Conquer Club

Bias in the Media, LOL

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby captain.crazy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:47 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
captain.crazy wrote: If the science community is so open minded, why not let people decide for themselves what they wish to believe.

They do, but Creationists deny proofs they find inconvenient and meanwhile complain about "media bias" whilst refusing to submit anything to any reputable journal.


And still, the theory cannot be considered? You see, the thing is, many people believe it, and those people are the taxpayers if the school systems that teach their kids. If your school system taught that there was no Holocaust, would you think that you might be a bit concerned about sending your kids there to learn?
wake up. This is the end game.

Join our conspiracy clan!
User avatar
Lieutenant captain.crazy
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:28 pm

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:50 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote: For a really big idiot, President Bush sure had some crazy sh*t going down (at least according to Mr. Olbermann).

Bush is nor was an idiot, he was just frightingly focused on his own worldview which does not agree with the real world and dismissed everything that didn't agree with that worldview. It's not truly the same as idiocy in the sense that he is intelligent but in the sense that he doesn't let any information convince him of how wrong he is.

Which is probably why he's a creationist.


I was attempting (apparently poorly) to make a joke and/or be ironic. I just find it interesting that the same people who call President Bush an idiot, also tend to be the same people who think he is a nefarious man with many interwoven plots to ruin the world. Being an idiot and a nefarious super villain are pretty much mutually exclusive.


The comically used images and jokes about bush being a monkey are silly. What people mean by calling him an idiot is that he's completely obvlious to real world shit. When something that proves his worldview is twisted and simplistic he tends to ignore it. He's an idiot, not dumb.


No. I'm referring to people referring to President Bush's slips of the tongue, use of poor grammar, graduation from Yale with a C average, etc. All of these things were used and are continually used to discredit President Bush's intelligence... and that's fine with me. I happen to think the President of the United States should be more intelligent than me (the current President is, for example). My issue stems from the fact that those people who use President Bush's lack of intelligence to discredit him
also seem to think he has the wherewithal to ruin the world. As I said, these ideas are mutually exclusive. And these ideas kind of bring us back to the point that every media outlet is biased (except the Associated Press, which is a conglomerate of many media outlets) - to discredit President Bush, media outlets will say that he's an idiot and at the same time say he is hatching nefarious plots of world domination. Similarly, Sean Hannity will rip Vice President Biden but toss softballs to Lynne Cheney. Just trying to get the Hannity bashers to admit that their "boys" are just as guilty of bias. Apparently, it's not working.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby MeDeFe on Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:30 am

captain.crazy wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
captain.crazy wrote: If the science community is so open minded, why not let people decide for themselves what they wish to believe.

They do, but Creationists deny proofs they find inconvenient and meanwhile complain about "media bias" whilst refusing to submit anything to any reputable journal.

And still, the theory cannot be considered? You see, the thing is, many people believe it, and those people are the taxpayers if the school systems that teach their kids. If your school system taught that there was no Holocaust, would you think that you might be a bit concerned about sending your kids there to learn?

"Many people" also believe that the devil took the form of a talking snake and convinced the first two humans to eat some weird fruit right under the nose of an omniscient god. These people are tax payers, surely this needs to be taught as historical fact that has credible sources. If your school system taught there was no war in Vietnam, would you think that you might be a bit concerned about sending your kids there to learn?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby captain.crazy on Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:38 am

MeDeFe wrote:
captain.crazy wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
captain.crazy wrote: If the science community is so open minded, why not let people decide for themselves what they wish to believe.

They do, but Creationists deny proofs they find inconvenient and meanwhile complain about "media bias" whilst refusing to submit anything to any reputable journal.

And still, the theory cannot be considered? You see, the thing is, many people believe it, and those people are the taxpayers if the school systems that teach their kids. If your school system taught that there was no Holocaust, would you think that you might be a bit concerned about sending your kids there to learn?

"Many people" also believe that the devil took the form of a talking snake and convinced the first two humans to eat some weird fruit right under the nose of an omniscient god. These people are tax payers, surely this needs to be taught as historical fact that has credible sources. If your school system taught there was no war in Vietnam, would you think that you might be a bit concerned about sending your kids there to learn?


