| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Buckster Administrator


Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 9351 Local time: 7:35 AM Location: Up North Michigan
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Neoatheist wrote: | | This is one of those arguments that is probably not necessary. |
Sorry, but I don't see it as an argument. I see it as a discussion about whether or not the US was founded on Christian principles, based on the actual statement that started it, and I think that's a worthy discussion to have. I contend that it is not founded on Christian principles, and have given my reasoning why. I stand ready to meet the challenge on that. I am ready to be defeated, but am not willing to concede without reason.
| Neoatheist wrote: | | I think that you're arguing semantics and you both probably agree more than not. |
I think we obviously do agree more than disagree. I also think that's not the point of the discussion.
I also think that it's not an issue of semantics. Point blank: Was the US founded on Christian principles? I say no. Jefferson says no. SpecterOpacus seems to be saying, "somewhat". My challenge for SpecterOpacus then is to show how it is, even "somewhat", or concede that it's actually not.
| Neoatheist wrote: | | I just think that it would be better in this case to just move on. |
Because discussion about this fundamental notion that's constantly thrown in our faces from Christians; that the US was founded on Christianity or Christian principles, or however they want to put it, is somehow a discussion that shouldn't be had unless everyone wants to hug and kiss during it?
Sorry, I disagree. I find it a worthy discussion to have, if only to be able to put it in context for when Christians next throw that claim at someone here; discussions such as this may provide the background they need to address it. _________________ Yeah... I said that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 |
SpecterOpacus Forum Masturbator

Joined: 23 Feb 2005 Posts: 2409 Local time: 7:35 AM Location: Tallahassee, FL

|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Buckster wrote: | | SpecterOpacus wrote: | | Kirigakure wrote: | | "And in closing, here is the million dollar question: if the documents were not founded upon Christian principals what principals were they founded upon?" |
Well, this isn't completely wrong. |
That's pretty simple and straightforward. Where's the confusion? |
Right
| Quote: | | I am saying that most recent to them, the philosophers whose works they were basing their documents on, lived in a Christian-rich environment. Undoubtedly their writings focused on Christian ethics at some point (and did). Christianity was the ruling religion of Europe for many years; you can't deny that this didn't have an impact on the writings of philosophers during that era. |
Here I
| Quote: | | I am saying that most recent to them, the philosophers whose works they were basing their documents on, lived in a Christian-rich environment. Undoubtedly their writings focused on Christian ethics at some point (and did). Christianity was the ruling religion of Europe for many years; you can't deny that this didn't have an impact on the writings of philosophers during that era. |
Elborate on my
| Quote: | | I am saying that most recent to them, the philosophers whose works they were basing their documents on, lived in a Christian-rich environment. Undoubtedly their writings focused on Christian ethics at some point (and did). Christianity was the ruling religion of Europe for many years; you can't deny that this didn't have an impact on the writings of philosophers during that era. |
Point.
I don't know why you went back to my original statement when I clarified later on.
I did not mean the documents our forefathers wrote were based on Xian principles, rather, the philosophers they drew their ethics and law from grew up around a Christian environment.
You keep pulling out all of these red herrings like you have a point, so I wanted to drop it.
But you can't ever drop shit. _________________
| mobilefleet wrote: | | The evidence of getting yellow butter and white milk from a brown cow that eats green grass. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neoatheist Freedmind

Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 1498 Local time: 7:35 AM Location: Austin, Texas

|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
To be honest, I completely agree with you Buck, but something tells me that Specter wants to just drop it. Again, I think you both agree, but maybe you both just have too much pride to concede the point. It is an important distinction to be made and you have effectively made it.
My thoughts:
The values that the founding documents were based on were universal values and to call them Christian values is to fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Those with this idea likely stick to their guns based upon ignorance, wishful thinking, or intellectual dishonesty. These are not admirable attributes in anyone. _________________ If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Buckster Administrator


Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 9351 Local time: 7:35 AM Location: Up North Michigan
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SpecterOpacus wrote: | | Buckster wrote: | | SpecterOpacus wrote: | | Kirigakure wrote: | | "And in closing, here is the million dollar question: if the documents were not founded upon Christian principals what principals were they founded upon?" |
Well, this isn't completely wrong. |
That's pretty simple and straightforward. Where's the confusion? |
Right
|
So far, so good.
| SpecterOpacus wrote: | | Quote: | | I am saying that most recent to them, the philosophers whose works they were basing their documents on, lived in a Christian-rich environment. Undoubtedly their writings focused on Christian ethics at some point (and did). Christianity was the ruling religion of Europe for many years; you can't deny that this didn't have an impact on the writings of philosophers during that era. |
Here I
| Quote: | | I am saying that most recent to them, the philosophers whose works they were basing their documents on, lived in a Christian-rich environment. Undoubtedly their writings focused on Christian ethics at some point (and did). Christianity was the ruling religion of Europe for many years; you can't deny that this didn't have an impact on the writings of philosophers during that era. |
Elborate on my
| Quote: | | I am saying that most recent to them, the philosophers whose works they were basing their documents on, lived in a Christian-rich environment. Undoubtedly their writings focused on Christian ethics at some point (and did). Christianity was the ruling religion of Europe for many years; you can't deny that this didn't have an impact on the writings of philosophers during that era. |
Point. |
None of that supports your original answer to the original statement though, and that's my point. It's completely irrelevant to the actual point of the statement we're addressing. Instead, you keep saying that you're clarifying it. Sorry, you're not clarifying it at all. You're talking in circles around it so that you don't have to concede that your original reply was flat out wrong, and I'm not buying the circle-jerk attempt at obfuscating the issue.
Yes, I'm very focused. Sorry 'bout that. It's my nature to stay on task and not meander off into other things without resolution.
| SpecterOpacus wrote: | | I don't know why you went back to my original statement when I clarified later on. |
Because none of it supports, let alone clarifies, your original statement. Your original statement was in error.
| SpecterOpacus wrote: | | I did not mean the documents our forefathers wrote were based on Xian principles |
Again, I rest my case.
This is a good opportunity to drop it, if that's what you really want to do. Push the submit button again however, and there's a good chance I will reply. See how that works yet?
| SpecterOpacus wrote: | | rather, the philosophers they drew their ethics and law from grew up around a Christian environment. |
Which means nothing to the original statement, that our founding documents were founded on Christian principles; a statement you basically agreed with, saying "this isn't completely wrong". Yes, it is completely wrong.
| SpecterOpacus wrote: | | You keep pulling out all of these red herrings like you have a point, |
They're not red herrings at all, they are germane to the actual statement, as pointed out repeatedly to your hand waving.
| SpecterOpacus wrote: | | so I wanted to drop it. |
Then just do it. It's easy. All you have to do is stop replying with yet more "clarification" that doesn't address the actual statement and its contention. Push the submit button again however, and there's a good chance I will reply. See how that works yet?
| SpecterOpacus wrote: | | But you can't ever drop shit. |
Not as long as I continue to be challenged. Sorry. Doesn't work that way. Want me to drop it? It's real easy. All you have to do is stop replying with yet more "clarification" that doesn't address the actual statement and its contention. Push the submit button again however, and there's a good chance I will reply. See how that works yet?
tap, tap, tap... Is this thing on? _________________ Yeah... I said that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kirigakure Visitor

