You may have heard those two words before. Haven’t you?
They’re not the same (more on that below), but both have one thing in common: Christians love to “steal” famous people from them. 
Deism is the belief that there is a god who created the universe, but who, after that, did no more. He created the cosmos with all its natural laws, and those laws are enough to keep the universe working, without any need for “divine intervention”. Therefore, anything you see is, indeed, natural; there are no visible miracles, other than the original creation of the universe. Such a god isn’t a jealous, petty being, like the one described in the Christian Bible; he doesn’t care about judging people, creating a “heaven” or a “hell”, and would never change natural laws because of our requests — in other words, praying is not only useless, but conceited and absurd. Same thing about worshiping.
Famous deists? Well, most of the American Founding Fathers. See what I mean by “stealing”? American fundamentalist Christians love to say that “America is a Christian nation”, “founded on Christian principles”, and so on, when, in reality, many of the Founding Fathers didn’t believe in a “personal god” at all. Indeed, they all advocated complete separation of church and state, and some, like Thomas Jefferson, expressed doubts about the existence of a god at all.
Why were they deists instead of atheists? There’s no way to know for sure, but my guess is that, at the time, science simply wasn’t advanced enough, there were no viable scientific theories for the origin of the universe, and so it all seemed too “unexplainable” by science; therefore, some intelligent, supreme being had, necessarily, to be the source. If that is so, most Founding Fathers, if they lived today, would actually be atheists.
While deism is surely a lot more harmless (and sane) than, say, Christianity, it’s still theism: a deist does believe in an intelligent supreme being. He just believes that that being doesn’t affect our lives in any way.
Pantheism, on the other hand, is the belief that everything is God, or, to put it in another way, that the universe is God. While this includes a sense of wonder, it does not mean worship, prayer, or anything. Indeed, it doesn’t include any belief in the supernatural; if the universe is “God”, then “God” is not bigger than the universe, not apart from the universe — therefore, not supernatural.
A famous pantheist is Albert Einstein. Yes, the “God does not play dice” quote meant just this: that the universe is not ruled by randomness. Never did Einstein believe in a “personal god”, and, indeed, he was criticized by many theists, during his life, for saying so. His “god” was the universe. It was nature. “Knowing God” meant, simply, “understanding the universe”.
Unlike deism, pantheism is not theistic. It doesn’t include any supernatural entities; it just looks at the universe in a different way.
Both, let me say again, are immensely more sane than “normal” theism. No wars, crusades, inquisitions, censorship, book burnings, science bans or witch burnings have ever been started by either deists or pantheists — or atheists, for that matter. They aren’t dogmatic. They don’t let religion interfere with their lives.
But, since they’re not really “atheist”, and because they include many highly regarded historical figures, Christians, as I said, love to claim many of them as their own. Go figure. 
No related posts.
Tags: atheism, christianity, religion
Subscribe to this blog
I know that this isn’t necessarily “proprietary” information, but were you planning to credit Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion” pp. 11-19 given that you chose the exact same examples as he did? It could be a coincidence, but then again, you seem to understand probability.
Yes, I’m currently in the middle of that book, which probably inspired me to write this entry. The examples themselves, however, I already knew about for a long time: each is the best known example for its case.
So, in a way, you’re right: I should thank Dawkins for the idea of writing about this
, but not for using the Founding Fathers or Einstein as examples, which I’d do if I ever posted about this subject.
If you doubt me, I mentioned Einstein’s Pantheistic beliefs back in August, and the Founding Fathers’ Deism 19 days ago, long before I started to read this book. Ah, the joys of search.
The vietnam war and the korean war were as far as I know, started by communists and, as far as I know, communists are atheists.
[quote comment="5757"]The vietnam war and the korean war were as far as I know, started by communists and, as far as I know, communists are atheists.[/quote]
And?
There are extremeist, radicals, and nutjobs in all aspects of religion (or the lack thereof). All wars are about power and/or property. I want what you have. Too often religion is used as an excuse. At least when the atheist starts a war with you it’s because he wants your stuff, or just because he thinks you’re ugly; it won’t be because “GOD told him to”.
Atheism is exceptionally dogmatic, far more so than other faiths. To vigorously deny the existance of any god whatsoever is absurd. Perhaps you were thinking of agnostics.
[quote comment="5757"]The vietnam war and the korean war were as far as I know, started by communists and, as far as I know, communists are atheists.[/quote]
communism is a political stance, Atheism is a religious (or not religious) stance\belief. So you can be a communist and also be christian, muslim, jewish, buddhist, atheist, e.t.c.
Communism isn’t atheists. Communists are far from atheists. In most cases, Communism is a grab for the power of a nation. Complete power. If religion exists in said nation, complete power cannot be obtained. For that reason, Communism usually eliminates religion simply because it poses a threat. Communists ARE religious: They worship themselves.
Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
i.e. a good idea in principle, ruined by the human factor. It is not atheistic, agnostic or religious in itself, but simply made that way by those in charge.
Atheists are “exceptionally dogmatic” as Lucial said, and rightly so. Anyone who believes in any for of religion is basing their whole world view on the rantings of dead people who were using “god” as a way of increasing or perpetuating their power or control. The fact there are several hundred religions mean that all but one MUST be wrong, and there is no available evidence to give one credence over another, so why believe in any of them?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is as good as any.
[quote comment="5760"]Atheism is exceptionally dogmatic, far more so than other faiths. To vigorously deny the existance of any god whatsoever is absurd. Perhaps you were thinking of agnostics.[/quote]
http://www.wayofthemind.org/category/agnosticism/
[quote comment="5764"]Communism isn’t atheists. Communists are far from atheists. In most cases, Communism is a grab for the power of a nation. Complete power. If religion exists in said nation, complete power cannot be obtained. For that reason, Communism usually eliminates religion simply because it poses a threat. Communists ARE religious: They worship themselves.[/quote]
I agree with most of that, though I’d add that they eliminate “normal” religion because it’s competition. In fact, they usually replace it with another kind of “religion”: cults of personality. It happened with Stalin, Mao or Hitler (technically not a communist, but fascism is just the other side of the coin), when everyone had pictures of them at home, and they were called by names such as “father” or “leader”. It happens today, too, with North Korea’s Kim Jong-il.