And yet, this cannot be disproven. In fact, I personally believe that creation, evolution, the time line for creation, and God's hand in it all are a combination of these things. But I would have a hard time even acknowledging God if not for being introduced to ideas about Him. It is the hopes of atheists so strip God from the public view when, in fact, a relationship with God is a very healthy thing!

People are paying taxes to have their public education provided to them by people that will not offer their theory into the public arena of ideas. I think its wrong.
wake up. This is the end game.

Join our conspiracy clan!
User avatar
Lieutenant captain.crazy
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:28 pm

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:44 am

How does teaching evolution in school and creationism at home a bad thing? One can understand and/or believe both and one can be taught both. If I'm taught evolution in school and creationism at home, that does not mean that I will automatically drop my creationism beliefs. It's an illogical argument made by some conservatives that drives me a little nuts - "We must teach creationism in schools, it's not fair. Our children are going to believe in evolution instead of creationism."
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby captain.crazy on Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:17 am

thegreekdog wrote:How does teaching evolution in school and creationism at home a bad thing? One can understand and/or believe both and one can be taught both. If I'm taught evolution in school and creationism at home, that does not mean that I will automatically drop my creationism beliefs. It's an illogical argument made by some conservatives that drives me a little nuts - "We must teach creationism in schools, it's not fair. Our children are going to believe in evolution instead of creationism."


It isn't fair. And that's not the point. People believe in creationism... but why should they pay taxes for a system that won't even introduce a theory that they believe, when evolution and creationism are both theories. You believe that evolution is true, and they believe the same of creationism. Put the shoe on the other foot, as in if creationism was taught, and evolution was mocked openly in public. Now imagine that you were told, "We're not going to teach evolution to your kids, that's preposterous!" If you start to think like this, then you start to see that equal representation of both major theories should be presented in schools. That's all!

You just don't like it because you believe in evolution, as do I! but that doesn't make me right.
wake up. This is the end game.

Join our conspiracy clan!
User avatar
Lieutenant captain.crazy
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:28 pm

Re: ALL media is biased.

Postby oVo on Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:22 am

Our children are going to believe what they are going to believe... and in time those thoughts will change with the world around them. IF the kids of the past only believed what they were told and accepted all teachings on blind faith as the absolute truth, we would not be where we are today.

The many biases and hypocrisy of the past is one factor in the doubts expressed and shared by many people today. I do not believe there is a "team atheist" agenda to strip God from public view, it can't be done. The United States was founded by atheists who attempted to establish many freedoms for their citizens... which included a right to follow the faith of your choosing. The choice to be a non-believer is protected by those same rights.
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:28 am

captain.crazy wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:How does teaching evolution in school and creationism at home a bad thing? One can understand and/or believe both and one can be taught both. If I'm taught evolution in school and creationism at home, that does not mean that I will automatically drop my creationism beliefs. It's an illogical argument made by some conservatives that drives me a little nuts - "We must teach creationism in schools, it's not fair. Our children are going to believe in evolution instead of creationism."


It isn't fair. And that's not the point. People believe in creationism... but why should they pay taxes for a system that won't even introduce a theory that they believe, when evolution and creationism are both theories. You believe that evolution is true, and they believe the same of creationism. Put the shoe on the other foot, as in if creationism was taught, and evolution was mocked openly in public. Now imagine that you were told, "We're not going to teach evolution to your kids, that's preposterous!" If you start to think like this, then you start to see that equal representation of both major theories should be presented in schools. That's all!

You just don't like it because you believe in evolution, as do I! but that doesn't make me right.


I pay taxes for a lot of things that I don't use, don't agree with, and don't think are fair. Should I pay taxes for a system that gives money to people who don't pay taxes, or money to people who cannot pay their mortgage, or money to roads that I don't use?

By the way, I'm Catholic, so I believe in creationism. I just don't care if it's taught in schools or not. And these are the types of issues that make me "throw away" my vote on a Libertarian candidate instead of voting for a Republican. Conservative Republicans care so much for these issues that they alienate a broad spectrum of potential voters by constantly espousing the idea and ridiculing those that don't hold the same beliefs. It's a little childish and it's a lot counterproductive to say "that's not fair." Especially considering that there are other things that Republicans and conservatives can stand for that can be very productive.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: ALL media is biased.

