|
Anti-gay marriage thread missing but continues....
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tecnolover |
I don't know what happened to the Anti-gay marriage thread???
There isn't censorship around here is there??? Mods? hehe
First let me say Arbiter, I appreciate you replying to many of my points. It is interesting though how you conveniently leave others completely alone. But nonetheless I enjoy conversing with you even despite your little insults here and there. Seriously. Your the type I'd enjoy sitting around the table and philosophically discussing life, the universe and everything with. I have a German friend with whom I used to get into all kinds of philosophical discussions. Now on to the discussion....
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well if that's the point you were trying to make, then you haven't done a very good job of it. You've provided absolutely no evidence that the religious beliefs or the lack thereof of any of the framers of the Constitution had any effect on their creation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. |
First LOL, let me say your responses to the first half of the post on christianity and US gov. looks like it could have came right from here http://www.nobeliefs.com
I'm curious if you are a member there? Maybe you are the site admin there! hehe I have been there before. Continuing...
You seem to suggest that a document like the DOI isn't an important document in US history.
The Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs (given here in the form used in the engrossed copy) assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights , which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/se...sImportance.asp
I think this states it quite nicely. It set forth a theology of natural rights given by a supreme "Creator". The bill of rights were a derivitive of these natural rights or "unalienable rights". The US constitution was inspired by this first document. To what degree we can only speculate.
| quote: | | No, the letter by Jefferson was written specifically to dispel the misconception that the Constitution and government of the United States had Christian origins. |
Ok, after reading it a few more times I will agree with you on this from the context it was written. I do think, Jefferson was trying to make that case in his letter. But I can't entirely agree with it. He was trying to put to sleep an issue that was brewing, the same you and I are debating on here. I don't think he was telling the entire truth in that letter. Here is why. First, Jefferson like any other man held beliefs and a moral or ethical code that came in large part from Christ. So much so that he compiled his own bible of the teachings of Christ. I'm sure you are aware Arbiter. Surely, this proves that Jesus played a major role in Jefferson's personal moral code. Yes, i know he edited out all the other doctrinal stuff but that isn't the point here. He believed in a supreme God and he believed at least the Christ lived and his teachings were the finest ethical code in the world. Heck Arbiter, he sounds like a better christian than half of the christians today!!
." Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative. " http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
When and under what circumstances Jefferson's deistic beliefs came about is unknown but there seems strong evidence that it probably came out of christian theology. He believed in a supreme God or Creator and he supported the teachings of Christ.
| quote: | | There's no evidence that the "Creator" referred to in the Declaration of Independence was a specific reference to the "Christian God," nor is there any evidence that it was anything more than a rhetorical trick to attempt to make their claims more authoritative. In any case it is utterly irrelevant because the Declaration of Independence isn't one of the formative documents of the United States Government. |
Now tell me why he drafted this in to the DOI??
My point is why is "Creator" or a God it in there at all? Trickery doesn't cut it Arbiter. Jefferson believed in God. And where did he get this idea of a God? He got it from the influences in his life from christianity my friend. Yes he was a diest and had different views of the role of God in mans life, but everything has it's origin. One thing shapes another. His was christianity.
Not even Jefferson himself could divorce himself of his own deisistic views when drafting the DOI. The man who basically paved the road for religious freedom in USA couldn't do it. I think it possibly could have been wrote different but maybe it wouldn't have got supported by other christians which would also support my points about politics and religion. Jefferson was inspired with the DOI (possibly from the teachings of Christ who knows?) and the BOR was inspired from natural "unalienable" rights. Even some of the other founding fathers who proclaimed themselves as diests it's likely formulated their beliefs from christianity. True, this is speculation but its not without some merit since deism does support a belief in a supreme God also. Then there were the other strong christians like Washington who influenced many others.
| quote: | | The author of the document, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist. So I doubt that his ideas about a "Creator" came from the Christian Religion. |
You can doubt it but my evidence above I think strongly supports this.
| quote: | | You really are ignorant, aren't you? You don't have any evidence to support your position, so your words are hollow. Thomas Jefferson clearly and concisely stated that the U.S. Government and laws were not based on Christianity in his letter to Thomas Cooper and the rest of the framers affirmed this belief in the Treaty of Tripoli. Unless you're accusing them of lying, you have no argument. |
I don't think they could do otherwise. That isn't the issue. To say that natural rights are God given would have removed all sense of neutrality which would have assumed some kind of authoritative religion.
| quote: | | Don't be so certain of that. The Problem of Evil is irrefutable logical proof that the Christian God cannot and, hence, does not exist. |
No it's not! It's not logical proof of anything! What are you talking about?? Leibniz argument was extremely weak.
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
It's a simple as this Arbiter. I don't agree with the fourth premise. God is morrally perfect but He doesn't desire to eliminate all evil. That is because without evil there could be no oposition. No choice because theres no oposition.
The fact there is evil also suggests that there also is good. Do you not see the evidence of opposition in everything? Extreme evil, extreme good. Satan/God. Opposites in all things. You sound like a kid who thinks 'because God allowed this bad thing to happen to me He must not be real." It's nonsense. In order to have free agency evil must be allowed by God. Jefferson even believed this in Deism. Deism supporting that God lets things happen according to nature and doesn't intervene.
| quote: | | Ah, but my young friend, you are living proof that without evidence there can be belief. You believe that the U.S. government was based on Christian principles, but you have no evidence to support that proposition. You believe that there is a Christian God, but you have no evidence to support that proposition. All you have are feelings and emotions, but those are not valid tools of cognition. Thus, they do not qualify as evidence. Self-deception and denial is all you need for belief. |
You are wrong Arbiter! You don't know what evidence I have because it's personal. You don't know my experiences. Oh so 'feelings are not valid tools of cognition'?? Thats interesting. Hmm.. thats new to me!! So I can't percieve sadness or happiness? what are emotions? obviously they exists right. That is as silly as saying that eyes are not tools for percieving light. What about a feeling in your heart? Ok, an internal pain. Do you think that all perception is external only? Where is your proof? People feel internal pain all the time and sometimes it's even physical. But it's not touched with the hand or fingers. It's internal. what about thought? thought is in that intangible realm but you can percieve that you think can't you? oh thats right silly me! you can't because you don't believe in perception at all! that was that little corner you trapped yourself into last time. Your reasoning is getter worse and worse. You must be able to percieve thought to know you even exist. That was Socrates. But according to Arbiter you can't percieve something intangible therefore Arbiter doesn't exist. Nothing exists. Howz that for logic. Do you see things in a dream Arbiter? If you do then you percieve it but how? it's not with the physical eyes.
