid definition.

[GC]

umm i dont see a single quote in your entire post that is said to come from the bill of rights debate. Please repose only the parts that came from said debate, who said them, and which house recorded minutes the statements can be looked up in.

Also i doubt your entire article's veracity and its validity in that the person couldnt even spell Armenian correctly, it wasnt a simple typo either but a consistant and constant mispelling indicating ignorance, rather than a mistake. Plus the Armenian brand of christianity is an Apostolic religion, and i would definitely not say thatt roman catholicism is practically armernian gregorian, there are many differences. Being a half armenian, quarter italian, (thus one side of my family are Armenian Gregorian, the other side are Roman Catholic) I most certainly can vouch for the fact that there are quite a few differences in the versions of christianity of both churches.

Page three of this thread.
Eighth post from the bottom.
House of Rep debate from August 15, 1789.
Linked to source.

Oh, and about the spelling matter. You are mstaken.

Armenian as you spell it is one from Armenia.
That's not what he's talking about.
He is refering to a specific set of doctrinal beliefs credited to one Arminias Which stand in opposition to Calvinism on several major points.

It would be a stretch to say Catholicism is founded specificly on Arminiasm...but clearly it has very much more in common with it than with Calvanism which is a theology utterly forign to Catholicism.

I'm not sure what to make of this post, at some points you seem to understand that it's two different theologies, at other points ("being a half armenian") seems to indicate you are thinking of ethical distinctions.
But IF you are unfamiliar with the two different doctrines, I would suggest you are somewhat handicapped in this discussion, with all due respect.

[Hobot]

GC, do you believe that morality is objective and that it can be determined through reason and logic if one is not in a position to learn about Christianity?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You are right. but I did not aledge his correct.

He asked for mine and when he got it he aledged mine as incorrect.

If there is a dectionary definition whch supports my definition - and there obviously is - then my useage was not incorrect.

He just simply refuses to aknowledge it as A valid definition.

If I understand him right, his objection to your definition is that, for the purposes of the debate, your definition is too specific, and excludes prominent historical figures unnecessarily. The men he named as Founding Fathers are Founding Fathers -- perhaps not under the specific definition, but certain under the definition fitting the general concept of what constitutes a Founding Father. They may not have been at the signing, but they influences the development of what was signed -- that's what makes them Founding Fathers.

See what I'm saying?

[GC]

Here's more from the Congressional Debate:

September 3, 1789--First Federal Congress (Amendments-religious reference)

[Senate]

The Senate resumed the consideration of the Resolve of the House of Representatives on the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(religious reference)

The third article, as it passed the house, stand thus:

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."

On motion, To amend Article third, and to strike out these words. "Religion or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof," and Insert, "One Religious Sect or Society in preference to others,"

It passed in the Negative.

On motion, For reconsideration,

It passed in the Affirmative.

On motion, That Article the third be striken out,

It passed in the Negative.

On motion, To adopt the following, in lieu of the third Article, "Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience or establishing any Religious Sect or Society,"

It passed in the Negative.

On motion, To amend the third Article, to read thus- "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."

It passed in the Negative.

On the question upon the third Article as it came from the House of Representatives-

It passed in the Negative.

On motion, To adopt the third Article proposed in the Resolve of the House of Representatives, amended by striking out these words- "Nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."

It passed in the Affirmative.(13)

Agan, clearly the idea behind the First was to prevent the government from prefering one denomination or sect of Christianity above another.

[GC]

You are right. but I did not aledge his correct.

He asked for mine and when he got it he aledged mine as incorrect.

If there is a dectionary definition whch supports my definition - and there obviously is - then my useage was not incorrect.

He just simply refuses to aknowledge it as A valid definition.

If I understand him right, his objection to your definition is that, for the purposes of the debate, your definition is too specific, and excludes prominent historical figures unnecessarily. The men he named as Founding Fathers are Founding Fathers -- perhaps not under the specific definition, but certain under the definition fitting the general concept of what constitutes a Founding Father. They may not have been at the signing, but they influences the development of what was signed -- that's what makes them Founding Fathers.

See what I'm saying?

I have chosen to concede the broader definition in it's proper context.

But at least two posters said my claim "imploded"...it did not. My definition was valid as I was using it.

The original post which, I remind all, I was replying too made specific claims of what it illustrated and those dealt with the official government structure as defined in the Constitution. That being the case, a non-participant was not germain to that specific claim. In THAT context, the narrow definition is the correct one.

On the broader point of what the arena of ideas contained in those founding days, the broader definition is more aplicable and I conceded the useage in that context even before the dictionary was quoted.

[GC]

GC, do you believe that morality is objective and that it can be determined through reason and logic if one is not in a position to learn about Christianity?

I believe general morality can be determined through reason and logic to the extent that said reason and logic are not hostile to the rubric that morality is supernatural in origin.

God gave the specifics of morality be divine revelation, but the general principles are built into - hardwired, if you will - into man in what we call the conscience. It is also available by observation of nature.

Romans Chaprter 1 provides a specific denouncment of this:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

But I believe that the ultimate source of morality is God. If there is nothing beyond man, then there is no objective standard and all morality becomes, at best, situational.

Also, I believe that man, due to his sinful nature is predisposed to be hostile to Divine morality and thus his preception by way of logic and reason is skewed.


For all those of you who find this a fit subject for mockery, feel free to do so, but this thread would be best served if it is done elsewhere.

[Hobot]

In that case, perhaps you can see why there is a disagreement between you and the atheists on the board. You see morality coming from God and Christianity, whereas the atheists derive their morality from logic and reason. They both arrive at pretty much the same conclusion (excepting, of course, situational cases like abortion and euthanasia).

Since you get your morality from God, you see the laws of the US as being Christian.

Since atheists derive their morality from logic and reason, they see the laws of the US being developed by rational people and being based on the laws of other rational people (Greek, Roman, Enlightenment, etc. thinkers).

[GC]

In that case, perhaps you can see why there is a disagreement between you and the atheists on the board. You see morality coming from God and Christianity, whereas the atheists derive their morality from logic and reason. They both arrive at pretty much the same conclusion (excepting, of course, situational cases like abortion and euthanasia).

Since you get your morality from God, you see the laws of the US as being Christian.

Since atheists derive their morality from logic and reason, they see the laws of the US being developed by rational people and being based on the laws of other rational people (Greek, Roman, Enlightenment, etc. thinkers).

I agree in part.

I do see all law as arising ultimatly from either God or a direct rebellion against him, but that's not precisely the case I am making here.

I do, however, se your point that one who rejects the existance of God MUST atribute all laws - eventually - to man's reasoning.

A very valid obsevation.

That said, even if one presumes that laws come from men who delude themselves into thinking they come from God, European civilization was saturated with that "delusion" for a thousand years or more before the founders arrived on the historical stage, and the precepts of Calvinism - even if it IS man's reasoning masquarading as God's ideas - were the throughgoing philisophical ideas of the Founders in almost every case.

So in the final analysis, even if Christianity IS one more man-made philisophical idea masquarading as something god did, it is still true that that particular philisophical idea could not help but have saturated the worldview of the vast majority of the founders.

As a lifelong American Christian, I cannot "think" like a Musim. All the cultural touchstones and assumptions are forign to me. Even the language, so i am told, wont translate because the thoughts are just so ifferent.

Likewise, a Muslim simply cannot think like a Weastern Christian.

I contend that it would have been impossible for these men to concive of the type of totally non-christian system of government revisionist aledge - even though a few of them CLEARLY WANTED to and others were inclined in that direction.

Human nature just doesn't allow for it.

Even Jefferson did not through out the whole of NT religion and was quite happy to have school children under his watchcare study the Bible.

In the final analysis, only he and Paine were openly hostile and even they are not consistant.

There are remarks by Paine in my orignal list which show that, even in his hostility, he was THINKING like a Christian.

He couldn't help it.


It is because of this that I say that it is ludicrus to say there was no Christian influance on the founding of our nation.

Still, you do raise one of the most intresting points I've seen on these boards.
Kudos.
Nicely played.

[Darth Wong]

I do see all law as arising ultimatly from either God or a direct rebellion against him, but that's not precisely the case I am making here.

I do, however, se your point that one who rejects the existance of God MUST atribute all laws - eventually - to man's reasoning.

Key difference: man's reasoning is known to exist. No faith is required.

That said, even if one presumes that laws come from men who delude themselves into thinking they come from God, European civilization was saturated with that "delusion" for a thousand years or more before the founders arrived on the historical stage, and the precepts of Calvinism - even if it IS man's reasoning masquarading as God's ideas - were the throughgoing philisophical ideas of the Founders in almost every case.

And that "delusion" was in turn saturated by influences from countless other religions; Christianity is a hodge podge of assimilated ideas from other cultures; you don't really think you invented Christmas for example, do you? Where do you think the Christmas tree came from?

There is nothing in the common law which is uniquely attributable to Christianity.

It is because of this that I say that it is ludicrus to say there was no Christian influance on the founding of our nation.

Black/white fallacy. If someone says that the country was NOT founded as a "Christian nation", he is saying that there is nothing predominantly or uniquely Christian about its foundation. He is not saying that there is "no Christian influence" at all. There is Christian influence. There is also Native American influence, pagan influence, Earth-mother worship influence, atheist influence, and Greek influence. Does this mean that America was founded as a pagan Greek nation?

Throughout this whole debate, you have consistently rejected the notion that any evidence must be produced to show that America is a "Christian nation" on its foundation. You even reject the assertion that such assertion is a positive claim, ie- requires evidence and cannot be assumed true by default. And while you continue to insist that arguing over the beliefs of the Founding Fathers (leaving aside, for the moment, the specifics of that argument) is a point unto itself, we both know that we're arguing over it because you are attempting to prove, ultimately, that which you claim requires no proof: that America was founded as a "Christian nation".