http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20051123/D8E1TTI82.htmlJust in time for Thanksgiving, we can always look to the Vatican for reasons to be thankful that you’re not Catholic.Vatican to reaffirm that you have to be straight for three years before you can rape boys. Yeah, I went there.
Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
Copyright 2012. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of American Atheists.
Comment from: reluctantatheist [Member] ? http://www.reluctantatheist.com
The principal authors of the First Amendment, the record reveals, were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Thomas Jefferson.
You are SOOOO predictable.
From our past encounters I knew you’d give a closed minded response, and thats why I gave hard copy titles and page numbers. We both know anyone can say anything online. Hard copies from researchers who spent years in writing their books, not weeks doing Google searches and copying and pasting.
But then again, the last thing you’re really interested in is finding the truth.
It’s obvious that the extent of your knowledge of early American History is limited to cyber space. Try buying some books on the subject if you’re really serious about learning facts.
Maybe you can buy a hard copy of the Federalist Papers. Remember? You had never heard of them until I showed up on the board, and yet they were instrumental in their day to sell the new constitution to the public.
Don’t bother to respond. It’s a waste of time to debate with a closed minded individual that limits their resources to Google and their own political and non-religious views.
It’s no wonder you’ve given up the Search.
Comment from: billh [Member]
Tell me…….how do you really feel about the subject?
Obviously you’re consumed with hate which tends to blind. If you’d care to discuss the subject fine. Just let me know.
And by the by….abortion was brought up due to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps you didn’t see that?
phreedm,
I didn’t get the sense that billh is filled with hate. I think he simply has questions and is pointing out how the Bible can be used by people to come up with fiats.
I have always been pro choice thinking that access to abortion is more of an economic issue than anything. If abortion were made illegal, the wealthy would still have access to safe abortions while the poor would have to go back to coat hangers. I look at it as an issue of supply and demand and if we cut off the supply and don’t address the demand, we will see some pretty horrifying consequences. My prediction is an explosion of RU486 whose sale will go to fund organized crime and an increasing prison population of women who don’t belong there, while men will continue to not bear any responsibility.
That was my initial thought as I had been taught my whole life that it was, indeed, life at conception. Once my wife had a miscarriage it occurred to me that God never says when life begins or not. The Bible is vague at best. The most famous example is from the Psalms, but it was written in context of verse about a very special individual, who actually did some really bad things. In fact a few verses later David is calling for the death of his enemy. A conflicted message to say the least.
In Exodus causing a woman to have a miscarriage is a civil matter. Job even says it would have been better for him not to be born than to suffer the trials that he did. I know, your instinct might be to tell me how I’m interpreting this all wrong. I think that’s the point. It’s all interpretation. I think there’s a lot of hubris to enforce an opinion of interpretation, albeit a heartfelt one, on others based on a text they don’t believe in. Even as a Christian I see room for discussion. There is no biblical or scientific evidence that it is life at conception especially coupled with the number of miscarriages that happen. I agree it’s potential for life, but if the argument against abortion is that it’s life at conception, then we better have a loooong discussion about the assumption that is being made.
Phred M:
A touch! A veritable sting, forsooth!
Likewise, if it’s in print, then it’s the truth? Better go out & re-read Mein Kampf, & the Communist Manifesto.
Close minded? When was the last time you ceded a point? When was the last ten times?
Barton’s full of it, I proved that in my essay on my site (you remember, the 1 you liked, & complimented me on?).
It’s obvious you haven’t been paying much attention, or you’d know that currently, I can’t AFFORD to buy books.
Not that it would matter. If said books disagreed w/your worldview, you’d ignore them anyways. So I’m pretty much limited to cyberspace, & the local library (which sucks, BTW).
Your point? I read them, on your recommendation. Yeah, guess that makes me pretty ‘close minded’, don’t it?
BTW, if I haven’t thanked you for that recommendation, I am now. Thanks.
Need to make a correction here, sorry. Substitute ‘only’ for ‘mostly’.
I suppose that put me in my place, & I should hang my head in shame?
You really do over-rate yourself.
Let’s be blunt here: I don’t really care for you much. From what little I gather, you’re arrogant, on a higher moral ground than the rest of us, oh, I could go on, but why bother?
You’re a snob. A religious 1 at that.
Here’s a nice little factoid: in your hasty efforts to discredit me, you trotted out an old post from SPOTLIGHT of all people. For the newer blog members, SL was an anti-Semitic troll who’d log in, spew his/her hatred of Jews in general (& David specifically), etc, etc. So you’ve pretty much poisoned your own damn well, it seems. How’s the water taste?
So pretty much your street cred (which was limping in the gutter as it was) is very much reduced to a goldfish gasping for air while its fins are stuck in the carpet.
Anyone who’s curious as to our mutual animosity can google on our debates/tussles, etc., & figure it out for themselves.
Personally? I think you’re the examplar social Darwinist.
Don’t bother denying it, or responding.
“There are none so blind, etc, etc”
Gee, I forget where that quote came from (hehehe).
spanders:
Isn’t there a verse about how life is in the blood? It escapes me right now. Unsure if that applies to the discussion at hand.
reluctant,
if there is, I’m not sure what it is. I think part of the point for me that even if there is, there’s so many conflicting verses that it really comes down to interpretation. I think it’s pretty dicey to make national policy based on a particular interpretation that not everyone agrees with based on a book that not everyone believes.