Postby captain.crazy on Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:29 am

oVo wrote:Our children are going to believe what they are going to believe... and in time those thoughts will change with the world around them. IF the kids of the past only believed what they were told and accepted all teachings on blind faith as the absolute truth, we would not be where we are today.

The many biases and hypocrisy of the past is one factor in the doubts expressed and shared by many people today. I do not believe there is a "team atheist" agenda to strip God from public view, it can't be done. The United States was founded by atheists who attempted to establish many freedoms for their citizens... which included a right to follow the faith of your choosing. The choice to be a non-believer is protected by those same rights.


These 'atheist' that created our country were, in fact, Godly men that believed that we were all created equal. They were no atheists at all. they believed in the power of free will. I am not trying to suggest that we not have the right to believe as we wish. I am saying that creationism deserves a place in the hall of "How we got here" just like any other belief. none are taught other than evolution, because that is the only one that scientifically explains how we got here, even though it is only a theory.
wake up. This is the end game.

Join our conspiracy clan!
User avatar
Lieutenant captain.crazy
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:28 pm

Re: ALL media is biased.

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:33 am

oVo wrote:Our children are going to believe what they are going to believe... and in time those thoughts will change with the world around them. IF the kids of the past only believed what they were told and accepted all teachings on blind faith as the absolute truth, we would not be where we are today.

The many biases and hypocrisy of the past is one factor in the doubts expressed and shared by many people today. I do not believe there is a "team atheist" agenda to strip God from public view, it can't be done. The United States was founded by atheists who attempted to establish many freedoms for their citizens... which included a right to follow the faith of your choosing. The choice to be a non-believer is protected by those same rights.


I agree with some of your thoughts, but not others. The United States was surely not founded by atheists. We can just look to the founding documents and other writings, as well as my favorite quote by Benjamin Franklin ("Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy").

The Bill of Rights protects freedom of religion because the United States was meant to be inclusive of all religions. I do not know if atheism was contemplated, but atheism is not a religion such that one would need freedom to practice it. Additionally, the separation of church and state provision was not meant to separate religion from the state; it was meant to separate the state from a state religion. The revolutionaries did not want a Church of United States.

In any event, I have no problem with atheists. They are pretty brave if you really think about it - If the atheist is right, he dies and gets put into the ground (a scary thought indeed). If the atheist is wrong, he goes to Hell. It's a lose-lose situation.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby oVo on Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:41 am

OR . . . if you believe in a loving and forgiving GOD,
the athiest goes where all who "pass on" go.
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:43 am

Unfortunately for the atheist, the God of Catholicism, while a forgiving God, is only forgiving if you ask for forgiveness.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: ALL media is biased.

Postby The1exile on Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:55 am

thegreekdog wrote:In any event, I have no problem with atheists. They are pretty brave if you really think about it - If the atheist is right, he dies and gets put into the ground (a scary thought indeed). If the atheist is wrong, he goes to Hell. It's a lose-lose situation.

This is a false dichotomy. Apart from the fact that we all die and get put in a hole in the ground (or whatever alternative is chosen for your corpse) regardless of faith, the declaration that the souls of all atheists will burn in hell seems to me to onl;y be espoused by holier-than-thou religious types. If you asked a Moslem what would happen to xians, most of them would burn in hell. The same goes the other way around. Those who preach that God is forgiving must concede that in this hypothetical scenario when I die and face God in heaven for not believing, for him to be forgiving and to condemn me to hell for being too ignorant to accept his existence are mutually exclusive.

I will happily accept the existence of a god who actually exists before me. I will not ask the forgiveness of a god that doesn't exist and whose followers try to care me with "ooh he's gonna get ya" and cast it simultaneously as a vindictive and forgiving figure.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant The1exile
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:01 pm
Location: Devastation

Re: ALL media is biased.

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:01 am

The1exile wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, I have no problem with atheists. They are pretty brave if you really think about it - If the atheist is right, he dies and gets put into the ground (a scary thought indeed). If the atheist is wrong, he goes to Hell. It's a lose-lose situation.

