That was a single website reference Dan, which is more than just my opinion, which is still more than you have given this coversation - except those vague comments such as 'people you have met', and 'any book you could pick up', or how about the ever popular 'atheism is the same as deism'? Apparently one of those reference books you could pick up isn't a common household dictionary? As for the resource I used, I didn't have the actual reference on hand - I found this one by using google, it was on page 1 of the findings. As for what you believe makes a quite a bit of difference... again, I ask you, bring something besides your opinion to the conversation, is *that* so hard? Put up or shup up, Dan. How many times I gotta repeat your own words? References listed so far in this thread: Rick: 2 OldDan: still 0
Okay, now then. This is kind of a baseless argument, but here's what I interpret from both of your comments: First, to begin with, no one said or (IMHO) implied that an atheist and deist are the same thing. This was later followed by Dan's comment that "I've never met an atheist that wasn't a deist," implying that atheism and deism are the same or similar. I'd be willing to bet that what was meant was agnosticism and diesm are similar. They are. I'm an agnostic which means I believe in a higher power of some sort, but I'm not entirely sure of who, what, or why he/she is. Deism is similar in that it professes belief in a supreme being who created all things, but uses a more logical explanation to define him. That's one point. Secondly is the matter of whether or not America's founding fathers believed in God. I'm not even going to get into their exact religious beliefs, because frankly, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE! The simple fact of the matter is, that no matter which way you look at it, they DID acknowledge a higher power, they DID call that higher power "God" in numerous occasions, and I believe that they DID set up America to be founded on a higher power. Finally, to steer us (I hope) back to the ORIGINAL topic, I still stand with my belief that the founding fathers, no matter if you want to think they were Christians, Deists, Puritans, or otherwise, all still based the country on some sort of a higher power, and it makes perfect sense to expect that they would want to have some sort of refernce to that in our pledge, coinage, etc. On a side note, here's what I've always interpreted from the Constitution about freedom of religion: The first amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." I see this as that Congress shall no declare one religion to be a state-sponsored religion, as was prevalent in Europe among monarchs at the time. King Henry the 8th creating the Church of England, for example. Congress also cannot prohibit people from worshiping any higher power or other figures in the manner of their choosing. But no where in there does it say that Congress can't put the word God on a penny or in the Pledge of Allegience. I don't believe that Congress is, in fact, sponsoring a state religion by doing such things; they are simply keeping in trend with the founders' ideals. ~AJ
"But no where in there does it say that Congress can't put the word God on a penny or in the Pledge of Allegience. I don't believe that Congress is, in fact, sponsoring a state religion by doing such things; they are simply keeping in trend with the founders' ideals", AJ. Thank you and since the vast majority of people in this country do believe in God, in varied aspects, what right does a small group of people have to have that belief taken off everything and everywhere it suits them. That is not a democracy never mind showing respect.
Just because 86% of us believe in God, doesn't mean 86% of us support putting "In God We Trust" on our coinage... just thought I'd point out that small fallacy...
The majority can not trample the rights of the minority just because they have the majority opinion at the time. Majorities are fluid and become minorities in time. Look at the civil rights issue. Most Americans were not for civil rights for black Americans when civil rights were proposed. Was the majority in that instance correct? You can't determine whether an issue is right or wrong by simply taking a poll and finding out what "most" people want at any specific point in time. Minority opinion rights have to be respected in a democracy if it is to succeed. I believe that the founding fathers knew this and formed our constitution with the rights of the minority in mind.
Then let the minority view be brought to a vote. Is the minority viewpoint that is against having god listed anywhere trying to place this on ballots or are they just looking thru thousands of judges trying to find the one who does not base decisions on the law but on a personal agenda or worse are they filing law suits and in effect sueing schools, small groups, and charitys etc..as a weapon of terror. The minority is trying to take away the majoritys right and that is not democracy. How can you compare this to the civil rights movement is beyond me. I am sure that Dr. Martin Luther King being a Reverend would not agree, nor the Rev. Jessie Jackson, nor Rev. Al Sharpton, nor would Malcolm X, I could go on but if you look at the real leaders and the fake ones, which I also included, the ranks of the civil rights movement were filled with religious leaders. From a random google search: "Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), civil-rights organization founded in 1957 by Martin Luther King, Jr., and headed by him until his assassination in 1968. Composed largely of African-American clergy from the South and an outgrowth of the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott that King had led, it advocated nonviolent passive resistance as the means of securing equality for African Americans"
No aj, I didn’t mean agnosticism, and I’ll explain why. I have known a hand full of people in my life time that claimed to be “atheist” , but upon further discussion it was learned they had some sort of believe in a GOD of some kind. When this was pointed out to them, that this idea was something a true atheist didn’t do, they finally admitted they were who ever believed this way (diest) but thought “atheist’ were right. I have no problem with any of that, we are who we are. This was the point I took exception to, when it was alluded that George Washington was a Deist. Followied with a ref. to a Deist web-site as proof of the statement. George Wahington was born and raised as a member of the Church of England. It wasn’t until later in life that he changed his mambership to the Episcopalian faith. He held office and served in the office of the church. He served as Grand Master of Masons for these United States and was a member of Alexandria-(Washington) Lodge #22. Serving as it Worshipful Master, where he not only prayed, but led the members of the Lodge in prayer for guidance in their activities. His King James version Bible is in the Grand Lodge of Philidelphia. So I ask you, how many Diest do you know who would do all these things? Washingtons application to the Lodge will not be published to be viewed on the internet, so Rick you will need to go there and have the proper credentials to view these things in person. Sorry about that. Absolutely no disagreement here. I’ts the only way that makes any sense. Another small fallacy, and that is with 86% believing in GOD, the odds are that the majority would favor having these words on their coins. By the same token of the 14% who don’t believe in GOD, does not mean all of them want it removed from the coins and currancy...all kind of small fallacys, aren’t there? Save you the time to look them up: The Joy of Sects: A Spirited Guide to the World's Religious Traditions. New York: Doubleday (1996); pg. 386. "Deists: Those who believe in God, or at least a divine principle, but follow few if any of the other tenets and practices of Christianity (compare with Theists, who believe in a personal God). Developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, Deism envisions a kind of clock-maker God who set the universe in motion but then let it run on its own, calling into question the Jewish and Christian notion of God's intervention in history. The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions. San Francisco: Harper Collins (1989). Reprint; originally pub. as Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions, 1981; pg. 213. "Deism. The Enlightenment endeavor to purify Christianity, to rid religion of all that was not rational, natural, and moral, and develop a natural religion. In England, it was critically concerned with the origins of religion; in France it was anti-Catholic, shading into skepticism, atheism, and materialism; in Germany it was championed alongside nationalist metaphysics and historical criticism; in America it embraced a revolutionary creed... Though indebted to various European cultural developments, Deism was particularly an early eighteenth century English affair. I take responsibility for the underlining of various sections.
Okay, Moen - here's a short lesson on minority and majority rights in the Unitede States which IS OVERTLY characteristic of democracy. You've both expressed the point that having "the majority trample the majority is not a democracy." First off, we need to define democracy. According to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: "democracy - 1. a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system; ... 3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges." To these comments, I respond: Democracy means that everyone has the same rights as everyone else and the ability to exercise those rights as they see fit. I therefore ask: do all the people involved in this argument have the right to express their opinions on the issue? Yes. Do they have the ability to vote on the issue, if it comes up in a vote or amendment? Yes. Do they all have the ability to choose whether or not they even say the pledge or say the word God in said pledge? Yes. Therefore, I believe that this would qualify as an issue under Democracy. Now, for minorities and majorities: If the people who do not believe in having God in the Pledge of Allegience were a majority, they would be "trampling" on the new minority - those who support it. This is just the same as what has occurred: a majority of people have expressed support for God and as is supposed to happen, their vote on the matter has reigned over the smaller number of people who vote against it. Another example is basically every vote that the US Senate does (the House too): during almost EVERY vote, some group is the majority, and some group has their hopes trashed by being in the minority. That's democracy in action! If 86% of people support putting "God" on our coinage, then obviously, 14% will be opposed to it, in a clear minority, and that doesn't mean that their rights are being trampled on - it only means that more people support the measure. As Dr. Spock once said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." If more people support X, then X should be the route that the government takes. One of the only dissenting examples of this is with presidential elections, where we use the Electoral votes instead of the popular vote. This system was specifically set up by the founding fathers to deter the "less intelligent" mass public as a whole electing the prez. Instead, the founders wanted the elites of the country (the Electors) to make the choice. The public voting gives the Electors an idea of where they stand, but does not directly elect the Prez. America is a democracy, but that doesn't mean people's ideas are trampled upon: good Lord, they're almost revered! Every day in the news you hear about this or that minority group expressing their views about how they lost whatever fight it is they were going for. ~AJ
Ah, Dan. I can now see why you would view atheism as similar to deism. A fine line, to be sure, but thanks for letting me know about it via these sources! ~AJ
Yeah, I didn't even know that they knew Charlie Manson back then. (ha ha). Old Dan, are you a Mason? One of my uncles was. I think I once posted about him once, He was the one who ate rat in China while on a business trip. Said it tasted like. well not chicken anyway. He used to claim that Alexander the Great was a Mason too. But he ate a rat, you know. Is there a Mason party line claim to that or is that hush hush unless you know the handshake? ajm229: I don't think that you are reading my posts. Which would be ok if you weren't responding to them. But since you seem to be responding, please read them so you know what I did post unless you trying to smear my name which is a mideastern and extreme left wing liberal tactic.
"a majority of people have expressed support for God and as is supposed to happen, their vote on the matter has reigned over the smaller number of people who vote against it." ajm229 Well in regards to this thread your last post on democracy seems to be in the same line of thought of all the posts that I made in this thread so I don't understand why you would state I needed a lesson on democracy.
Yes Andy I am pleased to say I am. As far as eating rats, I can assure you that it has nothing to do with the fraternity. I may be giving away too much now, but haven't you heard, there are no secrets in Masonry. Oh and yes, your uncle was right. Alexander the Greaat was a Mason. Or so it has been claimed by English Lodges.
wow, Dan! putting together your two sources, a deist would be a christian god-fearing atheist metaphysical theist. Beyond that, I guess you've had the pleasure of knowing a handful of atheists that completely lacked anything remotely resembling conviction of their belief - because it appears it crumbled under the simplest of analysis. Truly an amazing thing. AJ - Agnosticism - since gnosis means knowledge, a-gnosis or agnosticism is literally an absence of knowledge pertaining to a higher power. If you believe in a higher power, you are not agnostic... it just don't work that way. I don't know what you are, but I can tell you what you ain't. Which is fine, I'm not being critical of your beliefs, it just doesn't qualify under agnosticism. It is a non-belief. People sometimes attach this as a subset of atheism, but I don't think that to be accurate, in that a non belief is not the same as a belief in a non. This is really not much like deism - which is a faith in a god that, though responsible for creating the world, does not directly influence the secular. Deists rely on reason over faith. Then you have Pantheism - which is way out there. Theism - faith over reason. Not to say faith without reason. As Martin Luther pointed out pretty nicely: 'Reason is the enemy of faith.' By that, meaning reason destroys faith, and true faith needs no reason. God created the world, god takes direct action within the world. Atheism - a belief in a non. In truth, I have always believed that atheism, ironically, takes as much faith as theistic beliefs. Afterall, belief is belief - either way, without knowing.
No offense meant, but I do know what I am talking about, and if you will look a little deeper into the Latin, you'll see what I am, Rick: a-: lack of -gnosis: knowledge, therefore, agnostic: a lack of knowledge on/in/about something Agnosticism is a belief that there is a higher power, but we have no knowledge as to how that power operates or in what way one should worship/believe in it. That's where you get the meaning. I see where you went with it, but it's a slight flaw in the transliteration. ~AJ Edited to include: Webster's dictionary definition: "agnostic: a person who holds that the existance of the ultimate cause, such as a god or God, and the essential nature of things exists, but are unknowable." (As in, we can't know ABOUT them, but we can believe they exist.)
Additionally, you might have been thinking about Universalism, which holds that God exists and created man and earth and the heavens, but now sits and watches Mankind develop.
No, you're right - I just went back and read your posts more carefully, and I found where I wasn't reading right - I apologize for including you in my earlier statement, and I am editing out your name. However, I do include Moen's name because his post that does fit with my comments about a possible necessity for a lesson in what I believe is the definition and ideology behind the idea of democracy. Thanks for pointing that out to me, and again, I am sorry, Andy! ~AJ
Thanks AJ, I was starting to get concerned for taking away someones viewpoint and turning it against him when it is overwhelming popular is a technique used to discredit a rival and taint all of his positions. As a political science major you might come across samples of this during your studies. I am just glad that you are not practicing it.
Here you go aj, don't know if this helps or not, but you might say it's from the horses mouth: Thomas H. Huxley, a well known English religious skeptic, invented the term Agnostic in the 1840's. In 1899, he wrote: "When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last...So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. I simply combined "a" which implies negative, with "gnostic" which is a Greek word meaning knowledge”. I happen to believe it backs you up fairly well in what you have been saying. agnostic= freethinker
