Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 01-06-2003, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Well OK, "there are no atheists in foxholes."

And whose quote is this? What verifiable evidence do you offer that it is a universally valid statement? Obviously it is not. So why use it? To what end/purpose?

My my my. Aren't we swatting gnats today. I guess I need the original source for every well known saying in the world. I certainly hope you can live up to these strict standards. I've learned not to be so nitpicking. God hates that, and makes me live up to it.

I was agreeing with one of your premises, but then you are apparently too cynical about my motives to notice.

Quote:

Are the speeches by Osama bin Laden any different? Is Osama's Allah(PBUH) greater and more powerful than Washington's Providence? It is all the same supernatural BS. Go out an die for (fill-in the blank).

Oh, entirely different. Osama said to go out and die for Allah, and to spread the Muslim religion. Washington said no such thing, did he Buffman? Americans were't dying for God or Allah, but for their freedoms and I think it is entirely disingenuous to compare them. But given your simple anti-theist worldview, I can see why you would try to blur the glaring distinctions. Your statement seems particularly s since you deny Washigton's belief in a personal God. And he certainly wasn't offering his men a harem in heaven, or any other reward, for dying.

More "conjecture" in lieu of facts. But that's OK for atheists because they are "right." Right?

Rad

Radorth · 01-06-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

. . . . John Calvin has been called a logician, and reasoned well from his premises, but the burning of Servetus did not make murder a virtue. Luther weakened somewhat the Power of the Catholic Church, and to that extent was a reformer, and yet Lord Brougham affirmed that his "Table Talk" was so obscene that no respectable English publisher would soil paper with a translation. He was a kind of religious Rabelais; and yet a man can defend Luther in his attack upon the church without justifying his obscenity. If every man in the Catholic Church was a good man that would not convince me that Ignatius Loyola ever met and conversed with the Virgin Mary. The fact is, very few men are right in everything.

Good quote from Ingersoll. I agree for the most part. And I might say that those I consider truly great are not well known to anyone here. Luther is not on my list. I consider him a courageous person who contributed, early on, to the revolution called the "enlightenment." He was the first person in 1200 years to publically declare that salvation could not be earned by going to church, saying masses, tithing, indulgences, worshipping Mary, pilgrimages, killing Muslims, etc. I think a hell of a lot of people felt less burdened and oppressed because of him, yes.

Rad

Buffman · 01-06-2003, 09:13 PM

Rad: Well OK, "there are no atheists in foxholes."

Buffman: And whose quote is this? What verifiable evidence do you offer that it is a universally valid statement? Obviously it is not. So why use it? To what end/purpose?

Rad:My my my. Aren't we swatting gnats today. I guess I need the original source for every well known saying in the world. I certainly hope you can live up to these strict standards. I've learned not to be so nitpicking. God hates that, and makes me live up to it.

I was agreeing with one of your premises, but then you are apparently too cynical about my motives to notice.

Hmmmm? Ask a direct question and get an indirect answer. Nothing new there! (I was unaware that you talked to your God about that issue.) Rad, I understood your effort to provide a flippant type of supporting statement. I just took exception with the one you choose to use. Why do you think I asked you "To what end/purpose?"

Rad: Oh, entirely different. Osama said to go out and die for Allah, and to spread the Muslim religion. Washington said no such thing, did he Buffman?

Nope! Washington did not ask anyone to go out and die for Allah(PBUH) or spread the Muslim religion.

.

Rad: Americans were't dying for God or Allah, but for their freedoms and I think it is entirely disingenuous to compare them.

So why were Chaplains appointed to the military, Bibles ordered by Congress, and Christian edicts promulgated by Congress for the Continental Army? What have they to do with dying for freedoms? We know that there was no Pledge to the Flag, "In God We Trust " on the money, and that our national motto of "E Pluribus Unum," created by Jefferson, Franklin and Adams in 1776, was not officially approved until Jun 10, 1782. Additionally, do you suppose that many of the men in the Continental Army were fighting the British Crown to be free of imposed Christian denominational dogmas? (You do know that the British were Christians, don't you? You do know that the Tories, the Anglicans, joined forces to fight the revolutionaries, don't you? Did their Christian God desert them? Could they have been praying to the wrong one? You don't suppose that Elohim/Yahveh/Jehovah, the Providential God of the Deists, was sending a message to his so-called son Jesus about who was the biggest Sky Kahuna, do you?)

Rad: But given your simple anti-theist worldview, I can see why you would try to blur the glaring distinctions.

Where did I say that I was anti-theist? I am anti-superstition and myth, as well as a self-anointed non-supernaturalist. Are you saying that theists believe in those things that go "bump" in the night? If so, in which ones of the thousands do they believe?

Rad: Your statement seems particularly s since you deny Washigton's belief in a personal God. And he certainly wasn't offering his men a harem in heaven, or any other reward, for dying.

I have claimed that Washington exemplified a Deistic religious view more than a Christian one. You are the one that seems to keep having a sudden memory loss...when you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion. Do you understand the difference between Deism and Christianity? Apparently you don't.

Rad: More "conjecture" in lieu of facts. But that's OK for atheists because they are "right." Right?

Well, before you started posting I would not have thought atheists were more right about anything other than faith belief issues; but you have single handedly caused me to re-evaluate my "conjecture" about that. (Have you ever considered doing a stage act at one of the comedy clubs? You are a riot.)

Radorth · 01-06-2003, 10:43 PM

Rad: Americans were't dying for God or Allah, but for their freedoms and I think it is entirely disingenuous to compare them.

Quote:

So why were Chaplains appointed to the military, Bibles ordered by Congress, and Christian edicts promulgated by Congress for the Continental Army?

Er, because they felt with Washington that:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens... a volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity."

Couldn't find anything in the address supporting the gratuitous murder of workaday husbands, wives, mothers and fathers for Jesus' sake. Sorry. You did mean George Washington, founding American father, no?

Quote:

Additionally, do you suppose that many of the men in the Continental Army were fighting the British Crown to be free of imposed Christian denominational dogmas?

You betcha. Maybe if I read on, I'll get the point.

Quote:

(You do know that the British were Christians, don't you? You do know that the Tories, the Anglicans, joined forces to fight the revolutionaries, don't you?

Yeah, I knew that too. (Yawn)

Quote:

Did their Christian God desert them? Could they have been praying to the wrong one?

Right God. Wrong motives apparently. God isn't into forced worship. That's why I don't think firemen should be made to go to church. It is quite apparent as well that his Gospel was being stifled. As soon as you mix church and state, the Gospel suffers. Therefore God (if he ever took sides) would be on the side of those who foster the Gospel. Hopefully this isn't to deep for some folks. I've said this many times, but I keep getting the same simplistic questions.

(Personally I don't think the revolutionary war was worth the pain and bloodshed, and that its ends might have been accomplished by more peaceful means, but that is a whole other thread)

Quote:

You don't suppose that Elohim/Yahveh/Jehovah, the Providential God of the Deists, was sending a message to his so-called son Jesus about who was the biggest Sky Kahuna, do you?)

If you want to rephrase in less rhetorical English, I will be happy to answer.

Rad

Buffman · 01-07-2003, 12:01 AM

Rad

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,...

What is the relationship between "political prosperity" and freedom/liberty? (Did Washington say, "Forward for political prosperity men?" Of course maybe he did considering his desires for increased land holdings and economic prosperity that would be all gone if the Revolutionaries got their butt whipped.)

Couldn't find anything in the address supporting the gratuitous murder of workaday husbands, wives, mothers and fathers for Jesus' sake. Sorry. You did mean George Washington, founding American father, no?

What on earth has any of that got to do with why Chaplains, Bibles and Christian edicts were the creation of a Protestant Continental Congress?

Right God. Wrong motives apparently.

