Atheists... Your life is pointless

bump
[X] Spherical Life

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

He was still elected President so the argument that no one who is consider an atheist can be President fall on the fact that the third president got elected.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that. I did claim that I find it unlikely for an outed atheist to be elected president anytime soon. I certainly wouldn't view it as a bad thing, however, if a President was atheistic. I am more concerned with social policy, economic policy, and military policy.
I care more for a politician's philosophy, than their theology.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

I care more for a politician's philosophy, than their theology.

Hear hear.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

What assertions am I making that I can not back up...

Almost all of them.

Quote:

... there is no question that a large percent of all the newspapers in the nation were anti Jefferson and pro the Federalists and they was labeling him as unfit to be president due to him being an atheist...

Do you have anything to establish the truth of either of these assertions?

1 Reply

This is posted to add maybe ‘somewhat’ to the issues that spendius and others have discussed here recently.

I wonder sometimes how many children are brought into this world unselfishly… is it for their own sake?

Reasons:

Many women seem to want to be loved unconditionally and they seem to instinctively know that children, especially small children, will love their mothers unconditionally. Many women may reproduce mainly for this reason.

Many men seem to enjoy the bliss of an orgasm and many seem to prefer to experience this with a woman who seems genuinely fond of them. A man may often choose to keep this woman happy mainly for this reason or so it may seem, so when the woman suggests that she would like to have a child, he may often go along with this in order to continue to have an orgasm with a woman who is fond of him, as often as she will let him.

Many of the man’s actions seemingly are done in order to keep the woman happy in order to have sex more often. Many of the woman’s actions are seemingly done to support the child who loves her unconditionally. This will seem to mean, also being a substitute mother to the man in her life as well as giving him some of the sexual orgasms he wants. The man will work, or so it seems, to support the child and his partner in order to keep the woman fond and therefore willing to participate in sex as often as he would like.

None of the actions are done for the child’s benefit i.e. the child is not brought into the world for the child’s sake but for the happiness of the man and the woman, each with different agendas. Neither will speak of this to the other, or so it seems, but instead the woman will say how much she enjoys sex and the man will say how much he loves the woman and play down wanting sex when she does not and how much he would like to have a child should she want one.

The child as it grows is used to bring happiness to the man and the woman in various ways. When the child reaches puberty and beyond, the cycle continues and the child if female looks for a mate to give her a child that will fulfill her need for unconditional love and the man will look for a female who is fond of him in order to get the bliss of an orgasm.

Conclusion: most children may be brought into this world for selfish reasons but it is never admitted to, if looked at in the way described above… which of course may be completely incorrect.

Of course Buddhists don’t seem to have this problem as much – why? It would take too long to explain (if this is a problem and it actually exists) so you’ll have to take my word for it… or not.

1 Reply

@igm,

How about 1) to perpetuate the family name, 2) enjoy and experience the happiness and sorrows of living with wife/husband and children, and 3) having loved ones is an essential part of living.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Do you have anything to establish the truth of either of these assertions?

Quote:

http://www.lehrmaninstitute.org/history/1800.html

Introduction

The presidential election of 1800 is generally considered the nastiest in American history. Indeed, the campaign did not reflect well on the Founders or their new government. The race between Federalist John Adams and Republican Thomas Jefferson was raucous, bitter, and unpredictable. Historian David McCullough wrote that according to the opposing campaigns, "if Jefferson was a Jacobin, a shameless southern libertine, and a 'howling' atheist, Adams was a Tory, a vain Yankee scold, and, if truth be known, 'quite mad.''"1

History for one thing concerning that period of time my silly friend by many books I had read over the decades concerning that period of time!!!!!!!!!

Not near my own personal library at the moment to listed out my books on the Jefferson-Democratic-Republicans/Hamilton-Federals conflict.

But what I wrote concerning the Federals charging Jefferson as being an Atheist is not in question and copies of a large percents of those papers sill exist.

You have no ground to challenge that anymore then any other well estimate parts of our history.

Do you challenge the moon landings also........... Drunk

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Bill, you have asserted (among other things):

Quote:

Jefferson was an atheist.

Quote:

Half the newspapers in America attacked him for being an atheist.

Quote:

That he was considered an atheist by a large part of the population...and by the founding fathers.

I have seen absolutely no substantiation of any of those assertions.

Now you are presenting a comment that says that his opposition called him names...and said he was an atheist.