I don’t think communists worship themselves at all. Much the opposite: their creed is that the individual is worthless, and should sacrifice himself for the “greater good” of “the people”.
[quote comment="5757"]The vietnam war and the korean war were as far as I know, started by communists and, as far as I know, communists are atheists.[/quote]
Yes the Korean War was started by the north. However if the U.S. hadn’t kicked out the left-leaning indigenous government that formed after WWII with an Anti-Communist government there might not have been a war at all.
WE and I repeat WE started Viet-Nam. That b.s. was 100% started by us. Not only that we faked an attack on one of our ships to get it underway. Stop watching Discovery Wings, and A&E war channel and do some research about how those wars really got started.
As far as this being a Christian Nation or not.
The first white settlers we’re Christian and wanted to build a city on the mount. However by the time of the Revolution the enlightenment had taken place and the people that helped to write the Constitution and also implant the seeds of discontent, we’re not Christian. With the exception of a few, Ben Franklin comes to mind. He actually open the early sessions with a prayer and his fellows out of respect obliged him. However when he wanted to put into the constitution that this was a Christian country he was, say it with me, VOTED DOWN!!!!!
So NO Virginia this is not a Christian Nation.
I am not sure how communism became the dominant issue in this conversation. I think that the idea is simply that we as a species cannot afford to indulge in the irrational behaviors of religion anymore. When one group of fairytales are deemed superior to that of other group, you have the situation that gave rise to 9/11.Christian history is relpleat with similar bloody events. As more and more of these religious groups obtain access to nuclear and biological weapons, we will have a real nightmare on our hands.
Rationality must prevail if we are to survive. Religions, ALL of them, are based on irrational and unprovable ideas. It is time for us to grow up as a species!!!
I respect agnostic over atheist any day. being unsure and searching is more respectable then taking the egotistical self righteous judgmental stand of being certain and positive with your very short time here on this planet and extremely limited experience, to conclude for all humanity that ever existed presently and the millions of years before you that their matter of factly is no God. Their are billions of people all over the world and the generations past that have had experiences that you know NOTHING about. How dare any man conclude for all men and women that they are all idiots for believing in some form of creator. Any person founding father or not that does this is the fool. Any reasonable person that can calclate should be able to see clearly that they don’t have all the answers. If you subvert peoples faith in the pursuit of them believing nothing, If their is no hell, you’re about to make one. Better leave it alone einstien. Being against everything and for nothing is a loosing battle. Atleast their is hope in some belief systems helping people cope with this plague of death hovering over all mankind, stripping you of your relationships, family, lovers, friends, memories, health, and ultimate existance. Promising to bury your lifes work and even you’re very memory in an unfathomably deep pool of time. Where you will eventually never even be thought of again, and not even come to mind. Time is moving forward. Death is a Mother fucker! Don’t waist this hiccup in the system which is your life pursuing nothing.
Question: was George Washington a founding father? Benjamin Franklin?
Answer: Yes, for both.
Question: Were either of them deists or pantheists?
Answer: No, on both counts.
Therefore, any generalization about the “founding fathers” that contends that they were, as
a group, deists or pantheists, is a gross injustice to them, and a gross discourtesy to us.
Revisionist historians are part of the overall effort to destroy religion in America, so
people will no longer be bothered by the existence of a set of rules for living they do not
like, and do not want to be reminded of. The evidence for the revisionists’ views is as
real as the existence of a “doctrine of separation of church and state”, another of the big
lies successfully promulgated throughout the 20th century, but at no time before.
Well said John Kocur!
I am not sure how communism became the dominant issue in this conversation.
It’s hardly uncommon: There are those whose interest is in pushing an agenda and will use any opportunity to do do, including diverting comment threads with irrelevancies.
Why is the original reference (“Korea and Vietnam were started by atheist communists”) irrelevant? Because even if we accept the premise about who was responsible for those wars, they were not about religious belief. That is, they didn’t occur because one side was atheist and one side was not.
It’s safe to say that it’s the rare case where there is just one cause for a war, including religion; such as politics, economics, and class often figure heavily. But it’s equally safe to say that anyone would be hard put to find a war where the aggressor’s atheism played a measurable role.
John: according to this, Washington wasn’t particularly religious, and Franklin was probably a Deist.
Besides, I said “most”, not “all”.
Any reasonable person that can calclate should be able to see clearly that they don’t have all the answers.
Doesn’t that make each and every version of theism equally an “egotistical self righteous judgmental stand?”
You say you “respect agnostic over atheist.” By your own argument, it would appear that agnosticism is the only thing you can respect.
bubble head: I could reply to all of your points, one by one, but I don’t think you’d really be interested in reading so much; besides, it would turn this discussion off-topic.
Just one hint: I, like other atheists, am not “sure”, as in 100% certainty, that there is no god. I simply see no evidence of one, and know of nothing that can’t possibly have natural causes. So I draw the logical conclusion: the universe is natural.
Theists, like you seem to be, are the ones who are 100% sure about something you have absolutely zero evidence for, and, not only that, you know exactly how God is like, what he wants, what he likes and dislikes (which tends to be what you like and dislike, for some reason), and so on.
It’s amazing how theists call atheists “arrogant” for stating that there is no god (because there is no evidence for the existence of one), when you are sure that there is one, and that he’s your version – not that of the other hundreds (thousands?) of faiths around the world. And you do so without any evidence for your version, much like the other believes are sure without any evidence for their versions. Who’s “arrogant”, again?
People can believe somthing without assuming everyone else is an idiot. I am not agnostic. However I don’t believe that I have all the answer and feel that others may not have some pieces of the truth as well. we can always be open to learning
[quote comment="5777"]I am not sure how communism became the dominant issue in this conversation. I think that the idea is simply that we as a species cannot afford to indulge in the irrational behaviors of religion anymore. When one group of fairytales are deemed superior to that of other group, you have the situation that gave rise to 9/11.Christian history is relpleat with similar bloody events. As more and more of these religious groups obtain access to nuclear and biological weapons, we will have a real nightmare on our hands.
Rationality must prevail if we are to survive. Religions, ALL of them, are based on irrational and unprovable ideas. It is time for us to grow up as a species!!![/quote]
You are the first person i have heard that realizes this and comes out and says it. Though i must say, the people are so ignorant in the sense that they rather fill themselves with religious insecurity and denial of the truths as well as the reality they perceive that it is only very slowly religion is starting to fade out and make way for a new revolution in human life and happiness. To my knowledge and from what i see, christianity is dead, the only thing remaining is the lifeless corpse of god that lays in the middle of the rabble. It seems they all know he is dead but will not come to terms with the fact for the simple reason that if they admit he is so, then that would also be admitting that they have been telling themselves lies all along to ease the situation and the pain they feel when questioning their existence. Yes, I have just babbled, but it is hard to practice restraint when faced with such a rare chance. Feel free to email me at MalevolentDung@aol.com with any comments or ideas you may have on the situation or on amending it. If you get around to responding, i promise i will afford you with decent conversation [better than you will find with the average mechanical being that is] but please, make sure to entitle it with something so i know is not junk mail.
George Washington a founding father? Benjamin Franklin? … Were either of them deists or pantheists? … No, on both counts.
So the only way to deny the notion that the US was “founded on Christian principles” is to show that each and every “Founding Father” was not a Christian? By that same logic (i.e., the only proof is unanimity) doesn’t the existence of a single non-Christian among that group prove that we are not “a Christian nation?”
Revisionist historians are part of the overall effort to destroy religion in America
I was never among those who said that truth is the enemy of religion. Apparently, you are.
that probably just made me seem an idiot…but no matter. the offer still stands.
Pedro… If the shoe fits ware it. If you are open to learning, be open. But you don’t know what a person has experienced to cause them to believe in and be certain that their is a God (not saying that I am) but it is impossible to PROVE experientially that there is NOT some form of GOD. case in point, If a person through prayer receives healing from an incurrable disease after praying to God. That may make a person believe (Which there are millions who affirm such experiences) While there is no ammount of evidence that you can gather to prove that there is no God barring being omniscient yurself.
[quote comment="5786"]People can believe somthing without assuming everyone else is an idiot. I am not agnostic. However I don’t believe that I have all the answer and feel that others may not have some pieces of the truth as well. we can always be open to learning[/quote]
True, but the problem is, only a small percentage is open to learning. That is one reason why and ignorance and fascist religious fanatics have been predominant throughout history.
Fred… There are few human in the world percentage wise that are open to change and learning. That is not just restricted to people of so called faith. Everyone has many irrational beliefs that are acted out every day. Anti religion is a religion. The problem is People. destroying every religious institution still wont change hard hearted men.
[quote comment="5791"]Pedro… If the shoe fits ware it. If you are open to learning, be open. But you don’t know what a person has experienced to cause them to believe in and be certain that their is a God (not saying that I am) but it is impossible to PROVE experientially that there is NOT some form of GOD. case in point, If a person through prayer receives healing from an incurrable disease after praying to God. That may make a person believe (Which there are millions who affirm such experiences) While there is no ammount of evidence that you can gather to prove that there is no God barring being omniscient yurself.[/quote]
you are too harsh and i do believe you misstook him, he never said nothing of people shouldn’t believe in a god nor there is proof one does not exist. and as far as your saying ‘a person who prays then is cured’ that is just as if i were to say ‘i went to the mall and asked the santa for a bike and for christmas i received one, so there must me a santa’ it is people believing off small shit like that which allows all the false beliefs and ignorance to breed. the reason why most religions are hates is not because they think there is a god, but they thing everyone else the smaller and the weaker for it. they try to force their opinions and doctrines on others and slap everyone in the face and look at them as lower for not believing in the same thing. they take the outcomes of their sole experiences and try to demand they be universal. and on top of that, most do not analyze their own beliefs, they just take it all as face value, the same way they judge those that don’t believe the same. ‘oh you don’t believe in god? you must be spawn of satan!’ one is reminded of an eppisode of the simpsons when flanders, homer, grandpa, and mr. burns go to canada and flanders meets someone just like him then a joint is presented by the guy and flanders labels him evil because of the one different belief, totally ignoring that they are seemingly the same god -loving fun-diddly-o people.
[quote comment="5794"]Fred… There are few human in the world percentage wise that are open to change and learning. That is not just restricted to people of so called faith. Everyone has many irrational beliefs that are acted out every day. Anti religion is a religion.The problem is People.[/quote]
“True, but the problem is, only a small percentage is open to learning. That is one reason why and ignorance and fascist religious fanatics have been predominant throughout history”
Did you not just repeat me?
to make what i say clearer, what i call ignorance is a person not being open to the evolution and questioning of thought, belief, predetermined details, and things of the past. the person who believes there is an absolute meaning and reasoning for everyone and everything basically, the person who follows blindly. Not necisarilly the religious, ignorance has it’s filthy paws dipped in far more cookie jars.
I think you mistook me…I wasn’t being harsh, I was simply saying if
you aren’t closed minded to learning then don’t think I am speaking to you. If you are not as you say, then it doesn’t apply to you. and you are not athiest if you are still open to the fact that there may be a God. You are agnostic. Which I said is better, then being certain of what you cannot be sure of, which would cause you to be closed minded.
[quote comment="5795"][quote comment="5791"]Pedro… If the shoe fits ware it. If you are open to learning, be open. But you don’t know what a person has experienced to cause them to believe in and be certain that their is a God (not saying that I am) but it is impossible to PROVE experientially that there is NOT some form of GOD. case in point, If a person through prayer receives healing from an incurrable disease after praying to God. That may make a person believe (Which there are millions who affirm such experiences) While there is no ammount of evidence that you can gather to prove that there is no God barring being omniscient yurself.[/quote]
you are too harsh and i do believe you misstook him, he never said nothing of people shouldn’t believe in a god nor there is proof one does not exist. and as far as your saying ‘a person who prays then is cured’ that is just as if i were to say ‘i went to the mall and asked the santa for a bike and for christmas i received one, so there must me a santa’ it is people believing off small shit like that which allows all the false beliefs and ignorance to breed. the reason why most religions are hates is not because they think there is a god, but they thing everyone else the smaller and the weaker for it. they try to force their opinions and doctrines on others and slap everyone in the face and look at them as lower for not believing in the same thing. they take the outcomes of their sole experiences and try to demand they be universal. and on top of that, most do not analyze their own beliefs, they just take it all as face value, the same way they judge those that don’t believe the same. ‘oh you don’t believe in god? you must be spawn of satan!’ one is reminded of an eppisode of the simpsons when flanders, homer, grandpa, and mr. burns go to canada and flanders meets someone just like him then a joint is presented by the guy and flanders labels him evil because of the one different belief, totally ignoring that they are seemingly the same god -loving fun-diddly-o people.[/quote]
ignore that, i got mixed up. i was thinking you were refering to your previous post [i misread your name as pedro's {actually i just wasn't paying enough attention}]
You didn’t quote the whole fred. As my point is, being radically against every belief system wont resolve the ultimate problem.