Though I like your answer, are you claiming that only the victors have the support of your supernatural God Head? Wouldn't that simply be the old 'Might is Right' dictum....with or without supernatural intercession?

It is quite apparent as well that his Gospel was being stifled.

By whom? The Baptists? Methodists? Episcopalians? Unitarians? Lutherans? Roman Catholics? Congregationalists? Please! Exactly whom? Just the Anglicans? What about the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and all the other religious worshippers who have ever existed without knowledge or concern for the New Testament?

As soon as you mix church and state, the Gospel suffers.

Religious freedom suffers...the individual expression of religious or non-religious conscience...suffers. Hear! Hear!

Therefore God (if he ever took sides) would be on the side of those who foster the Gospel.

Oh my! So God is against anyone who doesn't foster the Gospels? (Muahahahahahaha!)

I've said this many times, but I keep getting the same simplistic questions.

(Please stop it! My sides are beginning to hurt from laughter.) How can any reasoning person answer such an absurd and bigoted statement/belief other than with laughter or tears of sorrow for a humankind filled with people who believe what you just wrote.

(Personally I don't think the revolutionary war was worth the pain and bloodshed, and that its ends might have been accomplished by more peaceful means, but that is a whole other thread)

Yes, it is!

If you want to rephrase in less rhetorical English, I will be happy to answer.

That was sardonic English.

Daggah · 01-07-2003, 04:15 AM

Quote:

The world isn't one tiny bit more moral because of science.

Was it ever supposed to be?

Daggah · 01-07-2003, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Well OK, "there are no atheists in foxholes."

Do you believe this to be true, Radorth? Do you really think this?

(Maybe if I repeat my question over and over again, Radorth will eventually stop avoiding it. And yes, Radorth, this is a YES or NO question. I know you and Sabine both have problems answering so simply and unevasively.)

Radorth · 01-07-2003, 08:15 AM

Quote:

What on earth has any of that got to do with why Chaplains, Bibles and Christian edicts were the creation of a Protestant Continental Congress?

Absolutely nothing. That's the point. It was you who compared the motives of the Congress with Osama Sin Laden, remember? But by now, perhaps you've forgotten.

Are you seriously suggesting people were free to worship as they liked in England at the time?

My my my. Well we won't get far here, will we?

Rad

Radorth · 01-07-2003, 09:27 AM

Off topic banter deleted by Toto

Toto · 01-07-2003, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah
Do you believe this to be true, Radorth? Do you really think this?

(Maybe if I repeat my question over and over again, Radorth will eventually stop avoiding it. And yes, Radorth, this is a YES or NO question. I know you and Sabine both have problems answering so simply and unevasively.)

Let's assume that Rad has admitted that there are atheists in foxholes. He was just repeating an old bromide.

No more comments on this, PLEASE.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2003, 09:13 PM	#133
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Rad: Well OK, "there are no atheists in foxholes." Buffman: And whose quote is this? What verifiable evidence do you offer that it is a universally valid statement? Obviously it is not. So why use it? To what end/purpose? Rad:My my my. Aren't we swatting gnats today. I guess I need the original source for every well known saying in the world. I certainly hope you can live up to these strict standards. I've learned not to be so nitpicking. God hates that, and makes me live up to it. I was agreeing with one of your premises, but then you are apparently too cynical about my motives to notice. Hmmmm? Ask a direct question and get an indirect answer. Nothing new there! (I was unaware that you talked to your God about that issue.) Rad, I understood your effort to provide a flippant type of supporting statement. I just took exception with the one you choose to use. Why do you think I asked you "To what end/purpose?" Rad: Oh, entirely different. Osama said to go out and die for Allah, and to spread the Muslim religion. Washington said no such thing, did he Buffman? Nope! Washington did not ask anyone to go out and die for Allah(PBUH) or spread the Muslim religion. . Rad: Americans were't dying for God or Allah, but for their freedoms and I think it is entirely disingenuous to compare them. So why were Chaplains appointed to the military, Bibles ordered by Congress, and Christian edicts promulgated by Congress for the Continental Army? What have they to do with dying for freedoms? We know that there was no Pledge to the Flag, "In God We Trust " on the money, and that our national motto of "E Pluribus Unum," created by Jefferson, Franklin and Adams in 1776, was not officially approved until Jun 10, 1782. Additionally, do you suppose that many of the men in the Continental Army were fighting the British Crown to be free of imposed Christian denominational dogmas? (You do know that the British were Christians, don't you? You do know that the Tories, the Anglicans, joined forces to fight the revolutionaries, don't you? Did their Christian God desert them? Could they have been praying to the wrong one? You don't suppose that Elohim/Yahveh/Jehovah, the Providential God of the Deists, was sending a message to his so-called son Jesus about who was the biggest Sky Kahuna, do you?) Rad: But given your simple anti-theist worldview, I can see why you would try to blur the glaring distinctions. Where did I say that I was anti-theist? I am anti-superstition and myth, as well as a self-anointed non-supernaturalist. Are you saying that theists believe in those things that go "bump" in the night? If so, in which ones of the thousands do they believe? Rad: Your statement seems particularly s since you deny Washigton's belief in a personal God. And he certainly wasn't offering his men a harem in heaven, or any other reward, for dying. I have claimed that Washington exemplified a Deistic religious view more than a Christian one. You are the one that seems to keep having a sudden memory loss...when you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion. Do you understand the difference between Deism and Christianity? Apparently you don't. Rad: More "conjecture" in lieu of facts. But that's OK for atheists because they are "right." Right? Well, before you started posting I would not have thought atheists were more right about anything other than faith belief issues; but you have single handedly caused me to re-evaluate my "conjecture" about that. (Have you ever considered doing a stage act at one of the comedy clubs? You are a riot.)

01-07-2003, 12:01 AM	#135
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Rad *Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,...* What is the relationship between "political prosperity" and freedom/liberty? (Did Washington say, "Forward for political prosperity men?" Of course maybe he did considering his desires for increased land holdings and economic prosperity that would be all gone if the Revolutionaries got their butt whipped.) Couldn't find anything in the address supporting the gratuitous murder of workaday husbands, wives, mothers and fathers for Jesus' sake. Sorry. You did mean George Washington, founding American father, no? What on earth has any of that got to do with why Chaplains, Bibles and Christian edicts were the creation of a Protestant Continental Congress? Right God. Wrong motives apparently. Though I like your answer, are you claiming that only the victors have the support of your supernatural God Head? Wouldn't that simply be the old 'Might is Right' dictum....with or without supernatural intercession? It is quite apparent as well that his Gospel was being stifled. By whom? The Baptists? Methodists? Episcopalians? Unitarians? Lutherans? Roman Catholics? Congregationalists? Please! Exactly whom? Just the Anglicans? What about the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and all the other religious worshippers who have ever existed without knowledge or concern for the New Testament? As soon as you mix church and state, the Gospel suffers. Religious freedom suffers...the individual expression of religious or non-religious conscience...suffers. Hear! Hear! Therefore God (if he ever took sides) would be on the side of those who foster the Gospel. Oh my! So God is against anyone who doesn't foster the Gospels? (Muahahahahahaha!) I've said this many times, but I keep getting the same simplistic questions. (Please stop it! My sides are beginning to hurt from laughter.) How can any reasoning person answer such an absurd and bigoted statement/belief other than with laughter or tears of sorrow for a humankind filled with people who believe what you just wrote. (Personally I don't think the revolutionary war was worth the pain and bloodshed, and that its ends might have been accomplished by more peaceful means, but that is a whole other thread) Yes, it is! If you want to rephrase in less rhetorical English, I will be happy to answer. That was sardonic English.

01-07-2003, 09:27 AM	#139
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Off topic banter deleted by Toto

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.