Joined: 08 Feb 2010 Posts: 5 Local time: 7:35 AM
|
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So the argument has drifted to the subject of "the majority of Americans believe in God".
My reply:
"Since when did the commonly held belief have anything to do with the truth? From the earth being flat to the belief that sickness was demonic possession, as humans have evolved we have found over and over again that the commonly held beliefs were nothing more than idealistic placebos to calm the masses. Also, Pen St. did a study the revealed an inverse relationship between IQ and belief in God. none of this is to say who is right necessarily, I am simply stating that the argument that it's true because most people believe it's true is bunk."
His immediate retort:
"Just as a Counter Point, Perhaps there were forms of Bias Taking place in the Pen State Study... Either a Confirmation Bias that caused them to create degrees of Belief and allow agnostics and deists to fall under the atheist banner... Or a Sampling Bias which sought out atheists from Acedemia and Persons with religious belief from the Wal-Mart Parking Lot?
It is all statistics and it can all be altered by the parameters and sampling.
of Course IMO Pagans, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Zoarastrians, Rastafarians, Agnostics, Deists and polytheists are all One the same side of of the Fence when it comes to the Atheist Vs Theist Debate. Belief In Ghosts? Can't be an Atheist, Belief in an Afterlife? Belief in a Creative Power in the universe? Belief in Karma? Belief in Evil or Good? All of those are concepts Rooted in Spirituality...
So With My Criteria Of Absolute Atheism They are a serious minority. Sure, you have plenty of Agnostics and Pissed off Neo Pagans all Jumping in Line to Chill With the Atheists, Mostly becuase they are going through some Period of Rebellion against their parents or Mainstream society and they feel siding with atheism is a way to lash out at the Christian Right.... who they technically have more in common with than they do with the Absolute atheist.
Not to mention the Sad State of affairs most Atheists and Spiritualists find themselves in when it comes to the concepts of Rights and Liberty... as the Spiritualists Claim their Rights and freedom are gifts from or dictated to them through divine Force, The Majority of Atheists Seem to seek Secular Powers to Grant them their Rights and Freedom through Writ of law... Sad Honestly, none of them seem to believe in their own inner Will To Power. They are all Weak Sniveling beasts begging something higher than themselves to allow them to live... Whether it is God, Karma, the collective consensus of humanity or the iron fist of a dictator such as famous Atheist Adolf Hitler Or Josef Stalin... They cannot seem to exist without worshiping this higher power."
I could use a little help with a reply to this one. It appears the he keeps coming back to this concept that "rights and liberty" cannot be had without some sort of higher power belief system in place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Squirmy Wormy Giggity

Joined: 26 Dec 2009 Posts: 302 Local time: 7:35 AM Location: Utah

|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
kirigacure. There is no winning this debate, not because you are wrong, but because he is incredibly illogical and closed minded.
Atheism is not "rebellion" it is realization that society is fundamentally wrong. In the same sense that losing your belief in santa clause isn't rebellion. its just a coming to your senses.
Also explain to him that atheists don't need dictators to tell them what to do. in fact, most atheists tend to be 10000x more reluctant to blindly follow than theists are. hence why they quit religion in the first place.
Also explain to him that adolf hitler was a christian. Stalin was an atheist, but he was also really mentally screwed up as well.
Also ask him if people can have true rights and liberties if they have to follow the 10 commandments, specifically the first 3 or 4.
And being a part of a minority isn't wrong at all. Just show him again that the majority is generally retarted. _________________
| Jakeness wrote: | | I've always felt that superstitions were like bite-sized religions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SecularRealist Forum Master

Joined: 12 Jul 2009 Posts: 2664 Local time: 6:35 AM
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Squirmy Wormy wrote: | kirigacure. There is no winning this debate, not because you are wrong, but because he is incredibly illogical and closed minded.
Atheism is not "rebellion" it is realization that society is fundamentally wrong. |
You mean that religion is fundamentally wrong, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Squirmy Wormy Giggity

Joined: 26 Dec 2009 Posts: 302 Local time: 7:35 AM Location: Utah

|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
yeah sorry about that. i am tired, its late. I meant to say "religion is fundamentally wrong".
there ya go. _________________
| Jakeness wrote: | | I've always felt that superstitions were like bite-sized religions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
superunknown Forum Plebian