| quote: | | Where is the evidence that the supernatural exists. Moreover, where is the evidence that the supernatural need not follow material laws? You claim to base your beliefs on evidence, but you can provide no valid evidence to support them. What are we to believe but that you are confused and ignorant? |
Let me suggest this. Air cannot be seen with the eyes yet it exists. If there is no wind, is there no air? I can listen to scientist who say 'yes there is air which is an invisible gas made of oxygen,,..ect.. But to know it truly exists I have to experiment to prove it to myself. There must be empirical evidence. So I go to a lab and do tests and experiments and I find that indeed there is an invisible gas that exists. Now I can say that I have a knowlege that air exists. If I say to you then air exists you may believe me if you have experiences that would hint of something there maybe a breeze you feel on your skin ie something you percieve. Yet you cannot have a knowlege of it until you experiment and prove it to yourself. Then that is empirical evidence and it is personal to you. Others read that it is true in science books and may believe or not.
| quote: | | A feeling is a neurological response to a phenomenon which specifies an affirmative or negative relationship between that phenomenon and one's pre-existing beliefs. "Feeling God's presence" is not empirical evidence because it is neither an objective experience nor observable phenomenon. When you believe that you feel God's presence, what objective criteria do you use in order to determine that it is, in fact, "God's presence?" The answer is that you do not use any objective criteria, and your "feeling" of "God's presence" is nothing more than affirmation bias. It's neither experimental, nor sensory, nor objective. Therefore, it is not empirical. |
You cannot say that isn't an objective experience and it is most definately observable in that it is indeed percieved. Even stronger than the other 5 senses and it is awareness and knowlege all at once. Tell me how is it that you seem to think of yourself as some philosophical minded person yet you are so close minded? Philosophers are open to all possibilities. You may be well learned but you are more close minded than a child.
How I know something is "God's presence" is dependent on my experience alone due to my own experiment and you will just have to do your own or you won't know.
| quote: | | If you saw something that might or might not be God, then it would be empirical evidence that that thing exists. However, the interpretation that the object of your perception is in fact God is not empirical. |
As I tried to make clear before there are more perceptions than just 5 feel(external), smell, taste, see, hear. Seeing isn't everything in fact your eyes can decieve you. I can't see air yet it exists. I mentioned that the metaphysical doesn't necessarily follow material laws (percievable with the 5 senses ). Matter can exist in more form than is visible by the eyes. As for interpreting...lets go back to the experiment. If the scientists told me prior to my own experiment that if I experience this color of flame it is a kind of gas burning, then I would know upon observing the same things in the conditions that by definition I am witnessing that type of gas burning.
| quote: | | it is a gross and specious oversimplification to think that if you sense something and think that the observation is of a particular thing, then your sensing it is evidence of that thing's existence. |
already explained above. sensing or percieving something is proof of somethings existance. what that something is, known if it meets the criterion of how it was first defined.
| quote: | Heh. Then give me the equal and opposite argument to this argument:
1. Everything is blue or something is not blue.
You don't have two arguments to rub together. |
Your premise is false, so it's not a 'valid' logical argument to begin with. Apples are red. Plus you have no conclusion. In order to counter an argument there first needs to be an valid argument which it isn't. The truth of the premises in logic is what can always be argued. And if the premises are not true and in agreement then the conclusion can't be and the argument is not valid.
| quote: | | "Feelings" or "intuition" are NOT valid tools of cognition! They will verify your previous belief 99%+ of the time ************ of the veracity of your belief. If that's the tool you're using to seperate good evidence from bad evidence, then it's no surpise to me that you're so ignorant. |
I've already suggested that feelings or emotions are valid tools. On what evidence do you choose to support they aren't valid? Thats like saying thought isn't cognitive! I look at different pieces of evidence before making decisions but at some point when presented all the evidence you have to make a choice. That isn't always easy. As I said before, there can be opposing evidences lesser or greater in number but which will you choose as credible in the very end is probably not based on logic or reason imo.
| quote: | | Which of the five senses did you "feel" God with? None of them. You don't understand what a "feeling" is. It is not a "new" source of information. A feeling can only examine already existing information. |
Metaphysics deals with different matter so correct. your 5 senses don't appy here.
| quote: | | It is for the discussion of opinions, that is, the examination of the strength of the evidence upon which they are based. When individuals such as yourself attempt to avoid providing such evidence, it negates the purpose of discussion. |
I have discussions all the time that are meaningful and not based on anything but speculations. It has it's purposes. In fact it could be said that most everything is really speculation. But don't worry, I can present evidence in this forum as surely as anyone and already have.
| quote: | | Your ideas are most certainly in the realm of nonsense if they are based on "feelings" and a proactive decision to ignore actually valid evidence when presented with it. If you don't want to throw out links, so be it. But then why should anyone take you seriously? You provide neither cogent arguments nor valid evidence? What are your words worth to any of us when you provide nothing of substance? |
You are assuming that emotions or intuition have no significance. What if I were to suggest to you that a 'gut feeling' can be your strongest tool in determining truth of evidences presented. You wouldn't believe that i bet. Relax! Jeez! Look, I honestly didn't come in here even wanting to talk about religion. It just happened. I wish I could provide you with tangible evidence unfortunately I can't, but I have suggested how one might obtain that evidence for themselves. that is your choice.
| quote: | | Rejecting the credibility of someone's references without any cause to do so is most certainly the same thing as ignoring what they say. I respect anyone who can provide sound reasoning backed up with facts. You don't meet that criterion, so I don't respect you. Why should I? |
Thats true. That would clearly be ignorant.