Good grief, man...have you ever seen or read about any presidential campaign in America where opponents call people names...and make charges?

Here are a few quotes from Jefferson:

"We hold these truths to be sacred and un-deniable..." (That was changed by Adams.)

"All men are created equal..."

"I have done for my country, and for all mankind, all that I could do,
and I now resign my soul, without fear, to my God..."

Do they sound like the kind of thing an atheist would say?

I do not know if he was an atheist. He may have been a closet atheist...in which case, I would say, Good for him.

But you are asserting that he was.

Substantiate the assertions you have made.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

How about 1) to perpetuate the family name, 2) enjoy and experience the happiness and sorrows of living with wife/husband and children, and 3) having loved ones is an essential part of living.

Ok, are those about bringing children into the world 'just' for the children's sake, that's my point. One could see those three reasons as benefiting the child as a byproduct of what the parents want. So, still selfish.

Your reasons may or may not be more fundamental than mine. They are certainly more palatable.

I'm saying children could be the byproduct of selfishness on the part of the 'mates'. Women may at least want children out of 'love' even if they want it for themselves 'from' the child. A man may want a woman first and then a child as part of the package for the man's happiness.

Everyone is different and no one knows the motivations of others so it could well be that what I have put forward is wrong... I cannot know.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Listen one more time almost all newspapers at the time was not unbiased covered of the news of the days but part of one power group or another power group.

The degree of personal attacks that then resulted against politician is unhear of in the current day and age.

Voters of the time were aware therefore of the charge that Jefferson was an atheist and also aware that he was not a religion person in any normal meaning of the term and yet they voted him President so to say that no openly Atheist could be president had been disproved two hundred years ago.

Third, from my readings of his statements and actions over his lifetime coming to the conclusion that he was indeed an atheist is not unreasonable.

A conclusion that more then one of the other founding fathers that knew him had reached at the time also.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm, It's "natural" to have children. Animals are sexually active for a reason.
Based on culture, religion, and other environmental limitations, humans will continue to have "children."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

igm, It's "natural" to have children. Animals are sexually active for a reason.
Based on culture, religion, and other environmental limitations, humans will continue to have "children."

Ok, but I was questioning their 'motivation' not whether they will have children or not. They will, but it may mostly be for 'selfish' reasons which in turn is the opposite of what mates and their relatives probably tell each other... but you'll almost certainly not hear that admitted to... 'if' that is the case i.e. if their motivation is selfish.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5282298)
Listen one more time almost all newspapers at the time was not unbiased covered of the news of the days but part of one power group or another power group.

Not the wording I would have used...but I agree with the essentials.

Quote:

The degree of personal attacks that then resulted against politician is unhear of in the current day and age.

Not the wording I would have used...but if you are saying that personal attacks in Jefferson's day were different from the kind used today, I would agree.

Quote:

Voters of the time were aware therefore of the charge that Jefferson was an atheist...

Voters were most likely aware of the charges.

Quote:

...and also aware that he was not a religion person in any normal meaning of the term and yet they voted him President so to say that no openly Atheist could be president had been disproved two hundred years ago.

Not in any way, shape, or form. I'd love to see you try to cram that bit of "reasoning" into a syllogism.

Obama was charged with being a socialist...yet he got elected. Undoubtedly many people who would not want a socialist in power voted for him. They simply discounted the charges as being phony. I suspect many of he people who voted for Jefferson may have done the same with the comments about him being an atheist.

In any case, the dynamics of his election (particularly the second) involved all sorts of things. Perhaps if Setanta is reading, he will comment...although I know he holds Jefferson in very low regard.

Quote:

Third, from my readings of his statements and actions over his lifetime coming to the conclusion that he was indeed an atheist is not unreasonable. A conclusion that more then one of the other founding fathers that knew him had reached at the time also.

Could be...but I think it more reasonable to conclude he was not an atheist...but a deist.

Under any circumstances...none of this substantiate any of the assertions you have made. Not a one.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

I have read a little about Mr Jefferson, Bill, and, like a lot of well-to-do gentleman who are fond of lofty pronouncements, I get the impression he was confused.

He was instrumental, for example, in abolishing entail in property and signed up for an entail on the entire nation: the Constitution, and he disagreed with constitutions in principle as well. So he would not have agreed with citing the Constitution to support the right to bear arms at a time 200 or more years later.

