Science > Philosophy > You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists.
| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"V" |
| Date: |
14 Jul 2007 07:40:56 AM |
| Object: |
You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists. |
Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
In his book religious literacyhttp://www.amazon.com/Religious-Literacy-American-Know-Doesnt/dp/0060...The
author is a Christian, and states that in Austria where religionis
shoved down the students throats, belief is almost non existent.
InAmerica were belief is 90 percent, the average Christian is unable
toname the Four Gospels or the Twelve Apostles. They need to know
Christianity to reject it.
Lets start spoon feeding it two them.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
Well, some of that is true. Can't name the apostles and I was Catholic
for 50 years. I can't name all the 50 states as well...but I am not
too smart so you can't go by me.
I will say that many atheists know more about religion than the
theists do.
You want to spoon-fed theists religion...good policy...maybe some of
it will rub off on you.
But if you want to spoon feed theist the destruction of religion and
spital values in government...I have one question for you?
Is you policy the same as the one in Iraq?
Take out the powers that be and replace it with wishful thinking?
I thought atheist and wishful thinking did not mix?
If out get rid on one thing, what do you plan on replacing religion in
the politician with?
Atheist values?
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0
You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT
atheists.
If you like politics with no God go to Russia, China or the orient.
Atheists look at this topic with tunnel vision.
Atheists like to fantasize what the world would be like if religion
would never have been invented.
Sure Christians do bad things, so do all practitioners in other
religions. But many of these religious practitioners also do good
things.
You never see atheists taking up charitable works and feeding and
clothing the poor in any organized way as Christians do.
Atheist organized?
The only thing atheists can organize shelves to do to is to plonk V
and spew hatred.
There may be the odd atheists philanthropists here or there, but
nothing organized like Christians charitable organizations.
I wrote to the president of American Atheists, UK Atheists, the
Secular Humanism Foundation, Sam Harris and others about this very
topic and none had the courtesy to reply.
Shows how much interest atheists really have in humanity.
No, I prefer to keep things as they are and keep religions, even with
all their imperfections. I believe religions do more good than harm. I
shutter to think what the world would be like if it was composed
solely of atheists.
When I discussed Christian principles one time an Atheist piped up to
say "the Christians have no principles," and "Jesus was a fabled
creation of the Christians."
When we sperate the personalities from the principles it makes looking
at things much easier. When I am referring to Christian principles I
speak of such things as charity, works of mercy and the golden rule,
where the emphasis is on principles and not on the personalities of
the church.
For even if Jesus was just created as a fable, these Christian
principles are universal truths in their own right if one desires to
live a life at peace and promote the inner peace of others in this
world.
"The Corporal Works of Mercy"
To feed the hungry
To give drink to the thirsty
To clothe the naked
To harbour the harbourless
To visit the sick
To ransom the captive
To bury the dead
"The Spiritual Works of Mercy"
To instruct the ignorant
To counsel the doubtful
To admonish sinners
To bear wrongs patiently
To forgive offenses willingly
To comfort the afflicted
To pray for the living and the dead
You see, by applying the rule of reciprocity or rule of opposites we
can see if we were in these positions of the needy mentioned above, we
would like such charity bestowed on us for the most part.
What about our children, parents and loved ones?
Wouldn't we wish the same for them?
We have no loved ones?
What about our neighbors?
The Christian ethic says to treat one another as we would wish to be
treated. As we give ~ so we receive.
Even if an atheist, as we give peace - we receive inner peace as many
of the tools I mentioned above do not require belief in God, they only
requirement is a desire to be at peace and to bring peace to others.
This is the Christian doctrine in a nutshell, when we put principles
before personalities.
As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds
and water these seeds within you as well. As James Allen wrote in "As
a man Thinketh" ~ To think well of all, to be cheerful with all, to
patiently learn to find the good in all - such unselfish thoughts are
the very portals of heaven; and to dwell day by day in thoughts of
peace toward every creature will bring abounding peace to their
possessor."
This is universal truth that transcends man made religions.
Remember, we do not have to do it perfectly. Just look for direction
and forget perfection - for perfection or range is of the ego and form
is of the soul.
There are many tools for peace within the worlds spiritual paths, no
one said these paths are perfect, in fact, it was once said that
walking the spiritual path is akin to walking on a razors edge.
But if we bother to be honest, non prejudicial and to look, we can
find tools that can help us be at peace whether atheist, agnostic or
believer.