But I never said anything about having "no" cause. You are speculating again about what i think. I was merely making a point that premises or references in the argument when rejected as false can't make valid arguments. I didn't mean that to sound ignorant. Each person has their own reasons why they may reject credibility just as you do.
| quote: | | Your method seems to be to instinctively dismiss things that don't inspire in you a "feeling" of confidence. My method is to corroborate the information accross a variety of sources, examine counter-arguments if any can be found, and analyze the credibility of a source using objective criteria such as how, where, and by whom it was published, the reputation of the author, et cetera. |
I admire that. Seriously. Hopefully, then you are open minded to consider the possibilities and examples I have suggested in this conversation also.
| quote: | One of these methodologies is conducive to learning new information. The other is conducive to desperately clinging to one's pre-existing belief in the face of contradictory evidence. It's clear which you prefer by your pigheaded refusal to accept the clear and irrefutable statement of the framers themselves that the government of the United States is not based on Christianity.
Pigheaded eh? LOL. Well I stand on my statement because I believe it. I've shown strong(ofcourse thats how strong is refutable) evidence to suggest it was based on christianity but also that men's beliefs are not separable from the political systems they create. Using Jefferson as a prime example. |
You made this statement:
It's no speculation to say that you're making assumptions about the way I analyze information, it's demonstrable fact.[/QUOTE]
I can't seem to find which part you were quoting me now as the original post is gone! anyway, if I was I appologize.
You remind me of a young child who, having lost at a game, tells everyone how stupid and pointless the game is. You cannot provide any sound arguments or facts, so you just tell everyone how pointless it is to argue since you'll never persuade anyone anyway. It's really quite unbecoming. [/QUOTE]
Hehe, well i never lost so I didn't have to do that. J/K. Well I've put everything in this post that is expedient and now I just ask you to consider it all. peace. |
|
|
| smokeape |
Too much scrolling makes my head hurt. Are you a homo or what?
:toothless
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| auujay |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
Too much scrolling makes my head hurt. Are you a homo or what?
:toothless
[[[smoke]]] |
Very funny. Especially because I read it after scrolling past the last half of his post :)
Edit, thanks for the link to www.nobeliefs.com, looks like a sweet site. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
http://www.tarpley.net/bush21.htm
| quote: |
On the morning of June 29, 1989, pandemonium erupted in the corridors of power in the nation's capital. ``Homosexual Prostitution Probe Ensnares Official of Bush, Reagan,'' screamed the front-page headline of the Washington Times with the kicker ``Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House.''
The Times reported, ``A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and U.S. and foreign businessmen with close ties to Washington's political elite.''
The exposeé centered on the role of one Craig Spence, a Republican powerbroker known for his lavish ``power cocktail'' parties. Spence was well connected. He celebrated Independence Day 1988 by conducting a midnight tour of the White House in the company of two teenage male prostitutes among others in his party.
Rumors circulated that a list existed of some 200 Washington prominents who had used the call boy service. The Number Two in charge of personnel affairs at the White House, who was responsible for filling all the top civil service posts in the federal bureaucracy, and Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole's chief of staff, were two individuals publicly identified as patrons of the call boy ring.
-cont
|
|
|
|
| Arbiter |
Allow me to skip right to the meat of your post:
| quote: | Originally posted by tecnolover
You seem to suggest that a document like the DOI isn't an important document in US history.
The Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs (given here in the form used in the engrossed copy) assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights , which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/se...sImportance.asp
I think this states it quite nicely. It set forth a theology of natural rights given by a supreme "Creator". The bill of rights were a derivitive of these natural rights or "unalienable rights". The US constitution was inspired by this first document. To what degree we can only speculate. |
It should come as no surprise that the Constitution reflects many of the same values and beliefs as the Declaration of Independence. It was composed by men with similar philosophies and experiences. But in the process of "being inspired" by the legally irrelevant Declaration, the framers of the Constitution had the opportunity to pick and choose the concepts from that document which they wanted to use to shape the new system of government. Many of the ideas, they very consciously and very wisely chose to incorporate into the new government:
- Self-Government
- Natural Rights
- Equality Under Law
Other ideas, however, they very consciously and very wisely chose not to incorporate into the new American government. Among these, is Christianity - a very conscious, willful omission of a theological system which, fundamentally, contradicted the very values they held most dear. According to Christianity, after all, God is the ultimate monarch.
| quote: | Ok, after reading it a few more times I will agree with you on this from the context it was written. I do think, Jefferson was trying to make that case in his letter. But I can't entirely agree with it. He was trying to put to sleep an issue that was brewing, the same you and I are debating on here. I don't think he was telling the entire truth in that letter. Here is why. First, Jefferson like any other man held beliefs and a moral or ethical code that came in large part from Christ. So much so that he compiled his own bible of the teachings of Christ. I'm sure you are aware Arbiter. Surely, this proves that Jesus played a major role in Jefferson's personal moral code. Yes, i know he edited out all the other doctrinal stuff but that isn't the point here. He believed in a supreme God and he believed at least the Christ lived and his teachings were the finest ethical code in the world. Heck Arbiter, he sounds like a better christian than half of the christians today!!
" Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative. " http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
When and under what circumstances Jefferson's deistic beliefs came about is unknown but there seems strong evidence that it probably came out of christian theology. He believed in a supreme God or Creator and he supported the teachings of Christ. |
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. It should come as no surprise that there were aspects of the Christian theology which Jefferson found useful in explaining his personal system of ethics. I would cast a suspicious eye upon any individual who can't find a few sentiments in the Bible that they agree with. Given that Christianity arose as a system of belief which appealed to values and laws which existed long before anyone had heard of Jesus Christ, those values can hardly viewed as Christian in origin - and given that the Bible was by far the most widely read book at the time, it would only be natural to point out those sections of the Bible which you agree with as a simple and accessible way to express your ethical philosophy.
Furthermore, regardless of his personal code of morality, Jefferson - along with his peers - endeavored to create a system of self-government based on natural law and individual rights in which law would not be determined merely by what moral beliefs are held by the largest mob of people or the individual who happens to be in office, but, rather, would leave matters of morality where they belong - to the individual. To this end, they framed a Constitution that clearly elucidated the role of the government: to maintain order and protect its citizens - not to codify prevailing morality for all. That is why the inspirations for the Constitution which actually made it into the document are those regarding proper government and the maintenance of due order: common law, and the philosophy of Locke and other enlightenment thinkers. Christianity, on the other hand, was very deliberately omitted. That is because the purpose of the government they were creating was not to serve as a moral authority, but to create an orderly and safe framework in which individuals might be their own moral authorities.
Ultimately, it seems that they failed. Many individuals, including those in government, pay no heed to the principles upon which the nation was founder, nor do they care about the role of government as set forth in the Constitution. Instead, they prefer to simply use whatever power they can get their hands on to impose their narrow moral views upon the rest of the population.
It is a disgrace to everything that the founding fathers worked for, a slap in the face to anyone who actually cares about genuine American principles, and a thorough raping and pillaging of the Constitution. If the Declaration of Independence was a legal document, it would probably be the duty of all genuinely patriotic Americans to rise up in arms against these egregious violations of the fundamental principles America was derived from.
| quote: | Now tell me why he drafted this in to the DOI??
My point is why is "Creator" or a God it in there at all? Trickery doesn't cut it Arbiter. Jefferson believed in God. And where did he get this idea of a God? He got it from the influences in his life from christianity my friend. Yes he was a diest and had different views of the role of God in mans life, but everything has it's origin. One thing shapes another. His was christianity.
Not even Jefferson himself could divorce himself of his own deisistic views when drafting the DOI. The man who basically paved the road for religious freedom in USA couldn't do it. I think it possibly could have been wrote different but maybe it wouldn't have got supported by other christians which would also support my points about politics and religion. Jefferson was inspired with the DOI (possibly from the teachings of Christ who knows?) and the BOR was inspired from natural "unalienable" rights. Even some of the other founding fathers who proclaimed themselves as diests it's likely formulated their beliefs from christianity. True, this is speculation but its not without some merit since deism does support a belief in a supreme God also. Then there were the other strong christians like Washington who influenced many others. |
I already told you: the most obvious explanation is that he included it as an appeal to authority. It doesn't get much more authoritative than God. But in any case it is irrelevant because the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of the United States Government. The Constitution is, and in composing the Constitution, Jefferson and his compatriots did divorce themselves from the irrelevant and strictly personal particulars of their beliefs.
| quote: | | You can doubt it but my evidence above I think strongly supports this. |
You've provided compelling evidence that Jefferson appreciated a number of Christian values but you've provided no evidence that his concept of "God" was derived from Christian dogma.
| quote: | | I don't think they could do otherwise. That isn't the issue. To say that natural rights are God given would have removed all sense of neutrality which would have assumed some kind of authoritative religion. |
You're right - it would have assumed some kind of authoritative religion. But since there was no authoritative religion supported by the Government, it wouldn't make any sense for them to make any such statement.
| quote: | No it's not! It's not logical proof of anything! What are you talking about?? Leibniz argument was extremely weak.
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
It's a simple as this Arbiter. I don't agree with the fourth premise. God is morrally perfect but He doesn't desire to eliminate all evil. That is because without evil there could be no oposition. No choice because theres no oposition.
The fact there is evil also suggests that there also is good. Do you not see the evidence of opposition in everything? Extreme evil, extreme good. Satan/God. Opposites in all things. You sound like a kid who thinks 'because God allowed this bad thing to happen to me He must not be real." It's nonsense. In order to have free agency evil must be allowed by God. Jefferson even believed this in Deism. Deism supporting that God lets things happen according to nature and doesn't intervene. |
The free will argument doesn't hold a drop of water, as I've posted before. A creator could have imbued his creations with any of the following levels of "free will":
- The ability to make no choices and decide nothing.
- The ability to make some choices but not others.
- Or, the ability to make any choice.
Proponents of determinism aside, the middle one is obviously what he would have had to do, given that there are choices I cannot make: I cannot make the morally wrong choice to kidnap someone I don't like, kill them, resurrect them, kill them again, and repeat ad nauseum. This is because I don't possess the free will to perform the act of resurrecting them. I don't possess that degree of free will because any creator I might have arbitrarily decided that this wasn't a choice he wanted to give his creation. The problem lies here:
He could have just as easily arbitrarily decided not to give me the choice to kill the person to begin with, either. He could have, but he didn't. Thus, he either doesn't care about the victims of murder enough to stop them from suffering when he easily could, isn't aware that murder exists, or isn't capable of preventing it. Any of these possibilities still results in the explicit logical contradiction. The only way to remove this contradiction is to assume God doesn't exist. Since logical contradictions cannot occur, God cannot exist.
| quote: | | You are wrong Arbiter! You don't know what evidence I have because it's personal. You don't know my experiences. Oh so 'feelings are not valid tools of cognition'?? Thats interesting. Hmm.. thats new to me!! So I can't percieve sadness or happiness? what are emotions? obviously they exists right. That is as silly as saying that eyes are not tools for percieving light. What about a feeling in your heart? Ok, an internal pain. Do you think that all perception is external only? Where is your proof? People feel internal pain all the time and sometimes it's even physical. But it's not touched with the hand or fingers. It's internal. what about thought? thought is in that intangible realm but you can percieve that you think can't you? oh thats right silly me! you can't because you don't believe in perception at all! that was that little corner you trapped yourself into last time. Your reasoning is getter worse and worse. You must be able to percieve thought to know you even exist. That was Socrates. But according to Arbiter you can't percieve something intangible therefore Arbiter doesn't exist. Nothing exists. Howz that for logic. Do you see things in a dream Arbiter? If you do then you percieve it but how? it's not with the physical eyes. |
It's difficult to address this block of text because it's really nothing more than a rambling sequence of non sequiturs and semi-intelligible rhetorical questions.
You first problem is another logical fallacy: equivocation. The "feeling" of, say, pain from a headache and the "feeling" of, for example, the presence of a deity are two totally distinct and largely unrelated neurological phenomena. Sensory "feelings," that is, the neurological reception and interpretation of touch need not be external - if you stick your thumb up your ass and feel it, it's still touch.
The human brain can perform a variety of functions. It can store or process information received from the senses, send instructions to the rest of the body, and create new "thoughts" or "emotions" by analyzing data received from the senses. When you or anyone else believes you "feel" God, you aren't feeling him like you feel that thumb stuck up you ass, you're feeling him an entirely different way - with an emotion. For reasons inexplicable to me, you seem to believe that this emotion is a new piece of sensory data. It isn't. It is simply your brain's expression of some emotion, prompted by a combination of data recieved via the five senses and stored data inside your brain. Then, when you "feel" that emotion, you use affirmation bias to convince yourself that it must be God.
Well, sorry to be the one to break it to you, but no, that isn't valid cognition.
| quote: | | Let me suggest this. Air cannot be seen with the eyes yet it exists. If there is no wind, is there no air? I can listen to scientist who say 'yes there is air which is an invisible gas made of oxygen,,..ect.. But to know it truly exists I have to experiment to prove it to myself. There must be empirical evidence. So I go to a lab and do tests and experiments and I find that indeed there is an invisible gas that exists. Now I can say that I have a knowlege that air exists. If I say to you then air exists you may believe me if you have experiences that would hint of something there maybe a breeze you feel on your skin ie something you percieve. Yet you cannot have a knowlege of it until you experiment and prove it to yourself. Then that is empirical evidence and it is personal to you. Others read that it is true in science books and may believe or not. |
The fallacy here is a false analogy. If someone wants to perform an experiment to show that air exists, then they would use various tools along with their five senses to obtain the resultant data. Someone else could easily perform the same experiment with the same tools and the same five senses and obtain similar or equivalent data. You've proposed no such experiment to demonstrate the existence of God, because when you come to the conclusion that God exists you don't use any measurements or observations to justify it, you simply experience an emotion and declare it, baselessly, to be a manifestation of God. Similar behavior referencing anything but a deity would land you in the asylum, and I'm not yet convinced that type of reasoning shouldn't be considered insane under all circumstances.
| quote: | | You cannot say that isn't an objective experience and it is most definately observable in that it is indeed percieved. Even stronger than the other 5 senses and it is awareness and knowlege all at once. Tell me how is it that you seem to think of yourself as some philosophical minded person yet you are so close minded? Philosophers are open to all possibilities. You may be well learned but you are more close minded than a child. |
You know what: you're right. I'm very experienced in dealing with mystical-con-artists and I know most - if not all - of their tricks, and I cut straight through the bull to address the actual argument itself, which is invariably lacking. When presented with a long winded sequence of logical fallacies trying vainly to justify religious bigotry, I point out each fallacy and correct each error. I guess that makes me closed-minded.
| quote: | | How I know something is "God's presence" is dependent on my experience alone due to my own experiment and you will just have to do your own or you won't know. |
Yes, and that's exactly why it's not objective. You aren't using a set of criteria to determine that it is "God's presence," you're just deciding that it is based on an emotion which is not a valid tool of cognition. That's as subjective as it gets.
| quote: | | As I tried to make clear before there are more perceptions than just 5 feel(external), smell, taste, see, hear. Seeing isn't everything in fact your eyes can decieve you. I can't see air yet it exists. I mentioned that the metaphysical doesn't necessarily follow material laws (percievable with the 5 senses ). Matter can exist in more form than is visible by the eyes. |
When you don't see air, your eyes aren't decieving you. They never claimed to tell you about things that don't reflect light. You're right that you "mentioned that the metaphysical doesn't necessarily follow material laws," but you've yet to give a verifiable piece of evidence to support this claim. So unless you have an example of something metaphysical which doesn't follow material laws and can be verified outside of your own personal emotions, I'm going to have to assume this claim is nothing more than baseless conjecture.
| quote: | | As for interpreting...lets go back to the experiment. If the scientists told me prior to my own experiment that if I experience this color of flame it is a kind of gas burning, then I would know upon observing the same things in the conditions that by definition I am witnessing that type of gas burning. |
Not really. The scientist could be mistaken, or lying. But that would be easy to determine by corroborating his claims with a variety of sources. But essentially you're right. However, this continues to be a false analogy when it comes to God's presence because what you're experiencing when you "feel" his presence is different from and unrelated to an act of physical observation. Additionally, color can be measured objectively as a particular wavelength of visible light, while a "feeling" of "God's presence" cannot be measured objectively.
| quote: | | Your premise is false, so it's not a 'valid' logical argument to begin with. Apples are red. Plus you have no conclusion. In order to counter an argument there first needs to be an valid argument which it isn't. The truth of the premises in logic is what can always be argued. And if the premises are not true and in agreement then the conclusion can't be and the argument is not valid. |
My argument has no premises, it has only a conclusion:
1. Everything is blue or something is not blue.
This argument requires no premises because the conclusion is a tautology. Therefore, it is logically self-evident. If apples are red, then "something is not blue" so the statement that "everything is blue" OR "something is not blue" is logically true.
| quote: | | I've already suggested that feelings or emotions are valid tools. On what evidence do you choose to support they aren't valid? Thats like saying thought isn't cognitive! I look at different pieces of evidence before making decisions but at some point when presented all the evidence you have to make a choice. That isn't always easy. As I said before, there can be opposing evidences lesser or greater in number but which will you choose as credible in the very end is probably not based on logic or reason imo. |
Your emotions are not valid because they do not represent a source of new information, they only represent a "feeling" about existing information. However, this "feeling" is largely based on the compatability of that information with one's pre-existing beliefs: it is not a measure about the validity of the data being examined, it is a measure of the ease with which that data might be assimilated into your pre-existing belief structure. Therefore, it is not a valid or useful tool in determining the accuracy of that information.
| quote: | | I have discussions all the time that are meaningful and not based on anything but speculations. It has it's purposes. In fact it could be said that most everything is really speculation. But don't worry, I can present evidence in this forum as surely as anyone and already have. |
I don't necessarily disagree that speculative discussions have their place, but this was never a speculative discussion to begin with. The topic was gay marriage, you made the claim that gay marriage was wrong and should be prohibited because of its incompatability with Christianity. This wasn't a speculative claim, it was an assertion of truth. If you had been speculating, you would have written something like this:
"If Christian dogma is true and if our government's role is to enforce that dogma, then I think we should prohibit gay marriage."
You haven't been saying anything like that. Instead, you've made a series of assertions and attempted with little success to demonstrate the truth of those assertions. If you had made the speculative statement I proposed above, I doubt many people would have disagreed with you other than perhaps saying (rightfully so) that it is irrelevant since Christian dogma is false.
| quote: | | You are assuming that emotions or intuition have no significance. What if I were to suggest to you that a 'gut feeling' can be your strongest tool in determining truth of evidences presented. You wouldn't believe that i bet. Relax! Jeez! Look, I honestly didn't come in here even wanting to talk about religion. It just happened. I wish I could provide you with tangible evidence unfortunately I can't, but I have suggested how one might obtain that evidence for themselves. that is your choice. |
I've explained to you ad nauseum why your emotions and intution aren't valid tools to determine the truth of evidence. If you still don't understand it then I'm afraid you're forever doomed to live the rest of your life without knowing how to think properly.
| quote: | Thats true. That would clearly be ignorant.
But I never said anything about having "no" cause. You are speculating again about what i think. I was merely making a point that premises or references in the argument when rejected as false can't make valid arguments. I didn't mean that to sound ignorant. Each person has their own reasons why they may reject credibility just as you do. |
Well, given that your feelings and intution are for all intents and purposes, "no" cause, you've given me plenty of reason to believe that you dismiss evidence without sound basis.
| quote: | | I admire that. Seriously. Hopefully, then you are open minded to consider the possibilities and examples I have suggested in this conversation also. |
I have thoroughly considered the claims you have set forth and have rejected them on the following basis: a preponderance of fallacious reasoning throughout your arguments, a failure to understand basic concepts of logic with regards to the establishment of truth or falsity, and a consistent demonstration of unsound reasoning through the attempt to determine truth via emotions. As a token of my good faith, I've taken the time above to give a detailed explanation of precisely why many of your claims are invalid and your reasoning flawed. You're welcome to respond if you feel that I've been unfair in my analysis, but I would hope for a higher standard of argumentation if you should choose to do so. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by tecnolover
You seem to suggest that a document like the DOI isn't an important document in US history.
The Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs (given here in the form used in the engrossed copy) assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights , which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/se...sImportance.asp
I think this states it quite nicely. It set forth a theology of natural rights given by a supreme "Creator". The bill of rights were a derivitive of these natural rights or "unalienable rights". The US constitution was inspired by this first document. To what degree we can only speculate.
|
Well again, you're attempting to depict Christianity as Jefferson's religion so I feel I'm compelled to respond once again. Yes the DOI invokes the "Creator" in the document. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying that the founding fathers were atheist. What we are saying, however, is that the majority were Deist which is not the same as Christian. After going through about a decade of Sunday school, the one thing I can say for certain is that Christianity requires belief in a whole lot more than simply believing in God. So while a reference to the Creator denotes a belief in a God (Deism), it is not indicative of a belief in Christianity.
| quote: |
Ok, after reading it a few more times I will agree with you on this from the context it was written. I do think, Jefferson was trying to make that case in his letter. But I can't entirely agree with it. He was trying to put to sleep an issue that was brewing, the same you and I are debating on here. I don't think he was telling the entire truth in that letter. Here is why. First, Jefferson like any other man held beliefs and a moral or ethical code that came in large part from Christ. So much so that he compiled his own bible of the teachings of Christ. I'm sure you are aware Arbiter. Surely, this proves that Jesus played a major role in Jefferson's personal moral code. Yes, i know he edited out all the other doctrinal stuff but that isn't the point here. He believed in a supreme God and he believed at least the Christ lived and his teachings were the finest ethical code in the world. Heck Arbiter, he sounds like a better christian than half of the christians today!!
." Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative. " http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
|
Hehe well it’s good that you referenced the Jefferson Bible because that exemplifies Jefferson’s exclusion of Christianity in his belief in God. I gather you’ve never read the Jefferson Bible? I think you should, it’s quite interesting what Jefferson wrote, and more importantly what he didn’t write. In The Jefferson Bible, there is no reference to Christ fulfilling prophecy, there is no reference to the spirit of the lord being upon him, there is no victory of Christ over the temptations of Satan, there is no annunciation, there is no virgin birth, no angels, etc., etc., etc. In other words, Jefferson looked upon Jesus as a common everyday man … or in his words:
| quote: |
a man, of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, (and an) enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions of divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../jefferson.html
|
In case you haven’t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus.
| quote: |
When and under what circumstances Jefferson's deistic beliefs came about is unknown but there seems strong evidence that it probably came out of christian theology. He believed in a supreme God or Creator and he supported the teachings of Christ.
|
He believed in a God, and he supported the common sense teachings that Christ exhibited. But who doesn’t? Who in their right mind is against teachings of love and respect? , I support the teachings of Christ but that hardly makes me a Christian.
| quote: |
Now tell me why he drafted this in to the DOI??
My point is why is "Creator" or a God it in there at all? Trickery doesn't cut it Arbiter. Jefferson believed in God. And where did he get this idea of a God? He got it from the influences in his life from christianity my friend. Yes he was a diest and had different views of the role of God in mans life, but everything has it's origin. One thing shapes another. His was christianity.
Not even Jefferson himself could divorce himself of his own deisistic views when drafting the DOI. The man who basically paved the road for religious freedom in USA couldn't do it. I think it possibly could have been wrote different but maybe it wouldn't have got supported by other christians which would also support my points about politics and religion. Jefferson was inspired with the DOI (possibly from the teachings of Christ who knows?) and the BOR was inspired from natural "unalienable" rights. Even some of the other founding fathers who proclaimed themselves as diests it's likely formulated their beliefs from christianity. True, this is speculation but its not without some merit since deism does support a belief in a supreme God also. Then there were the other strong christians like Washington who influenced many others.
|
Bingo, Jefferson is a Deist. That doesn’t make him Christian however. And when one considers the implications of his bible, and his own words:
"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" (Jefferson Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).
The God of the Old Testament -- the God which Christians worship -- Jefferson pronounces "a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust" (Works Vol. iv., p. 325).
Referring to Jesus Christ:
"Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: First, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of Nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and second, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, and the second by exile or death in furea."
"If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations, and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that he was an impostor" (Works, Vol. iv, p. 325)
Jefferson speaking of the holy trinity in a letter to James Smith:
"The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs"
"The Athanasian paradox that one is three and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." (Works, Vol. iv., p. 360).
Take note of this, this is Jefferson speaking of Christianity directly:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies" (Letter to Dr. Woods).
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." (Notes on Virginia)
In a letter to Adams:
"It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist."
Jefferson goes on and on and on … I can spend all day taking his personal writings where he quite clearly indicates that he is not a christian. As for your statements about George Washington, I addressed those points in the thread you deleted. If you would like, I can make them again. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
wtf, are you guys doing somebody's homework again?:rolleyes: :mad:
:p |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
Too much scrolling makes my head hurt. Are you a homo or what?
:toothless
[[[smoke]]] |
ROFL post of the year |
|
|
| tecnolover |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by occrider
Well again, you're attempting to depict Christianity as Jefferson's religion so I feel I'm compelled to respond once again. Yes the DOI invokes the "Creator" in the document. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying that the founding fathers were atheist. What we are saying, however, is that the majority were Deist which is not the same as Christian. After going through about a decade of Sunday school, the one thing I can say for certain is that Christianity requires belief in a whole lot more than simply believing in God. So while a reference to the Creator denotes a belief in a God (Deism), it is not indicative of a belief in Christianity.
tecno- nice of you to join this little discussion Occrider. Doesn't suprise me one bit. Let me start off by saying that I am quite aware of what deism is and what deists believe. Arbiter and I have been focusing on Jefferson, since I think we would all agree he was a large influence on US gov. being the drafter of the DOI and having a hand in the development of the US constitution. I've said it more than once that I agree that Jefferson at least considered himself as a deist. What were Jefferson's ethical and moral influences? My argument is that it was christianity. Certainly, you must agree that Jesus had a large influence on his moral/ethical code.
Also, the existance of a God or a Supreme creator I support should not be an assumed thing in a persons life. It is learned or taught and then can become belief based on personal experiences, which over the course of a persons life will strengthen belief. I can become a knowlege when the person recieves 'confirmation'. I'm getting sideracked.
Anyway, Jefferson's inspiration came from probably more than just christianity, but I think it is quite narrow minded to base your entire assumption that Jefferson's beliefs came from deism which presupposes many things. As I stated one thing shapes another. The fact is the many of the colonists were christian and they sought religious freedom by colonizing america. They wanted to worship how they chose. Christianity in it's truest form never suggested it be ruled by a catholic authority. It is about each person having faith and learning for themselves the truth and then being able to worship God how they want to and not any authoritarian church. They were freethinkers yet they came to america with fundamental beliefs systems. Even Jefferson and his deistic peers. This is why I support that christianity shaped the US and inspired many of it's fundamental rights. Jefferson didn't just wake up one morning and he was a deist. You have to look beyond the deist writings of Jefferson and look at where there origins may have come. I don't claim to know positively the mind of Jefferson. There is evidence that men don't just become a deist one morning. Influences shape each person and I believe christianity were the influence of Jeff and most of the founding fathers. That is why I suggested our nation was founded on christianity. This gets taken the wrong way and threatens some because they think this belief is going gradually remove freedom. Well I am all for freedom and believe God blesses and strengthens the US because of it's freedom to chose. Free agency is so important in the sheme of things and a democracy such as ours allows the most.
Hehe well it’s good that you referenced the Jefferson Bible because that exemplifies Jefferson’s exclusion of Christianity in his belief in God. I gather you’ve never read the Jefferson Bible? I think you should, it’s quite interesting what Jefferson wrote, and more importantly what he didn’t write. In The Jefferson Bible, there is no reference to Christ fulfilling prophecy, there is no reference to the spirit of the lord being upon him, there is no victory of Christ over the temptations of Satan, there is no annunciation, there is no virgin birth, no angels, etc., etc., etc. In other words, Jefferson looked upon Jesus as a common everyday man … or in his words:
Just as I already mentioned to arbiter, I know he removed all refereces suggesting metaphysics.
In case you haven’t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus.
Hahaha.
He believed in a God, and he supported the common sense teachings that Christ exhibited. But who doesn’t? Who in their right mind is against teachings of love and respect? , I support the teachings of Christ but that hardly makes me a Christian.
Maybe so, but everything has it's influences. I at one point rejected everything I was taught about religion and became agnostic. Thats right Aribter/Occrider. I honestly didn't know either way. I actually opposed religious laws and most authority. This country isn't truly 'free' both of you must agree. There are laws which many coincidentally happen to be similar if not exactly the same as those of the bible. This isn't coincidence. Most of these laws came about by states governing themselves and christian biases were and are strong in the judiciary system. This cannot be overlooked and is another reason why I made a general claim that the US gov. is based on christianity. Whether you like it or not the evidence is everywhere. Is that good or bade? Well it has for the most(excluding the civil war) part kept a nation of people comprising every culture, religion and ethnicity of the world living at peace and living together since it's foundation. That is quite remarkable.
Bingo, Jefferson is a Deist. That doesn’t make him Christian however. And when one considers the implications of his bible, and his own words:
tecno-I already covered this.
Take note of this, this is Jefferson speaking of Christianity directly:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies" (Letter to Dr. Woods).
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." (Notes on Virginia)
In a letter to Adams:
"It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist."
tecno- I understand this.
Jefferson goes on and on and on … I can spend all day taking his personal writings where he quite clearly indicates that he is not a christian. As for your statements about George Washington, I addressed those points in the thread you deleted. If you would like, I can make them again.
tecno- if you wish you can. your choice. I've alreaded stated I know of Jefferson's deistic writings. I don't know how the thread got deleted. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
hey technolover, learn how to frame your quotes, it's making a weak arguement appear weak and confusing.
| quote: | | What were Jefferson's ethical and moral influences? My argument is that it was christianity. Certainly, you must agree that Jesus had a large influence on his moral/ethical code. |
acknowledgement of the moral importance of the teachings of jesus does not make a man christian. what would be the western implications of christianity without the mythology of jesus rising from death and ascending into heaven? if we were to study the teachings alone, i could make the arguement that jesus was a buddhist and that modern day christians are slaves to his martyrdom. what's the deal with the cross?
| quote: | | In case you haven’t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus. |
and how does this make jefferson a christian? he expressed his desire to escape the pattern of idiocy and hypocricy represented by practicioners of the christian faith. he was given the opportunity to establish a nation with laws capable of sustaining itself without the influence of religious leadership and he did. if he were a devout christian, why is there emphasis on the importance of the seperation of church and state? you might as well argue that franklin would approve of the patriot act. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well again, you're attempting to depict Christianity as Jefferson's religion so I feel I'm compelled to respond once again. Yes the DOI invokes the "Creator" in the document. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying that the founding fathers were atheist. What we are saying, however, is that the majority were Deist which is not the same as Christian. After going through about a decade of Sunday school, the one thing I can say for certain is that Christianity requires belief in a whole lot more than simply believing in God. So while a reference to the Creator denotes a belief in a God (Deism), it is not indicative of a belief in Christianity.
|
tecno- nice of you to join this little discussion Occrider. Doesn't suprise me one bit. Let me start off by saying that I am quite aware of what deism is and what deists believe. Arbiter and I have been focusing on Jefferson, since I think we would all agree he was a large influence on US gov. being the drafter of the DOI and having a hand in the development of the US constitution. I've said it more than once that I agree that Jefferson at least considered himself as a deist. What were Jefferson's ethical and moral influences? My argument is that it was christianity. Certainly, you must agree that Jesus had a large influence on his moral/ethical code.
Also, the existance of a God or a Supreme creator I support should not be an assumed thing in a persons life. It is learned or taught and then can become belief based on personal experiences, which over the course of a persons life will strengthen belief. I can become a knowlege when the person recieves 'confirmation'. I'm getting sideracked.
Anyway, Jefferson's inspiration came from probably more than just christianity, but I think it is quite narrow minded to base your entire assumption that Jefferson's beliefs came from deism which presupposes many things. As I stated one thing shapes another. The fact is the many of the colonists were christian and they sought religious freedom by colonizing america. They wanted to worship how they chose. Christianity in it's truest form never suggested it be ruled by a catholic authority. It is about each person having faith and learning for themselves the truth and then being able to worship God how they want to and not any authoritarian church. They were freethinkers yet they came to america with fundamental beliefs systems. Even Jefferson and his deistic peers. This is why I support that christianity shaped the US and inspired many of it's fundamental rights. Jefferson didn't just wake up one morning and he was a deist. You have to look beyond the deist writings of Jefferson and look at where there origins may have come. I don't claim to know positively the mind of Jefferson. There is evidence that men don't just become a deist one morning. Influences shape each person and I believe christianity were the influence of Jeff and most of the founding fathers. That is why I suggested our nation was founded on christianity. This gets taken the wrong way and threatens some because they think this belief is going gradually remove freedom. Well I am all for freedom and believe God blesses and strengthens the US because of it's freedom to chose. Free agency is so important in the sheme of things and a democracy such as ours allows the most.
| quote: |
Hehe well it’s good that you referenced the Jefferson Bible because that exemplifies Jefferson’s exclusion of Christianity in his belief in God. I gather you’ve never read the Jefferson Bible? I think you should, it’s quite interesting what Jefferson wrote, and more importantly what he didn’t write. In The Jefferson Bible, there is no reference to Christ fulfilling prophecy, there is no reference to the spirit of the lord being upon him, there is no victory of Christ over the temptations of Satan, there is no annunciation, there is no virgin birth, no angels, etc., etc., etc. In other words, Jefferson looked upon Jesus as a common everyday man … or in his words:
|
Just as I already mentioned to arbiter, I know he removed all refereces suggesting metaphysics.
| quote: |
In case you haven’t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus.
|
Hahaha.
| quote: |
He believed in a God, and he supported the common sense teachings that Christ exhibited. But who doesn’t? Who in their right mind is against teachings of love and respect? , I support the teachings of Christ but that hardly makes me a Christian.
|
Maybe so, but everything has it's influences. I at one point rejected everything I was taught about religion and became agnostic. Thats right Aribter/Occrider. I honestly didn't know either way. I actually opposed religious laws and most authority. This country isn't truly 'free' both of you must agree. There are laws which many coincidentally happen to be similar if not exactly the same as those of the bible. This isn't coincidence. Most of these laws came about by states governing themselves and christian biases were and are strong in the judiciary system. This cannot be overlooked and is another reason why I made a general claim that the US gov. is based on christianity. Whether you like it or not the evidence is everywhere. Is that good or bade? Well it has for the most(excluding the civil war) part kept a nation of people comprising every culture, religion and ethnicity of the world living at peace and living together since it's foundation. That is quite remarkable.
| quote: |
Bingo, Jefferson is a Deist. That doesn’t make him Christian however. And when one considers the implications of his bible, and his own words:
|
tecno-I already covered this.
| quote: |
Take note of this, this is Jefferson speaking of Christianity directly:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies" (Letter to Dr. Woods).
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." (Notes on Virginia)
In a letter to Adams:
"It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist."
|
tecno- I understand this.
| quote: |
Jefferson goes on and on and on … I can spend all day taking his personal writings where he quite clearly indicates that he is not a christian. As for your statements about George Washington, I addressed those points in the thread you deleted. If you would like, I can make them again.
|
tecno- if you wish you can. your choice. I've alreaded stated I know of Jefferson's deistic writings. I don't know how the thread got deleted.
occrider - This is for my own benefit. My reply shall be forthcoming. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
 |
|
|
|
|