It’s ok
eh…this all really doesn’t make any sense to why it is going on…the bottom line seems to stand that ignorance is not needed and is everywhere, when you all seem to realize this but just clash on opinions of why and where and when, maybe should be putting heads together and brooding about how to figure out to get the world out of this pit and to get people to wake up. no matter how much ya’ll wish to contend different people believe different but only one thing is for sure, reason is different for every person just as their experiences total differently, and trying to decide why or trying to use reasoning to show that one person’s current belief is wrong is not going to work, for as was said, ‘you don’t know why they believe the things they do’ so the only thing to hope to achieve is to bring the nation into a further awareness of themselves, to help them become more introspective. now there the ‘how’ is born, and there is where the conversation should be. everyone here is obviously a thinker, just you are all focusing on the wrong things. talking about how something is or how it use to be is not going to get anywhere. focus on the cure.
if i repeated myself,…
bubble head: Pedro recognized in his last post that we can’t prove there’s no God. We can’t prove there’s no Flying Spaghetti Monster either.
Don’t be so openminded your brains fall out. “Learning” doesn’t mean you blindly believe everything somebody else says.
The term “agnosticism” can refer to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism]a lot[/url] of things. Care to point out which one(s) you are referring to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism for a nice clickable link.
[quote comment="5798"] and you are not athiest if you are still open to the fact that there may be a God. You are agnostic. Which I said is better, then being certain of what you cannot be sure of, which would cause you to be closed minded.[/quote]
i must say, though fearing as to what it may make me, that it seems the only rational thought there is that should be believed and IS universal is that we are all here, we are all going to die, we are together, and we might as well use our human ingenuity and mind to make the best of our stay. even if there was a god, we still must stay on earth, and if there isn’t a god, earth and this life is all we have and in both cases, the current moments are all there is, so happiness must be derived for the better of it all along with thoughts and future plans as well as living in the moment while learning from the past. those combined no matte what your belief is what will make your stay happier. and miraculously it all seems to fit with the laws of the land [our human laws] so maybe that is what should be pressed onto the people. though once more, it seems as if i am repeating myself.
I agree fred… as well as being willing to listen to one another and truly hear what the logic is behind there opinions, right or wrong. But hearing all before judging all. I have heard somethings from intellegent people that have shook me to the core and caused me to reavaluate my stance on many things. It’s to big for one culture nontheless individual to grasp without assistance from the community of the human family. Tolarance and open mindednesss with humility and honesty is the evolution mankind. I enjoyed the discussion with you fred.
einstienmonkey…A flying spegetti mmonster has little importance to the existance and conduct of humans, While God conscepts have form History. Comparing something with infinite relivence with something with little if any significance is flaud logic. Learning isn’t stupidity, but it is being willing to listen with controlled prdjudice.
[quote comment="5791"]Pedro… If the shoe fits ware it. If you are open to learning, be open. But you don’t know what a person has experienced to cause them to believe in and be certain that their is a God (not saying that I am) but it is impossible to PROVE experientially that there is NOT some form of GOD. case in point, If a person through prayer receives healing from an incurrable disease after praying to God. That may make a person believe (Which there are millions who affirm such experiences) While there is no ammount of evidence that you can gather to prove that there is no God barring being omniscient yurself.[/quote]
You are right bubble head! It IS impossible to prove a negative, so nobody can prove that god does not exist any more than they can prove that cookie monsters do or do not exist. Medical ” miracles” are another thing though.There are statistical probabilities that can be considered. If a disease like cancer has a survival rate of, say, 10% for example, it is reasonable to say that 10 in 100 will survive. Why should god get the credit? Where was god when the other 90 died? As a statistical probability, there is 0% chance that amputees will spontaneously grow new limbs. Perhaps that’s why you never hear of any amputees recieving their “miracle”.Does god not like amputees for some reason?
REFUTE IRRATIONAL IDEAS. Thanks
Amazing how much Plato and Aristotle are still with us and how the ancient Greeks must find the humor of your conversations.
Randy…Maybe you haven’t heard of it, and wouldn’t believe it if you were told. But i assure you the claims are not minimal and nontheless nonexistant. You question the 90. By virtue of the fact that it is a question, their may be an anwer that you don’t know. (other then your obvious then there must not be a God then. )
[quote comment="5812"]Randy…Maybe you haven’t heard of it, and wouldn’t believe it if you were told. But i assure you the claims are not minimal and nontheless nonexistant. You question the 90. By virtue of the fact that it is a question, their may be an anwer that you don’t know. (other then your obvious then there must not be a God then. )[/quote]
Hello again bubble head!
Nope! I don’t have any pretentions about knowing everything. Hell, I can’t even fix my car or computer. The only difference is this….when I don’t know something, I don’t insist in filling in the gaps of my knowledge with supernatural beings, or god.
Have a happy new year and….REFUTE IRRATIONAL IDEAS. Thanks
Interesting how these conversations focus on the comments more than the article.
Egads! Not that you don’t have a point – It’s impossible to know if there is indeed a God. I’m thinking about the other side of the coin: There is no hard, indisputable proof that there is or is not a deity. Therefore, to call someone arrogant for concluding that there’s no deity implies one of two things – the accuser has indisputable proof of God’s existence, or is equally arrogant. No offense, but common sense dictates that if one is arrogant for choosing with inconclusive proof, then all who choose with inconclusive proof must be arrogant.
.
[quote comment="5771"][quote comment="5757"]The vietnam war and the korean war were as far as I know, started by communists and, as far as I know, communists are atheists.[/quote]
Yes the Korean War was started by the north. However if the U.S. hadn’t kicked out the left-leaning indigenous government that formed after WWII with an Anti-Communist government there might not have been a war at all.