As a posh pragmatist though he might have done as they lean in whatever direction the wind takes them. Mr Charles Carroll called him a "theoretical and fanciful man".

In reference to an earlier discussion, when Mr Adams asked him if he would choose to live life over again he was not very committed to doing so and he was a silver spoon job.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

You actually believe a campaign slogan by the opposing party will do to proove your case?
Sorry to inform you, but you're going to need more evidence than that to be let you off the hook.
And by any chance, from the many books you have read, is there a book in your collection that goes by the name of Jefferson and Religion by Eugene R. Sheridan?

1 Reply

@igm,

That's nothing. If you want a more concise and less buggy code:

Code:

<html><head>

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">

<meta name="description" content="Turn text upside down. Rotate letters 180 degrees with Unicode.">

<title>Flip</title>

<style type="text/css">

textarea { font-family: "Arial Unicode MS", Batang }

h1 { margin-bottom: 2px;}

</style>

<script>

function flip() {

 var result = flipString(document.f.original.value.toLowerCase());

 document.f.flipped.value = result;

}



function flipString(aString) {

 var last = aString.length - 1;

 //Thanks to Brook Monroe for the suggestion to use Array.join

 var result = new Array(aString.length)

 for (var i = last; i >= 0; --i) {

  var c = aString.charAt(i)

  var r = flipTable[c]

  result[last - i] = r ? r : c

 }

 return result.join('')

}



var flipTable = {

a : '\u0250',

b : 'q',

c : '\u0254', //open o -- from pne

d : 'p',

e : '\u01DD',

f : '\u025F', //from pne

g : '\u0183',

h : '\u0265',

i : '\u0131', //from pne

j : '\u027E',

k : '\u029E',

//l : '\u0283',

m : '\u026F',

n : 'u',

r : '\u0279',

t : '\u0287',

v : '\u028C',

w : '\u028D',

y : '\u028E',

'.' : '\u02D9',

'[' : ']',

'(' : ')',

'{' : '}',

'?' : '\u00BF', //from pne

'!' : '\u00A1',

"\'" : ',',

'<' : '>',

'_' : '\u203E',

'\u203F' : '\u2040',

'\u2045' : '\u2046',

'\u2234' : '\u2235',

'\r' : '\n' //thank you, Yeeliberto

}



for (i in flipTable) {

  flipTable[flipTable[i]] = i

}

</script></head><body>

<h1>Flip</h1>

<form name="f">Original:

<br>

<textarea rows="5" cols="100" name="original" onkeyup="flip()"></textarea> <input value="Flip" onclick="flip()" type="button">

<br>

Flipped:

<br>

<textarea rows="5" cols="100" name="flipped"></textarea>

</form>



<p style="width: 50px;">

</p>

</body></html>

1 Reply

@igm,

There is indeed a valid argument that the product of life itself is based upon being selfish...Since it is believed that children have no free individual choice...

But if that is the route one is going to go, there really isn't anything that someone could do that is not somehow based upon pride...

Religion combats this by explaining how it is the spirit of God who makes this choice, and it happens for a reason...Even if we see it is an abominable way...That is why I have no problem with abortions at times...so long as people are not misusing it...

Atheism does not help in any of this, and basically promotes that people should explain how they regret having a child if they do...

And I can not imagine that this is fully accurate, even if someone thinks it is...

That is why the more I scope atheism out, the more and more I think it stinks, and ultimately always come to my understandings that it is all about preserving personal absolutes...(moral) etc...and it is nothing more...I see no reason to believe it has a valid way of actually "progressing humanity" in the future if religion is done away with...but is more concerned with the here and now...which can not be said for religion...even if it sounds wrong, delusional, irrational, non-nonsensical etc...

Would God really be upset if we were all agnostics who did nothing but genuinely cared about everyone else, other than our own prideful ways? I do not know...But I am not so sure he would be upset...

1 Reply

@Ice Demon,

Ok, thanks again ID. I'll compare the two - just out of curiosity... I've studied HTML 5 and CSS 3 but again just mainly out of curiosity.. also some javaScript and jQuery.

0 Replies

@igm,

It's always based on "selfishness." Without the id and ego, humans wouldn't know how to function.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I can't disagree then ci. To talk about Buddhism won't get either of us anywhere so I agree 'selfishness' seems to reign supreme.

0 Replies

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know