This is a false dichotomy. Apart from the fact that we all die and get put in a hole in the ground (or whatever alternative is chosen for your corpse) regardless of faith, the declaration that the souls of all atheists will burn in hell seems to me to onl;y be espoused by holier-than-thou religious types. If you asked a Moslem what would happen to xians, most of them would burn in hell. The same goes the other way around. Those who preach that God is forgiving must concede that in this hypothetical scenario when I die and face God in heaven for not believing, for him to be forgiving and to condemn me to hell for being too ignorant to accept his existence are mutually exclusive.

I will happily accept the existence of a god who actually exists before me. I will not ask the forgiveness of a god that doesn't exist and whose followers try to care me with "ooh he's gonna get ya" and cast it simultaneously as a vindictive and forgiving figure.


Happily accepting the existence of a god you cannot see if the foundation of all religions - namely, faith. And I'm not one to say "Ooh he's gonna get ya," and I won't rip atheists. What you believe is your choice. I was simply pointing out, not in a sarcastic manner, that atheists should seem brave to someone who is religious. Unfortunately, many religious people do not practice what they preach - rather than turning the other cheek, many religious-types try to bully and coerce others to be religious. That's not something that Jesus taught... he never said, "Ooh, my dad is going to get you." Simply put, there is a dichotomy, but it is between the actions of man and the word of God. Man tends to belittle or war against those who don't believe; God wants us to forgive and accept them.

In any event, to get to your original point, I don't know what God will do or not do relative to an atheist. I don't know what God will or won't do to me. I have faith that if I live a good life, am kind to others, and ask forgiveness for my sins, God will accept me. I guess I'll see (or not see, as the case may be).
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby MeDeFe on Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:40 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I agree with some of your thoughts, but not others. The United States was surely not founded by atheists. We can just look to the founding documents and other writings, as well as my favorite quote by Benjamin Franklin ("Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy").

He also said that the English are great guzzlers of beer and that it's better to build lighthouses than churches, or something to that effect. Ben Franklin said a great deal of things, I should know, I've read his autobiography.


And @ both thegreekdog and especially captain.crazy, using terms like "god" or "created" does not make a person religous, it makes them someone who employs religious terminology to make a point.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:25 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I agree with some of your thoughts, but not others. The United States was surely not founded by atheists. We can just look to the founding documents and other writings, as well as my favorite quote by Benjamin Franklin ("Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy").

He also said that the English are great guzzlers of beer and that it's better to build lighthouses than churches, or something to that effect. Ben Franklin said a great deal of things, I should know, I've read his autobiography.


And @ both thegreekdog and especially captain.crazy, using terms like "god" or "created" does not make a person religous, it makes them someone who employs religious terminology to make a point.


I'm unsure, but did I use the term "god" and "created" in reference to making a person religious? If I did, I did not mean to. Presumably, creationism can be supported by those who are not religious. Additionally, people who are religious may not believe in creationism.

That's not what I'm arguing in any event. I'm saying that (1) captain.crazy is illogical and (2) oVo is wrong regarding his assumptions on the founding fathers and the Constitution.

Finally, I've read the most recently published biography of Ben Franklin (but not his autobiography). I guess your point is that he said a lot of things? My point was that he, among others, were not necessarily atheists (I do not presume to know whether George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, et. al. believed in God, Jesus, Allah, or the Buddha). I do know that their writings were peppered with references to God.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby MeDeFe on Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:06 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I'm unsure, but did I use the term "god" and "created" in reference to making a person religious? If I did, I did not mean to. Presumably, creationism can be supported by those who are not religious. Additionally, people who are religious may not believe in creationism.

The blue makes sense, the red does not.

That's not what I'm arguing in any event. I'm saying that (1) captain.crazy is illogical and (2) oVo is wrong regarding his assumptions on the founding fathers and the Constitution.

Finally, I've read the most recently published biography of Ben Franklin (but not his autobiography). I guess your point is that he said a lot of things? My point was that he, among others, were not necessarily atheists (I do not presume to know whether George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, et. al. believed in God, Jesus, Allah, or the Buddha). I do know that their writings were peppered with references to God.

Oh, your founding fathers were probably not outright atheists, or at least not all of them, but many of them were certainly sceptics (heard about the Jefferson bible? 46 pages after all miracles and inconsistencies were clipped out). Incidentally, in 1831 an episcopal minister complained that "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."


My point about Franklin is that he was a politician and opportunist, through and through, do not take anything from him at face value. The same likely goes for the rest of the bunch. "When in Rome, do as the Romans" and when in Religionland, do as the religious. If that includes using their terminology, which had been around for some 1500 years by then and quickly gaining secular meanings in addition to or even superseding the original ones or had become parts of figures of speech, so be it.
This does not make them bad persons, but I think it's a more accurate portrayal than one of them as wise, freedom-loving men with wholly good intentions gathering and declaring that one of the biggest (or even the biggest?) British colonies was independent, effective immediately.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:12 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I'm unsure, but did I use the term "god" and "created" in reference to making a person religious? If I did, I did not mean to. Presumably, creationism can be supported by those who are not religious. Additionally, people who are religious may not believe in creationism.

The blue makes sense, the red does not.

That's not what I'm arguing in any event. I'm saying that (1) captain.crazy is illogical and (2) oVo is wrong regarding his assumptions on the founding fathers and the Constitution.

Finally, I've read the most recently published biography of Ben Franklin (but not his autobiography). I guess your point is that he said a lot of things? My point was that he, among others, were not necessarily atheists (I do not presume to know whether George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, et. al. believed in God, Jesus, Allah, or the Buddha). I do know that their writings were peppered with references to God.

Oh, your founding fathers were probably not outright atheists, or at least not all of them, but many of them were certainly sceptics (heard about the Jefferson bible? 46 pages after all miracles and inconsistencies were clipped out). Incidentally, in 1831 an episcopal minister complained that "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."


My point about Franklin is that he was a politician and opportunist, through and through, do not take anything from him at face value. The same likely goes for the rest of the bunch. "When in Rome, do as the Romans" and when in Religionland, do as the religious. If that includes using their terminology, which had been around for some 1500 years by then and quickly gaining secular meanings in addition to or even superseding the original ones or had become parts of figures of speech, so be it.
This does not make them bad persons, but I think it's a more accurate portrayal than one of them as wise, freedom-loving men with wholly good intentions gathering and declaring that one of the biggest (or even the biggest?) British colonies was independent, effective immediately.


So, are you supporting oVo's determination that the "Founding Fathers" were atheists? Because that's really the issue I'm discussing. There is no empirical evidence that they were atheist. There is a whole lot of empirical evidence that they believed in God and that they inserted God into government. So, I was confused by oVo's assertion that they were atheist because there is a whole lot of evidence suggesting they were not. I don't disagree with anything else you're saying... they were certainly wise, freedom-loving men with wholly good intentions gathering and declaring that one of the biggest British colonies was independent... they just inserted a whole lot of references to God in those declarations; which leads me to believe they were not atheist.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby Snorri1234 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:42 pm

thegreekdog wrote: they were certainly wise, freedom-loving men with wholly good intentions gathering and declaring that one of the biggest British colonies was independent...


Either I misread MeDeFe or you are actually disagreeing with him.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:02 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote: they were certainly wise, freedom-loving men with wholly good intentions gathering and declaring that one of the biggest British colonies was independent...


Either I misread MeDeFe or you are actually disagreeing with him.


I'm not sure if I'm disagreeing with him since he has not yet said that he believes the founders were atheist. If he think they were atheist, I disagree. If he thinks they were not atheist, then I agree.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby The1exile on Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:52 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure if I'm disagreeing with him since he has not yet said that he believes the founders were atheist. If he think they were atheist, I disagree. If he thinks they were not atheist, then I agree.

Dude, read the thread. You even quoted and replied to the post where he said what his stance was on the issue.

MeDeFe wrote:Oh, your founding fathers were probably not outright atheists, or at least not all of them, but many of them were certainly sceptics (heard about the Jefferson bible? 46 pages after all miracles and inconsistencies were clipped out). Incidentally, in 1831 an episcopal minister complained that "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant The1exile
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:01 pm
Location: Devastation

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:19 pm

The1exile wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure if I'm disagreeing with him since he has not yet said that he believes the founders were atheist. If he think they were atheist, I disagree. If he thinks they were not atheist, then I agree.