WE and I repeat WE started Viet-Nam. That b.s. was 100% started by us. Not only that we faked an attack on one of our ships to get it underway. Stop watching Discovery Wings, and A&E war channel and do some research about how those wars really got started.
As far as this being a Christian Nation or not.
The first white settlers we’re Christian and wanted to build a city on the mount. However by the time of the Revolution the enlightenment had taken place and the people that helped to write the Constitution and also implant the seeds of discontent, we’re not Christian. With the exception of a few, Ben Franklin comes to mind. He actually open the early sessions with a prayer and his fellows out of respect obliged him. However when he wanted to put into the constitution that this was a Christian country he was, say it with me, VOTED DOWN!!!!!
So NO Virginia this is not a Christian Nation.[/quote]
I had a Government job for years and I was working during the VietNam war. The Government got richer from this war; I’m convinced MANY or even MOST politicians did not WANT that war to cease. We lost an incredible amount of people and what for?? It was a war we should have kept our noses out of! Government employees got a ton of overtime for that stupid, senseless war. God have mercy on all the poor people who died because of it.
athesim is not dogmatic. It is the belief that there is no god or the rejection of theism, It therefore cannot be dogmatic b/c it is not an organization with rules and expectations etc(as seen in religion). It is simply the belief that we hold our own destinies, we are our own gods and if we don’t take care of things that come up in our daily lives, there is no deity watching our backs who we can pray to to help us out. I think that atheism is a character builder and that individuals can reach their potential and even surpass themselves if they were atheists, Also there is the common arguement that religion keeps human beings in check…NOT TRUE. It does keep the timid and non thinking individuals in check while giving all the power of these timid individuals to the higher ups in the religious group.
do you all not read what you are all saying? you are fighting with the same thing over and over. undoubtedly you all have the same sense of logic, you are just speaking in incomplete tongues. the only thing being different in each of your sayings is that not everything is known and considered. you are all basically all saying the exact same thing while leaving other ways of defining it out, still in your mind telling yourself the other person is wrong and they don’t seem to understand, placing yourself in the right and feeling it is your duty to show that other person up. we all know and see the same thing, but as we are all AMATEURS our theories and knowledge is no where near complete, that leads to what is going on here, people going around in circles and even though you all claim you do not have absolute knowledge, in your words and your responses you are expressing that you do. instead of adding everything together you are all trying to show how the other is wrong and your theories and idealizations are true. and no doubt i do the same, for i am still very young…but none of you don’t seem to understand that you are right in as much as YOUR OWN knowledge understands, you laid the concepts of understanding this, but it doesn’t seem to sink in. in a metaphorical sense, you [including me and anyone else who tries to compete in a discussion such as this] are nothing but a bunch of novice sword fighters jumping in a ring trying to show each other up and prove who knows the rightful path to becoming master swordsmen.
Larry and Pedro had more of a grasp on this it seems, and as a result of which it seems they have fled the confusion debating jumble.
[quote comment="5813"][quote comment="5812"]Randy…Maybe you haven’t heard of it, and wouldn’t believe it if you were told. But i assure you the claims are not minimal and nontheless nonexistant. You question the 90. By virtue of the fact that it is a question, their may be an anwer that you don’t know. (other then your obvious then there must not be a God then. )[/quote]
Hello again bubble head!
Nope! I don’t have any pretentions about knowing everything. Hell, I can’t even fix my car or computer. The only difference is this….when I don’t know something, I don’t insist in filling in the gaps of my knowledge with supernatural beings, or god.
Have a happy new year and….REFUTE IRRATIONAL IDEAS. Thanks[/quote]
I liked your post very much; it makes a lot of sense. However, I’m still a believer in the thingy we call “God”, simply because I don’t think life could be derived from non-life. I respect your opinion highly though!
[quote post="187"]being unsure and searching is more respectable then taking the egotistical self righteous judgmental stand of being certain and positive with your very short time here on this planet and extremely limited experience, to conclude for all humanity that ever existed presently and the millions of years before you that their matter of factly is no God.[/quote]
If you disrespect the atheists for the above mentioned reasons, shouldn’t you also disrespect the believers for the same reason of being “certain and positive with” their “very short time here on the planet”. True believers are just as, if not, so much more egotistical and self-righteous in their judgements. Most of them pity the non-believers as if they know something the others do not know. Even though their personal experiences are no more valid than the personal experiences of the atheist.
[quote comment="5822"]athesim is not dogmatic. It is the belief that there is no god or the rejection of theism, It therefore cannot be dogmatic b/c it is not an organization with rules and expectations etc(as seen in religion). It is simply the belief that we hold our own destinies, we are our own gods and if we don’t take care of things that come up in our daily lives, there is no deity watching our backs who we can pray to to help us out. I think that atheism is a character builder and that individuals can reach their potential and even surpass themselves if they were atheists, Also there is the common arguement that religion keeps human beings in check…NOT TRUE. It does keep the timid and non thinking individuals in check while giving all the power of these timid individuals to the higher ups in the religious group.[/quote]
what i think he meant by atheist being dogmatists is that they tend to pick a certain decree or train of thought and stick with it, not letting it evolve or change with the time or new knowledge presented. but maybe i’m wrong.
and christianity does keep people in check, your latter statement proved your preceding one wrong…
I’m sorry; this is my first time posting and I think I did it wrong! My posts look the part of others’ posts; sorry for the confusion. I hope to get the hang of this!
[quote comment="5820"][quote comment="5771"][quote comment="5757"]
I had a Government job for years and I was working during the VietNam war. The Government got richer from this war; I’m convinced MANY or even MOST politicians did not WANT that war to cease. We lost an incredible amount of people and what for?? It was a war we should have kept our noses out of! Government employees got a ton of overtime for that stupid, senseless war. God have mercy on all the poor people who died because of it.[/quote]
hah, i know this is all a matter of opinion, but what isn’t?;
those people who died, their death was on their own hands, no pity should be felt for them, if they wanted to they could have never went into the war. so fear may have been the reason most went ‘fear of the governments iron fist’, that though still is their problem, they had many choices, among them were;
a. leave the country.