Joined: 08 Feb 2010 Posts: 112 Local time: 4:35 AM Location: Corvallis, OR

|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:37 am Post subject: Re: In a heated debate! Atheist in need of some back up! |
|
|
| Kirigakure wrote: | Greetings! This is my first post, but I have lurked for quite some time.
Ok, I'm involved in a huge debate with a very conservative individual. He feels that the US is moving "too far from God". His last statement to me was:
"I feel this country is moving in the wrong direction, away from God, away from morality and justice...away from freedom.
And don't be fooled - our legal system, our Declaration of Independence and more importantly, our Bill of Rights were entirely founded upon Christian principals."
I'm having a hard time coming back at this, because of his position stating that God is all over the founding documents, and therefore is relevant and the belief system is implied. How would you respond to this statement? Any help would be appreciated!
Thanks! |
You can debate all you want with that individual. I don't think it will make any difference.
In my experience, such debates are useless in convincing anyone, unless they were on the fence already. People are stubborn, particularly when it comes to politics and religion, and will not concede defeat - it is a matter of pride.
My advice is to tell him what your opinion is on the matter and leave it at that. If he chooses to change his viewpoint, he will do so his own time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neoatheist Freedmind

Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 1498 Local time: 7:35 AM Location: Austin, Texas

|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Debates are not completely pointless. Of course the fundie that you are debating will likely gtet his ass handed to him and still walk out of their claiming victory. That is afterall the extent of his bias. I think that debates are good stuff for letting those watching see the error in the other guys argument. I would not expect him to walk out of there conceding your point, but those watching without the extreme bias will see your arguments as being much more logical and based in fact as opposed to speculation. In other words, your not targeting him, but rather those fence sitters that may be watching the whole thing unfold. _________________ If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
romans120 Resident Theist

Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 2375 Local time: 6:35 AM Location: The God Shaped Hole in Your Heart

|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Buckster wrote: | | Neoatheist wrote: | | This is one of those arguments that is probably not necessary. |
Sorry, but I don't see it as an argument. I see it as a discussion about whether or not the US was founded on Christian principles, based on the actual statement that started it, and I think that's a worthy discussion to have. I contend that it is not founded on Christian principles, and have given my reasoning why. I stand ready to meet the challenge on that. I am ready to be defeated, but am not willing to concede without reason.
| Neoatheist wrote: | | I think that you're arguing semantics and you both probably agree more than not. |
I think we obviously do agree more than disagree. I also think that's not the point of the discussion.
I also think that it's not an issue of semantics. Point blank: Was the US founded on Christian principles? I say no. Jefferson says no. SpecterOpacus seems to be saying, "somewhat". My challenge for SpecterOpacus then is to show how it is, even "somewhat", or concede that it's actually not.
| Neoatheist wrote: | | I just think that it would be better in this case to just move on. |
Because discussion about this fundamental notion that's constantly thrown in our faces from Christians; that the US was founded on Christianity or Christian principles, or however they want to put it, is somehow a discussion that shouldn't be had unless everyone wants to hug and kiss during it?
Sorry, I disagree. I find it a worthy discussion to have, if only to be able to put it in context for when Christians next throw that claim at someone here; discussions such as this may provide the background they need to address it. |
What would you say is the founding principle that america is founded on? _________________ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neoatheist Freedmind

Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 1498 Local time: 7:35 AM Location: Austin, Texas

|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
What we would now call Secular Humanism. _________________ If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
romans120 Resident Theist

Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 2375 Local time: 6:35 AM Location: The God Shaped Hole in Your Heart

|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Neoatheist wrote: | | What we would now call Secular Humanism. |
What principle are you basing your conclusion on? _________________ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neoatheist Freedmind

Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 1498 Local time: 7:35 AM Location: Austin, Texas

|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Both the secular and humanist nature of the constitution. _________________ If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aupmanyav Forum Leader


Joined: 06 Aug 2008 Posts: 830 Local time: 7:35 AM Location: New Delhi

|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:37 am Post subject: Re: In a heated debate! Atheist in need of some back up! |
|
|
| Kirigakure wrote: | "I feel this country is moving in the wrong direction, away from God, away from morality and justice...away from freedom.
And don't be fooled - our legal system, our Declaration of Independence and more importantly, our Bill of Rights were entirely founded upon Christian principals." | The direction in which your country is moving does need a correction. Perhaps it is too much of individual freedom in spite of all the assertive religion. Perhaps a little social conservatism will help. _________________ "Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|