New here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2012, 07:48 AM
RE: New here
Welcome aboard!

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 08:17 AM
RE: New here
Welcome!

One thing I learned after 5 years of marriage and two kids... don't mess with a pregnant chick.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
24-09-2012, 08:19 AM
RE: New here
(23-09-2012 11:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ask them if they believe the Bible is the inspired word of god.
Then tell the you were doing your devout daily bible reading, and came upon something just so wonderful, you had to share it, and since they have already agreed it's gods word you just know they will agree.

Romans 2 : 14-15
"For when the gentiles who do not have the law, by nature observe the prescriptions of the law; they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day, when , according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works, (through Jesus Christ)."

(The proof that morality is naturally in human hearts, without religion, that Paul made up his own gospel, and that they have nothing to worry about on judgement day).

Tongue

PS Welcome. When are you due, (if I may ask), picked out names yet ?

I still don't understand how the "morality" debate still exists.

It's stupid.

Christians are stupid for denying that non-Christians can't have morality without God.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
24-09-2012, 08:43 AM
RE: New here
(24-09-2012 08:19 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Christians are stupid for denying that non-Christians can't have morality without God.

Christians are stupid for not affirming that Christians can have morality with God...

Argh... English language and negatives. We need us some mathematical notation here:

Original statement

For all x : x is a Christian -> x is stupid... and we're lost because there is no frakken because operator... oh wait hang on let's try this again...

For all x : x is a Christian -> (x denies that (there exists a y such that: not (y is a Christian) and (y has morality) -> x is stupid )...


OK I kinda lost the original point of why I was doing this...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 08:45 AM
RE: New here
Also I should point out that x is a member of the set of all Humans... numbers don't tend to be religious...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 09:08 AM
RE: New here
(24-09-2012 08:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-09-2012 08:19 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Christians are stupid for denying that non-Christians can't have morality without God.

Christians are stupid for not affirming that Christians can have morality with God...

Argh... English language and negatives. We need us some mathematical notation here:

Original statement

For all x : x is a Christian -> x is stupid... and we're lost because there is no frakken because operator... oh wait hang on let's try this again...

For all x : x is a Christian -> (x denies that (there exists a y such that: not (y is a Christian) and (y has morality) -> x is stupid )...


OK I kinda lost the original point of why I was doing this...

The double negative rule isn't applicable to nouns. "Non-Christian" is a (proper) noun.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 09:12 AM
RE: New here
(24-09-2012 09:08 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(24-09-2012 08:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  Christians are stupid for not affirming that Christians can have morality with God...

Argh... English language and negatives. We need us some mathematical notation here:

Original statement

For all x : x is a Christian -> x is stupid... and we're lost because there is no frakken because operator... oh wait hang on let's try this again...

For all x : x is a Christian -> (x denies that (there exists a y such that: not (y is a Christian) and (y has morality) -> x is stupid )...


OK I kinda lost the original point of why I was doing this...

The double negative rule isn't applicable to nouns. "Non-Christian" is a (proper) noun.

Also, the double negative rule isn't always correct. There are exceptions.

ex:

"Don't you think that I didn't listen?"

The goal of the speaker is to not listen and he is making it clear to the receiver that that is his goal. While the question could be reworded, it is correct English.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 09:46 AM
RE: New here
(24-09-2012 09:12 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Also, the double negative rule isn't always correct. There are exceptions.

ex:

"Don't you think that I didn't listen?"

The goal of the speaker is to not listen and he is making it clear to the receiver that that is his goal. While the question could be reworded, it is correct English.

In your example, KC, the two negatives are in two different clauses. There's no rule against that. The so-called "double negative" (better: negative concord) rule applies to negatives within the same clause: "I didn't say nothin' to nobody," "We don't need no stinkin' badges," etc. Smartass

Is this derailment or "thread evolution"? Tongue

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cufflink's post
24-09-2012, 09:47 AM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2012 09:50 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New here
(24-09-2012 08:19 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(23-09-2012 11:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ask them if they believe the Bible is the inspired word of god.
Then tell the you were doing your devout daily bible reading, and came upon something just so wonderful, you had to share it, and since they have already agreed it's gods word you just know they will agree.

Romans 2 : 14-15
"For when the gentiles who do not have the law, by nature observe the prescriptions of the law; they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day, when , according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works, (through Jesus Christ)."

(The proof that morality is naturally in human hearts, without religion, that Paul made up his own gospel, and that they have nothing to worry about on judgement day).

Tongue

PS Welcome. When are you due, (if I may ask), picked out names yet ?

I still don't understand how the "morality" debate still exists.

It's stupid.

Christians are stupid for denying that non-Christians can't have morality without God.

a. The assumption in the debate with Christians, is that their (absolute) "objective moral values" actually exist somewhere, (ie the Bible). I can find 10 different definitions of marriage alone in the Bible. We know from Anthropology and Neuro-Psychology, and Evolutionary Biology where morality comes from. It's not from religion.

b. The other huge fallacy in the debate with believers over morality, is the assumption that what's in the Bible is the "driver", of the moral code. In fact, Biblical scholars know, (and this is agreed by even most of the MOST conservative ones), that what is in the moral codes in the Bible is there in the first place, because the various authors of the texts TOOK THE CODES from their cultures , they did not GIVE their codes to their cultures.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2012, 09:55 AM
RE: New here
(24-09-2012 09:12 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  The goal of the speaker is to not listen and he is making it clear to the receiver that that is his goal. While the question could be reworded, it is correct English.

I know is correct, was trying to get the same sentence but apply the negative outside the bracket, if you've ever heard of some guy who's name begins with M who codified the rule thus:

not (A and B) = (not A) or (not B)

edit: but was let down by the vagueness of standard English.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: