Page 19 of 34 [ 540 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 34  Next

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

25 Feb 2012, 1:02 am

NarcissusSavage wrote:
This is more appropriate;
I have 5 apples. 3 of the apples are red. Two are green, and several others are of another similar color.
As you can see, 3+2+(more) does not equal 5...

Very...very basic math.


It doesn't have to equal five or 55. They don't have to account for every single person.



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

25 Feb 2012, 1:11 am

cw10 wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
This is more appropriate;
I have 5 apples. 3 of the apples are red. Two are green, and several others are of another similar color.
As you can see, 3+2+(more) does not equal 5...

Very...very basic math.


It doesn't have to equal five or 55. They don't have to account for every single person.


No, they don't have to account for all 55. But the problem is that they account for OVER 55 of 55.

What are you missing???


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Feb 2012, 1:14 am

To be fair to cw10, there were 74 delegates invited, only 55 of whom ended up showing to the Constitutional convention. So they are probably referring to the 74 total invitees, not just the 55, but were sloppy wording it properly in their wiki entry thus bungled it


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

25 Feb 2012, 1:41 am

NarcissusSavage wrote:
cw10 wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
This is more appropriate;
I have 5 apples. 3 of the apples are red. Two are green, and several others are of another similar color.
As you can see, 3+2+(more) does not equal 5...

Very...very basic math.


It doesn't have to equal five or 55. They don't have to account for every single person.


No, they don't have to account for all 55. But the problem is that they account for OVER 55 of 55.

What are you missing???


Well no, I'll print the paragraph again and explain how they worded it. It's mathematically correct.

Quote:
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics (C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.


[49 protestants.]
28 Church of England (Episcopalian)
8 Presbyterians
7 Congregationalists
2 Lutheran
2 Dutch Reformed
2 Methodists

All of them are protestants of different flavors.

+3 Roman Catholics

28+8+7+2+2+2+(3 Roman Catholics) = 52 of the 55.

Unless I'm completely ret*d I think that's correct and accurate to the quote.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Feb 2012, 1:50 am

cw10 wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
cw10 wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
This is more appropriate;
I have 5 apples. 3 of the apples are red. Two are green, and several others are of another similar color.
As you can see, 3+2+(more) does not equal 5...

Very...very basic math.


It doesn't have to equal five or 55. They don't have to account for every single person.


No, they don't have to account for all 55. But the problem is that they account for OVER 55 of 55.

What are you missing???


Well no, I'll print the paragraph again and explain how they worded it. It's mathematically correct.

Quote:
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics (C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.


[49 protestants.]
28 Church of England (Episcopalian)
8 Presbyterians
7 Congregationalists
2 Lutheran
2 Dutch Reformed
2 Methodists

All of them are protestants of different flavors.

+3 Roman Catholics

28+8+7+2+2+2+(3 Roman Catholics) = 52 of the 55.

Unless I'm completely ret*d I think that's correct and accurate to the quote.


You're not accounting for the second part of your own quote from the wiki:

Quote:
A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson[14][15][16] (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin.[17] A few others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists.[18]


Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and A few others; thus:

[49 protestants.]
28 Church of England (Episcopalian)
8 Presbyterians
7 Congregationalists
2 Lutheran
2 Dutch Reformed
2 Methodists

+3 Roman Catholics

+TJ, BF, TP = 55
+ A few others= 55> (total 74 counting all invited delegates)


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

25 Feb 2012, 2:00 am

^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated!



cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

25 Feb 2012, 3:01 am

Vigilans wrote:
cw10 wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
cw10 wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
This is more appropriate;
I have 5 apples. 3 of the apples are red. Two are green, and several others are of another similar color.
As you can see, 3+2+(more) does not equal 5...

Very...very basic math.


It doesn't have to equal five or 55. They don't have to account for every single person.


No, they don't have to account for all 55. But the problem is that they account for OVER 55 of 55.

What are you missing???


Well no, I'll print the paragraph again and explain how they worded it. It's mathematically correct.

Quote:
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics (C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.


[49 protestants.]
28 Church of England (Episcopalian)
8 Presbyterians
7 Congregationalists
2 Lutheran
2 Dutch Reformed
2 Methodists

All of them are protestants of different flavors.

+3 Roman Catholics

28+8+7+2+2+2+(3 Roman Catholics) = 52 of the 55.

Unless I'm completely ret*d I think that's correct and accurate to the quote.


You're not accounting for the second part of your own quote from the wiki:

Quote:
A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson[14][15][16] (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin.[17] A few others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists.[18]


Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and A few others; thus:

[49 protestants.]
28 Church of England (Episcopalian)
8 Presbyterians
7 Congregationalists
2 Lutheran
2 Dutch Reformed
2 Methodists

+3 Roman Catholics

+TJ, BF, TP = 55
+ A few others= 55> (total 74 counting all invited delegates)


Well yes and no. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were not present during the convention.
Quote:
A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson[14][15][16] (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin.[17] A few others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists.[18]


^ Is not part of the same paragraph and is not in reference to the actual convention. So you have to subtract those 3, and not add in the others because even though they were invited they as you pointed out did not show up for various reasons.

So my original figure of 52 of the 55 stands. Benjamin Franklin was present, he was 1 of the 3 non religious present during the convention, who were the other 2?

Yay for math and logic and reading skills? :)



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Feb 2012, 3:35 am

shrox wrote:
^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated!


cw10 doesn't seem to [want to?] understand the solution to this trivial quandary, unfortunately. Such is the nature of contrarianism, perhaps. He won't even agree with me when I'm defending his use of a quote! :lol:


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Last edited by Vigilans on 25 Feb 2012, 3:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

25 Feb 2012, 3:36 am

Vigilans wrote:
shrox wrote:
^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated!


cw10 doesn't seem to [want to?] understand the solution to this trivial quandary, unfortunately. Such is the nature of contrarianism, perhaps. He won't even agree with me when I'm defending his use of a quote! :lol:


But, I'm right. :(



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Feb 2012, 3:47 am

cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
shrox wrote:
^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated!


cw10 doesn't seem to [want to?] understand the solution to this trivial quandary, unfortunately. Such is the nature of contrarianism, perhaps. He won't even agree with me when I'm defending his use of a quote! :lol:


But, I'm right. :(


You're not really wrong, or right. The quote itself is flawed, because it is using more than one standard for defining "Founding Fathers" but still making blanket statements in regards to them.


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

25 Feb 2012, 3:48 am

cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
shrox wrote:
^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated!


cw10 doesn't seem to [want to?] understand the solution to this trivial quandary, unfortunately. Such is the nature of contrarianism, perhaps. He won't even agree with me when I'm defending his use of a quote! :lol:


But, I'm right. :(


It's not the figures I was praising, just Math. Yay math!



cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

25 Feb 2012, 3:51 am

Vigilans wrote:
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
shrox wrote:
^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated!


cw10 doesn't seem to [want to?] understand the solution to this trivial quandary, unfortunately. Such is the nature of contrarianism, perhaps. He won't even agree with me when I'm defending his use of a quote! :lol:


But, I'm right. :(


You're not really wrong, or right. The quote itself is flawed, because it is using more than one standard for defining "Founding Fathers" but still making blanket statements in regards to them.


Well no, because the quote is accurate as it's written. 55 delegates of the constitutional convention. Those were the 55 who were present. How can my math not be right or wrong, or is this another silly game?

My math is correct and the quote is accurate.

Just say it... "cw10 is right". Swallow some gin first if you have to. :twisted:



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Feb 2012, 4:02 am

cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
shrox wrote:
^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated!


cw10 doesn't seem to [want to?] understand the solution to this trivial quandary, unfortunately. Such is the nature of contrarianism, perhaps. He won't even agree with me when I'm defending his use of a quote! :lol:


But, I'm right. :(


You're not really wrong, or right. The quote itself is flawed, because it is using more than one standard for defining "Founding Fathers" but still making blanket statements in regards to them.


Well no, because the quote is accurate as it's written. 55 delegates of the constitutional convention. Those were the 55 who were present. How can my math not be right or wrong, or is this another silly game?

My math is correct and the quote is accurate.

Just say it... "cw10 is right". Swallow some gin first if you have to. :twisted:


Your math isn't wrong, you are just not realizing the context of the quote you used, which was the "Religion" tab in the US Founding Fathers wiki page.

[49 protestants.]
28 Church of England (Episcopalian)
8 Presbyterians
7 Congregationalists
2 Lutheran
2 Dutch Reformed
2 Methodists

+3 Roman Catholics

+TJ, BF, TP = 55
+ A few others= 55> (total 74 counting all invited delegates)


In the beginning the standard for "Founding Fathers" used is the 55, but it is clearly expanded afterwards when the author elaborates on the non-theistic members. That the other two are not Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson (who were not present) is all the proof you should need to show that two standards are being used. I don't really drink, thanks


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

25 Feb 2012, 4:25 am

Vigilans wrote:
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
shrox wrote:
^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated!


cw10 doesn't seem to [want to?] understand the solution to this trivial quandary, unfortunately. Such is the nature of contrarianism, perhaps. He won't even agree with me when I'm defending his use of a quote! :lol:


But, I'm right. :(


You're not really wrong, or right. The quote itself is flawed, because it is using more than one standard for defining "Founding Fathers" but still making blanket statements in regards to them.


Well no, because the quote is accurate as it's written. 55 delegates of the constitutional convention. Those were the 55 who were present. How can my math not be right or wrong, or is this another silly game?

My math is correct and the quote is accurate.

Just say it... "cw10 is right". Swallow some gin first if you have to. :twisted:


Your math isn't wrong, you are just not realizing the context of the quote you used, which was the "Religion" tab in the US Founding Fathers wiki page.

[49 protestants.]
28 Church of England (Episcopalian)
8 Presbyterians
7 Congregationalists
2 Lutheran
2 Dutch Reformed
2 Methodists

+3 Roman Catholics

+TJ, BF, TP = 55
+ A few others= 55> (total 74 counting all invited delegates)


In the beginning the standard for "Founding Fathers" used is the 55, but it is clearly expanded afterwards when the author elaborates on the non-theistic members. That the other two are not Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson (who were not present) is all the proof you should need to show that two standards are being used. I don't really drink, thanks


TJ and TP _were not present_. 19 of them chose not to attend or accept the election.

According to the paragraph as it's written it's 52 of 55.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

25 Feb 2012, 4:57 am

cw10 wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
While we learn how to fix the pain, let's not give so much credit to God for all the loving things we humans (not God) do without blaming him for the suffering he's compelled us to have.

Otherwise, don't impose the existence of a loving God on us because we don't believe in such an entity.


Then what are you doing in a philosophical and religious thread?


To debate rationally and expect others to do the same. But, alas, there's just no hope for some of the members here.



cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

25 Feb 2012, 5:07 am

MCalavera wrote:
cw10 wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
While we learn how to fix the pain, let's not give so much credit to God for all the loving things we humans (not God) do without blaming him for the suffering he's compelled us to have.

Otherwise, don't impose the existence of a loving God on us because we don't believe in such an entity.


Then what are you doing in a philosophical and religious thread?


To debate rationally and expect others to do the same. But, alas, there's just no hope for some of the members here.


What's rational about debating religion when you have none? I don't talk about cars to my hair stylist.