In america we can acheive to whatever the hell we want. if you arn’t needed enough that you get
sent to war, you obviously don’t need this country much and can leave and excape the war.
b. a continuation of above but with one change, they could of been something.
there is always going to be a class system, no matter what you want to tell yourself, someone is
always better than someone else, but of course, we can move freely amongst this class system. if
those wretched fuckers who were in vietnam didn’t want that fate, they should have been something
better, they should have been the ones profiting. i mean, we profit off the death of animals
everyday and think nothing of it, human is just another animal, and just like all they other
animals, there are many that arn’t to bright. just because they are the same species means nothing.
now don’t get me wrong, i’m not saying all who are not smart enough too realize things should be
taken advantage of at all cost, of course they should be given all the chances they need to grow
and become something greater and lift up off their scabbed knees, it isn’t by force that they must
go die, the sorry saps choose themselves to go get killed!
I would much sooner feel sympathy for a non-human animal than a human. For unlike the ignorant humanoids [get it?], those animals DO NOT possess the copacity [please, mind my horrible spelling] to rise up and be something greater, they are always slaves to the call of instinct and burdened on the thumbless feet they stand. atleast in their ignorance, they are beautiful.
[quote comment="5828"][quote post="187"]being unsure and searching is more respectable then taking the egotistical self righteous judgmental stand of being certain and positive with your very short time here on this planet and extremely limited experience, to conclude for all humanity that ever existed presently and the millions of years before you that their matter of factly is no God.
If you disrespect the atheists for the above mentioned reasons, shouldn’t you also disrespect the believers for the same reason of being “certain and positive with” their “very short time here on the planet”. True believers are just as, if not, so much more egotistical and self-righteous in their judgments. Most of them pity the non-believers as if they know something the others do not know. Even though their personal experiences are no more valid than the personal experiences of the atheist.[/quote]
i must point out, this is exactly why you people are running in circles. you must let the conversation evolve. Pere, at the time, they were not discussing the religious, what you just said was already stated and agreed apon previously. do you not see how your statement is but a whirlpool into consistency in circles? what comes next his is defending himself of the slanders you just threw, then more into overly debated ideas and things that you both already know, confirming, and attacking each other in your own knowledge whilst you defend yourself and try to shoot the other person.
Jesus, it is sad that i am wasting my time on this shit when i got so much shit i need to do…
And i really wish i could get some words aimed this way whether they be friendly or well sharpened hatchets… even poisoned needles would be welcomed…
Karl Kautsky (a communist and an ateist) explained in his book “The foundation of Christianity” the hitstorical roots of monoteism, judism, christianity and therefor islam. He explained that these monotheist religions came to existance by disruption of a polytheist process caused by the Romans taking over Palestina! Christianity has become a mix of several religions ruling at that time, so are the christian morals. This proves that these three monotheist religions, and all polytheist religions are based on historical processes, not on facts! Please read Kautsky’s book on http://trotsky.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm, have an open mind for other ideas.
maybe this veil called sin that separates man from God is the cause of all the confusion. but the bible has a remedy for that in the form of jesus christ. for God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth on his name shall not perish but have everlasting life. To as many as recieve him gave he the power to become the children of God. T he veil is lifted, sins forgiven, and a peace and joy experenced that is not experienced any other way all it take is faith
[quote post="187"]being unsure and searching is more respectable then taking the egotistical self righteous judgmental stand of being certain and positive with your very short time here on this planet and extremely limited experience, to conclude for all humanity that ever existed presently and the millions of years before you that their matter of factly is no God.[/quote]
If being unsure of whether a god exists or not is more noble than believing there is none, then, based on the same logic, being agnostic must also be more noble than believing in just one. Any member of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam denies the existence of every god but the one they worship. Granted, the three religions are historically rooted in each other, but the gods are different. Muslims and Jews deny that Christ was the son of God, Christians and Jews deny Islam’s prophet, etc. etc., and the differences are so great that the gods themselves are different. All Christians are atheists because they don’t believe in Allah. All Muslims are atheists because they don’t believe in Jesus Christ. All Jews are atheists because they don’t believe in either.
So, my counter to the original poster of this blurb sounds something like this: If a Christian believes, quite matter-of-factly, that Allah, the Hindu and Pagan gods, and all gods but the Trinity are not real, how is it wrong for an atheist to also believe that Allah, the Hindu and Pagan gods are not real? And if a Jew believes in no gods whatsoever, save the Old Testament god, surely an atheist who has no faith in those gods either is just as moral. To sum up the logic, an atheist is the sum of a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim and shares many of the same stands on god and is therefore just as noble. If a Christian can automatically discount thousands upon thousands of gods on a personal assertion, so can an atheist. Don’t be hypocritical in your posts; to be a Christian, etc., you must first be an atheist in a thousand other places.
@ Dave Gredlein
I have my own ideas as to why there is this confusion, but it certainly doesn’t jive with your own. You used two words that make two interesting points. Firstly, while god often does things in the Bible that might reflect love, he also often does things that are characteristic of a maniac or a monster. You also mention faith. While you have faith in god that he will ease our troubles and end the confusion for the lost, it is indeed faith and not fact. By definition, religion depends entirely on faith, not fact, and faith simply cannot be proven, whether there is a reason to have faith or not.
[quote comment="5814"]Interesting how these conversations focus on the comments more than the article.
[/quote]
OK, point well taken. Try this:”I have found Christian dogma unintelligible.Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies”-Benjamin Franklin
” The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense”- Thomas Paine
“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”.- Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to Dr. Woods)
You might also find the book by Thomas Paine THE AGE OF REASON to be of interest.Doesn’t sound like the stuff a Christian nation is made of to me……aside from the fact that they did their best to keep religion out of government.
REFUTE IRRATIONAL IDEAS……
yes but it is a fact acccording to the bible that by faith are we saved. And concerning those 1000 upon 1000s of gods out there. Jesus said: I am the way the truth and the light. The new testament is not about religion rather its an invitation to a personal relationship with God through his son jesus now u have a choice choose yes or no. Jesus said i have come that u might choose life.
It seems to me that un-learning is the crux of the situation. If we were to take what science and naturalism say, in current time, about our universe, there ain’t no “de-” or “the-” in it. I personally don’t see any evidence that supports supernatural, or for that matter, extraterrestrial influence in our daily lives. Myths, yes, evidence, NO!