Phreedm:
I am not full of hate. I am a very loving person. I see hypocracy for what it is and call it so. If that is hate, so be it.
I only pointed out that the bible states life begins at the first breath. Personally, I believe in choice, but lose respect for a woman that will carry a child to the 3rd trimester, then aborts it cause she just does not want it. It is not my place to condem her and protest in front of her house and call her names. It is her choice, no matter how much I find it in disgust.
Phred M:
Was puzzling out why you kept bringing up the NW ordinance (must’ve dozed off during your ‘impromptu’ history lesson), & looked up your reference to John Jay.
Here is the letter:
“http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp
Jay to Jedidiah Morse, 28 Feb 1797:
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world. Whatever may be the virtue, discernment, and industry of the writers, I am persuaded that truth and error (though in different degrees) will imperceptibly become and remain mixed and blended until they shall be separated forever by the great and last refining fire.”
& yet, little less than a month before, you state:
So my questions are threefold:
A. When are the rest of us allowed to use a private letter from the FF?
B. Why didn’t you state it was from a private letter?
C. Why didn’t you quote it in its entirety? Note that I tried to.
Lessee, I guess the answer is…..convenience!
Next time you accuse someone of revisionism, you need to back it up w/more than an accusation & a quote ‘taken out of context’.
P.S foundingfathers.info isn’t an anti-Xtian website, last I checked.
phreed-m,
Well, that is how laws are recorded, whether you find it limited is not my concern.
Actually, this is the reality of how laws that were passed are recorded (varies state to state/federal).
Correct.
Incorrect, what they found is that the state laws were unconstitutional, as you go on to say:
Correct again, this is the function of the majestic nine, can I get a witness?
Incorrect, they found existing laws unconstitutional.
Actually what most legal scholars agree with is that the SC incorrectly interpreted the 14th amendment’s pseudo right to privacy, as it is not explicity stated. (You know you can’t use absolutes here!) Blackmun even noted that “the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy”, yet deferred to that since 1891, the SC “recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution”
What I find it is contradictory, when the pseudo right to privacy is desirable to the RR & or majority, then it’s upheld, when it goes counter to their views, it’s “misinterpretation of the 14th”.
Yet another reason why I’m thankful I left that whole mess behind. My question is why would gays, or anyone else for that matter, want to be priests in the first place? Most gay people I know find inner peace through other forms of individual spirituality or atheism because they are not tied down in believing an invisible man is watching their every move. Catholicism…and most other forms of religion in general make people feel guilty for being themselves and deny fundamental human emotions and needs whether one is gay or not. A gay man wanting to be a priest seems like an oxymoron to me rather than a spiritual vocation.
Couls someone remind me how to use block quotes? I feel like an ape at the keyboard sometimes.
mxracer652:
I am not trying to pick on you, I swear(because I really like you). But I am using this opportunity to grind my axe (I admit it) – I think you missed my point. you said…
“You’re right, I mis-stated, my posts are not composed as one piece, since I’m supposed to be working, I should have proofread. But saying that “all RCC cases save for 1 involved males, males that have sex with males are homosexual, therefore all pedophiles are homosexual men” is in my mind r-a-a (and what I was trying to get at in the initial post). Reason being is that I haven’t seen anything from the APA to state otherwise.”
But the definition of the R-A-A is precisely ‘argument through contradiction’ You can look that up in any (APA certified) dictionary of philosophy. Again, the reductio is a perfectly fine argument form if used correctly. But just because an argument is bad, or sounds absurd, doesn’t mean it is a reductio argument. I think people make this mistake because they think that because the R-A-A has the word absurd in its name, that it applies to anything absurd. The argument you are referring to is simply a syllogism. It is not an attempt to argue through contradiction- it is an attempt to make an inference. It is an invalid argument because its conclusion does not follow from its premise (or rather, the truth value of the conclusion is not gauranteed by the truth of its premises) It is also an unsound argument because the premises are likely untrue to begin with. It may be a bad argument, but not for any reasons having to do with the RAA.
I only beat this dead horse because it does a disservice to our credibility and to philosophy to use its terminology incorrectly. If we want to use reason to best our interlocutionary foes, we must use it correctly. Generally we do, with a few exceptions. But to invoke terms incorrectly amounts to what Cicero called eloquence without invention. It reduces us to mere debaters and sophists (as opposed to the smart, haughty, high minded, snooty-but-right-because we use our brains unlike most* theists god damnit philosophers of atheism most of us know we are).
Again, my apologies to you mxracer652, this is not an attack, its an opportunistic diatribe on my part.
Zac,
Uncle! Uncle! I concede! Thanks for the clarification, as my education is limited to the hard sciences, and I am more of a 40 ounce philosopher than anything (nod to the hairless danish).
PS,
and my blockquote help lesson failed,
use
*blockquote*
type text here
*/blockquote*
except substitute “less than” (shift+,) prior to the “b”, and “greater than” (shift+.) after the “e”
Thanks for the block quote,lets try it out
I feel so competent and savvy. Thanks mxracer!!!
halloween snacks made with cheese puffs, m&ms and partymix/
halloween snacks made with cheese puffs, m&ms and partymix/