Dude, read the thread. You even quoted and replied to the post where he said what his stance was on the issue.

MeDeFe wrote:Oh, your founding fathers were probably not outright atheists, or at least not all of them, but many of them were certainly sceptics (heard about the Jefferson bible? 46 pages after all miracles and inconsistencies were clipped out). Incidentally, in 1831 an episcopal minister complained that "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."


Can you find for me where he said they were atheists? All I read is that they were skeptics because of Jefferon's bibles. I also read that "your founding fathers were probably not outright atheists."

To continue to belabor my point, the founders, who may have been skeptics, I don't know, made many references to God and Judeo-Christian law in the various documents they produced.

In conclusion, "Dude, read the thread."
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby Snorri1234 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:28 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
The1exile wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure if I'm disagreeing with him since he has not yet said that he believes the founders were atheist. If he think they were atheist, I disagree. If he thinks they were not atheist, then I agree.

Dude, read the thread. You even quoted and replied to the post where he said what his stance was on the issue.

MeDeFe wrote:Oh, your founding fathers were probably not outright atheists, or at least not all of them, but many of them were certainly sceptics (heard about the Jefferson bible? 46 pages after all miracles and inconsistencies were clipped out). Incidentally, in 1831 an episcopal minister complained that "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."


Can you find for me where he said they were atheists? All I read is that they were skeptics because of Jefferon's bibles. I also read that "your founding fathers were probably not outright atheists."

To continue to belabor my point, the founders, who may have been skeptics, I don't know, made many references to God and Judeo-Christian law in the various documents they produced.

In conclusion, "Dude, read the thread."



My point about Franklin is that he was a politician and opportunist, through and through, do not take anything from him at face value. The same likely goes for the rest of the bunch.
"When in Rome, do as the Romans" and when in Religionland, do as the religious. If that includes using their terminology, which had been around for some 1500 years by then and quickly gaining secular meanings in addition to or even superseding the original ones or had become parts of figures of speech, so be it.


They were not outright atheists because being an outright atheist at that time would basically get you killed.

Anyway, what I was actually referring to was this:

This does not make them bad persons, but I think it's a more accurate portrayal than one of them as wise, freedom-loving men with wholly good intentions gathering and declaring that one of the biggest (or even the biggest?) British colonies was independent, effective immediately.


a more accurate portrayal than one of them

than
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:43 pm

Frustration building...

Snorri, I'm not saying they were God-fearing Christians on a mission to bring Christianity to the United States. I'm saying (1) there is little evidence that any of them were atheists, and (2) they made many references to God in their writing. This latter factor is a positive indication that they were not, in fact, atheists. For oVo to say they were atheists is downright wrong. And when MeDeFe doesn't actually say they were atheists, I don't think he's disagreeing with me. I think what he's trying to say is that the founders' respective beliefs in God was less important than their interest in freedom. I agree with that. But they weren't atheists.

I'm a rational guy who believes in logic and evidence (except when worshipping God in my own way, which I'm not going to force on anyone else). I'm not trying to impsoe my religion on others. I would venture to say that Jefferson, Franklin, et. al. would hate my religion (because, well, Catholics in the US were Irish... and Irish were scum). In any event, my motives in this thread are purely educational and for debate purposes only. I'm not saying I'm right about God. I am saying that I'm right about the founders. Because I am.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Bias in the Media, LOL

Postby MeDeFe on Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:10 pm

Pray tell where the evidence of your founding fathers inserting religion into government is. This is news, because usually it is only possible to present evidence for them being against religion and government mixing.



And since it seems your reading skills will not get you placed in any top 10 lists.

Your founding fathers were first and foremost interested in their own interests.
Then in freedom and a better society for everyone (especially including themselves).
Then in a lot of other things like reading Plato and Aristotle, doing business, making money, learning new and exciting languages and being critical about religion. Very critical in fact, even for modern secular European standards.
Then in some more stuff.
Then in stuff like eating and getting up every morning.
Then in being religious.

Then possibly stuff like killing puppies and eating babies, but I rather doubt that to be honest, I'm only mentioning it to have a complete list.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users