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists. |
14 Jul 2007 01:12:39 PM |
|
|
On Jul 14, 5:40 am, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just responding to the thread subject. The argument is very weak since
if we replace the terms it could lead to arguments such as, "since all
politicians have manners we should respect them" or "since all
politicians must wipe their arses we sould be willing to kiss their
asses."
PROCEDURE FOR CONSTRUCTING A COUNTEREXAMPLE:
A counterexample to an argument form is a substitution instance whose
premises are true and whose conclusion is false. Since the validity
of an argument depends on its form and since only an invalid argument
can have true premises and a false conclusion, a counterexample to an
argument form proves that every substitution instance of that argument
form is invalid.
1. Write out a well-crafted version of the argument--see section
2.2 of The Power of Logic, pp. 52-73 of the course reader.
2. Identify the form of the argument. Look for repeated references
to the same class (or to the same proposition) and then rewrite the
argument uniformly substituting a capital letter for each class (or
for each proposition). Indicate which capital letters stand for which
classes (or propositions).
3. Find English terms (or statements) that, if substituted for the
capital letters in the conclusion of the argument form, produce a well-
known falsehood. Substitute these English terms (or statements) for
the relevant capital letters uniformly throughout the argument form.
4. Find additional English terms (or statements) that, if
substituted uniformly for the remaining capital letters in the
argument form, produce premises that are well-known truths.
Important Note: If you have trouble coming up with a substitution
instance whose premises are well-known truths and whose conclusion is
a well-known falsehood, then come up with a substitution instance
whose premises are true and whose conclusion is false in some possible
world and then describe that possible world so as to make clear how,
in that world, the premises would be true and the conclusion would be
false.
Definitions:
*
* A well-crafted version of an argument in ordinary English is one
that is restated so as to make its logical features explicit by
employing uniform language, excluding excess verbiage, and making each
step of the argument explicit.
* A class refers to a collection or a set of things, such as the
set of things that are beagles or the set of things that are dogs.
* A term is word or phrase that stands for a class.
* A proposition is a truth or a falsehood that can often be
expressed by a number of different, but logically equivalent,
statements.
* A statement is a sentence that has a truth-value, that is, a
sentence that is either true or false.
* An argument form is a pattern of reasoning.
* An argument that results from uniformly replacing the capital
letters in an argument form with terms (or statements) is called a
substitution instance of that form.
Example 1:
If God exists, then life has meaning. But there is no God.
Therefore, life is meaningless.
Step 1:
1. If God exists, then life has meaning.
2. It is not the case that God exists.
So, 3. It is not the case that life has meaning.
Step 2:
G: God exists.
L: Life has meaning.
1. If G, then L.
2. It is not the case that G.
So, 3. It is not the case that L.
Step 3:
1. If G, then Al Gore is a U.S. citizen.
2. It is not the case that G.
So, 3. It is not the case that Al Gore is a U.S. citizen.
[False]
Step 4:
1. If Al Gore is the President of the U.S., then Al Gore is a
U.S. citizen. [True]
2. It is not the case that Al Gore is the President of the
U.S. [True]
So, 3. It is not the case that Al Gore is a U.S. citizen.
[False]
Thus the argument given in Example 1 is invalid.
Example 2:
Some catholic priests are bachelors. All bachelors are single. Fred
Feldman is married. So Fred Feldman isn't a catholic priest.
Step 1:
1. Some catholic priests are bachelors.
2. All bachelors are single.
3. Fred Feldman is not single.
So, 4. Fred Feldman is not a catholic priest.
Step 2:
C: catholic priests
B: bachelors
S: people who are single
F: people who are identical to Fred Feldman
1. Some C are B.
2. All B are S.
3. F is not S.
So, 4. F is not C.
Step 3:
1. Some animals are B.
2. All B are S.
3. Fido is not S.
So, 4. Fido is not an animal. [False] Imagine the possible world
where Fido is a dog.
Step 4:
1. Some animals are lizards. [True]
2. All lizards are reptiles. [True]
3. Fido is not a reptile. [True]
So, 4. Fido is not an animal. [False]
Step 5:
One possible world is one in which Fido is a dog and everything else
is as it is in the actual world. In that possible world, the premises
would be true and the conclusion would be false.
Thus, the argument given in Example 2 is invalid.
http://www.csun.edu/~dp56722/200spring04/04_200Handout_Procedure_for_Constructing_a_Counterexample.rtf
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:fQxj5bAYjPYJ:www.csun.edu/~dp56722/200spring04/04_200Handout_Procedure_for_Constructing_a_Counterexample.rtf+counterexample+possible+world&hl=en
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=counterexample+possible+world&btnG=Google+Search
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