We have a problem in that we rest our knowledge growth on history, but where, like laws, is the cut-off? How far back do we go or not in the search of the essence of truth? When we knew little of the science of the origin of the species or of the universe, some supernatural “de-” or “the-” was a convenient stop-gap way of admiring the majesty of both without being able to know thier origin. As we learn the mechanisms, we have also to unlearn the stop-gap explanations.
It is hard to imagine what the mind set of someone who had the priviledge of growing up without the propoganda of religion would be, but I would love to explore those mental pathways!
In general the mindset of our founding fathers was that of pioneers in a new land, looking for a break in history and setting out the furtherest reaching, “enlightened” judgments that they could sell to the population at large and codify into a set of elastic rules that could be a guide, without a draconian history to screw it up, for a new country to grow up with. We imported common law and democracy from our English and Continental European forebears, but left a lot of their history, think bureaucracy, and, shedding some belief systems, gained an edge. We see the effect of an overriding belief system that is so fundamentalists in the Middle East as to stop progress for a millennium and a half, and we are experiencing a right-wing evangelical Christian movement in this country that is determined to foist the same kind of history on us! So, like the current political administration with whom they are so closely allied (note–in history the great powers are always upheld by a political/religious mutual support pact), the religious right is swift-boating our founding fathers,
The founding fathers left a lot of belief systems behind and blind obedience to religious myth was one of them. They knew the destructive (of progress) nature of the political/religious cabal and severed the tie. Yes, they used “god” as did Einstein to explain the, to them, inexplicable aspects of the universe and the human mind–but they gave us a period of un-learning that allows our great inventiveness. So let’s get out there and pioneer a new cycle of human evolution beyond mythical intervention and see if we can survive despite the loser tactics of the right wing. Guess I’ve said it all.
Fred — I strongly disagree with you that those who died in the VietNam war could have avoided it. Most people would have a tremendously difficult time leaving this country, and many people would not under any circumstances become draft dodgers. Many of our soldiers did not want to be in VietNam but felt they had no choice. To say that they don’t deserve pity is cruel and cold-hearted. They made the ultimate sacrifice in a war we should not have been made to fight. God rest their precious souls.
What an incredibly biased load of misinformation, half-truths and liberal tripe you spout!
It was pretty fun swimming through the thick anti-christian bias to read about my religion. I also got the impression that you were saying “well, the fact that they believe in God sucks, but don’t worry, they’re not *that* bad”. I don’t appreciate that.
[quote comment="5777"]I am not sure how communism became the dominant issue in this conversation. I think that the idea is simply that we as a species cannot afford to indulge in the irrational behaviors of religion anymore. When one group of fairytales are deemed superior to that of other group, you have the situation that gave rise to 9/11.Christian history is relpleat with similar bloody events. As more and more of these religious groups obtain access to nuclear and biological weapons, we will have a real nightmare on our hands.
Rationality must prevail if we are to survive. Religions, ALL of them, are based on irrational and unprovable ideas. It is time for us to grow up as a species!!![/quote]
Changing topics and short attention spans are an American Art–and I hate to tell you this, but there is no biological evidence that we have “grown up” as a species over the last 10,000 years. Could be that we are “digressing” (I mean, of course, “regressing”). Just my irrational observation, mind you. Personally, I blame it all on Satan (just kidding).
[quote comment="5843"] And concerning those 1000 upon 1000s of gods out there. Jesus said: I am the way the truth and the light.[/quote]
So, Christianity is true because the Bible says so?
You know, most other religions also have books saying that they have the only path to salvation, and everyone else is damned…
Why should one believe in one and not in the others?
[quote comment="5852"]What an incredibly biased load of misinformation,[/quote]
Please give a single example.
[quote comment="5852"]half-truths[/quote]
Please give a single example.
[quote comment="5852"]and liberal tripe[/quote]
Please give a single example.
[quote comment="5854"]It was pretty fun swimming through the thick anti-christian bias to read about my religion. I also got the impression that you were saying “well, the fact that they believe in God sucks, but don’t worry, they’re not *that* bad”. I don’t appreciate that.[/quote]
I don’t have an “anti-Christian bias”, I’m simply an atheist. There’s a difference, you know.
As for the rest, assuming you’re a Deist, please tell me what reason you have for believing that there is a god who created the universe. I can think of two, but I don’t want to put words into your mouth.
I am a rational person who refused to believe things based on someone just “telling me”. I too wanted proof in a god. I am now well read on many religions, and after reading about them all, actually have chosen Catholicism (go figure, considering all the shit surrounding that religion these days). But that is not what I wanted to discuss. I just wanted to encourage everyone to do some real reading about these religions before being so sure they have no truth. They’re are not THOUSANDS of religions by the way. They’re are actually a much smaller amount of worldviews. I am curious as to where the founding of that statement came from. In any case, part of my choosing Catholicism came from reading about 20 books that were in support and disdain of the religion. I’d hear one book say something, then have to go out and find out if it were true.
In order for a Saint to be canonized, a person must have 3 miracles that can not be attributed to science. Yes, we are talking about limbs on amputees coming back, tongues growing where they’re were none, blindness being cured etc. In Lourdes France for instance, home of St. Bernadette, there is a church with over 2,000 crutches lining the walls from a cure caused by the waters of a spring formed there through her so called intervention with God. Also, she died over a hundred years ago, but her body has not decayed. This is also common among saints. I saw her body myself in France – laying there with a blush still on her cheeks. This phenomenon has been rigorously discussed among scientists and cannot be explained. It is the SCIENCE however that backs up these claims that sold me. And this is just ONE case. There are so many cases like this that people simply do not know about.
All I am saying is, there ARE miracles (if you define a miracle to be something that is beyond science, at least as best as we know). Perhaps these extrodinary people are just more evolved, or can manipulate energy to cause healings or not decay after death, but they themselves attributed these gifts to their deep relationship with God.
After I converted, I started to see many experiences on a smaller level everyday among those who believe. Things I cannot explain. There is too much to discuss in a post. Please email me at anjinfo4u@yahoo.com if you care to talk. I am very open minded and love discussing all things regarding religion!! i am not fanatical in the slightest. YES reject irrational ideals. But be educated so that you can tell irrational from rational.
[...] I’m going to expand on a comment I made in the “Deism and Pantheism” discussion. [...]
The founding fathers were NOT Christian. Big deal. Christians shouldn’t care. The governing authorities in Jesus’ time sure did not care about him.
The founding fathers were deists, but would NOT have been atheists, because the question of where original variety (information) in the universe came from is not answered. With no original variety, gravity could not have caused the collapse of mass into stars and solar systems, etc. So where did this original information/variety come from? Their answer would have been “deism”.
Most theists (including the ones in this string of comments) are not rational. But Jesus did not teach anything like most theists. He never would have encouraged war, violence, or banning scientific research. JESUS would never start a war. By contrast, the statement that atheists and deists did not start wars is obviously untrue. The founding fathers were DEISTS, and who do you think started the revolutionary war?
BTW, Subjective “miracles” are not proof of anything.
I am not 100% certain of anything, but I don’t live by certainties, I live by reasonable probabilities.
I am a theist. I am Christian.
Christianity is a form of panENtheism, which is a form of pantheism. Pantheism is not anti-theism. Pantheism holds that God = Reality.
PanENtheism additionally holds that the visible universe is not the entirety of Reality. God = Reality, but Reality is bigger than 20 billion light years of space. This is scientific fact; the MHI of quantum physics states this.
Christianity furthermore states that REALITY is personal. This is the sticking point; this is the hard one to accept.
-micah redding
http://thereddingbrothers.blogspot.com/
[...] 10 – The problem of Agnosticism, part 2 – it’s a “part 2″ (see below for part 1), but it’s perfectly readable on its own. Discusses the contradiction of being “agnostic” about Yahweh, but “atheist” about every other made-up deity. 9 – Christian myths about Atheism: discussion – there were so many comments for the “16 Common Myths about Atheism” post (see below) that I had to close that thread and open a new one, or my web server would have been very, very angry at me. 8 – The problem of Agnosticism – explores why agnostics are agnostic, and what’s wrong, in my opinion, with it. 7 – How I’ve become an atheist – one of the oldest posts in Way of the Mind, this tells of my own “deconversion”, and links to a brilliant Douglas Adams interview 6 – Why Atheism is not a religion – oddly enough, many people seem to think that it is – in other words, that it requires as much “faith” as theism. This post shows why that is not the case. 5 – Are the myths about atheists real or not? – after the popular “common myths” post, many people said I was creating “straw men” – in other words, the myths didn’t really exist. A simple search on Google News proved otherwise. 4 – “Closed minds” – disputes the common (and unfortunate) belief that “being sure of something is closed-minded” (also known as “reality is fluid”). 3 – Deism and Pantheism – a latecomer, this post describes those two not-very-well-known beliefs, whose proponents included many of the U.S. Founding Fathers, and Albert Einstein. 2 – Atheism: arrogance? – discusses why believing that 2+2 will still be 4 tomorrow isn’t “arrogant”. 1 – 16 Common Myths about Atheists – a list of what many theists believe — wrongly — about atheists in general. No, we don’t sacrifice babies. We don’t even boil young goats in their mothers’ milk. [...]
Pandeism actually combines deism and pantheism, describing a god who created the universe with all its natural laws, but who, after that, appeared to do no more because God had entirely become the universe, or, to put it in another way, that the universe – which God created – is God.
[quote comment="5957"]The founding fathers were DEISTS, and who do you think started the revolutionary war?[/quote]
Yes, but they didn’t start it in the name of God. When Pedro said, “No wars…have ever been started by either deists or pantheists — or atheists, for that matter,” he meant religious wars. He could have expressed himself more accurately, but if you read the entire sentence, the point he wants to make is clear: religion provides another — unnecessary — impetus to start wars.
In my view, people (by percentage) would still be good, ethical and moral without religion; goodness has natural and rational roots. But on the other end of the spectrum, religion provides that extra irrational something to get into fights with other people about. If you subtract religious wars from the total number of wars in the world’s history, you have a smaller number of wars. That = fewer dead people and less suffering.
But would you have fewer good deeds without religion? I seriously doubt it. I give people a little more credit than that.
As Voltaire said, (and I admit I got this from Dawkins’ book): “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
[quote comment="5891"]I am a rational person who refused to believe things based on someone just “telling me”. I too wanted proof in a god. I am now well read on many religions, and after reading about them all, actually have chosen Catholicism (go figure, considering all the shit surrounding that religion these days). But that is not what I wanted to discuss. I just wanted to encourage everyone to do some real reading about these religions before being so sure they have no truth.
Dear Anj, I agree when you say you have to read as much as possible before choosing a religion or not. Have you read Kautsky’s “Foundation of Christianity”? I guess not! Historically it has been proven that christianity, judaism and islam are false. So are all polytheist religions. If you have a real open mind, read http://trotsky.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm and make up your mind!
Deism is NOT a “theism”, anymore than Agnosticism is an Atheism{or visa versa}.
Pantheism IS a “theism”, it’s right there in the title.
PanDeism/PanenDeism is’nt a ‘theism” though. Theism means belief in a “personal god”, Deism believes in an undefined non-personal prime mover{god if you wish}, Pantheism belives in a personal divine force, pandeism believes in a non-personal one. Pantheisst generally say new agey b.s. like ‘God is love” and focus on pretty b.s. PanDeism by contrast excepts nature for what it is- INDIFFERENT to us.
Science today still does’nt disprove the deistic theory. There are several valid philosophical arguments for an intelligent first cause/prime mover. I know for me the argument for first cause mixed with “fine tuning”{improbability of life without it, by “life” It does not mean neccaserily HUMAN life, just ‘life”} and a couple other arguments too. It does not contradict science or rational argument like theism does; Atheism is like deism in that it is a belief based on reason about the nature of the universe or origins/etc, yet like deism it cannot be proven nor disproven{but ignores the argument of fine tunings validity}- I argue both to be equally rational and supprtable and non-contradictory to science and reason, but though atheists love to argue their vbelief does not need explanation and is the “default” position- they are wrong on that front, Pure Agnosticism between the atheist and deist theories is the default that requires no explanation{and I personally allow Agnostic-Atheism and Agnostic-Deisms to be made equal to agnosticism}.
For the record I’m an Anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist{pandeism/panendeism leaning}.
In Reason:
Bill Baker