Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, many of the founders were members of my religion, or attended worship at our churches, not Vizio's. The principles of my religion are inextricably woven into our founding documents, including, most notably, the elevation of character over piety; opposition to traditional religion's tactic of "infusing into [the people] a religious horror of letters and knowledge"; and the precedence of "liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases". Those may seem like secular perspectives to you - and it is great that you see it that way - but at the time these were religious perspectives that most religious perspectives other than ours actively opposed, and things that our religion promoted as a matter of deeply held religious belief.
That much is certain.
However, it is critical that you be as careful as you expect others to be, and be clear that it isn't "atheists" that suffer from this debt of character, but rather very specifically a small minority of fundamentalists among the atheists. They just seem more numerous because of how loud and rude is their online behavior.
Aside from the obsessive and irrational detestation of those atheists who dare to speak about it, you are sortacorrect. The Founding Fathers were a bit of a mix, but there were a lot of deists (the 18th c equivalent of atheists - just without Darwinism ) and many anti -religionists. At least, while they believed that religion was useful for teaching people morals and keeping them in order (and rank and file when needed) they wanted no dress wearing bible -punchers telling them how to run the country.
So they and their religious views were of their time - cutting edge, and not the ancien regime of established church. And we salute them today as we do Newton, Galileo and ..ah, well Copernicus, say, even though they were all God -believers and sorta Creationists (as the religious are fond of pointing out).
The point is that we have moved on. Darwin removed the need for a Creation and thus a Deist -god. Recent developments have debunked the idea that a god -belief is needed for morals, civilization, family values or indeed, any kind of social good at all.
What this means is that the Founding deists were a step on the road just as Ptolemy, Brahe, Kepler, Newton, Darwin and Einstein - even if they had some sorta god -belief - were evolutionary steps away from superstitious beliefs and towards evidence - based rationality.
Today, there is no logical reason for a god - belief in society, politics, education, the armed forces, sport, the workplace, medicine, the media or of course, science. That a hoped -for openly non -believing president may one day sit with a large painting of deists on the wall behind him does not mean that he has to be one as well.
People have strong reaction to religion because of their childhood memories or a traumatic time of their life when they thought religion was the answer.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you don't have an opinion on it.
Quite correct - whether one rejects the religious claim or goes back to religion after having rejected it for finding it wasn't the answer they'd expected.
It doesn't matter, because emotional reasons to buy into the god -claim or reject it is no more a good reason than faith. Provided one makes an honest effort to consider (and discuss) the arguments on both sides, we rationalists can hardly carp if the decision is that the evidence for a god or indeed Biblegod,(which has a persuasive enough case) is persuasive enough to buy into it. After all, there is no charge for deconversion, nor a time limit.
You know, I do wish I could fine a message board somewhere on the web where Joseph Campbell comes up more then Richard Dawkins, ritual comes up more then evidence, and practice and less about doctrine. But no, there isn't, and this board is proof of that. Why? Because certain people who, by there own admition, have no inerest in religion or philosophy, feeled compelled to come on to a board marked off for "RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY" and go on and on about "there is no gawwwwd" in a manner that would be better suited for a Emo kid's myspace page.
I mean, if you have no interest in religion, it's practices, it's beliefs, it's history, it's doctrines, how they are similar and how they aren't, then why ohh why come to this board in the first damn place? If all you want to do is bash the belief in God and proclaim loudly that you have no need for religion (what this board is dedicated to) in your life, then why not do it somewhere else?
You know, I took several classes in comparative religion at the university, and some of the students there were some of the most intelligent people I have ever met in this intellect-desert called "New Jersey". There, I met and actually got to talk to Hindues about Hinduism for the first time, and met my first in-the-flesh Sufi muslim. There were Christians, Jews, Hindues, Buddhist, Muslims, Deists, and even a couple of neo-pagans (two Wiccans and an Asatruan) all just talking about religion in complete respect and learning from one another. It was really nice. This board, on the other hand...
I mean, I was two years into a psychology degree when I quit college (money issues) and one of the few bright-sides I found about it was that at least I would not have to take those two biology lab classes that I dreaded. I have nothing remotely resembling the foggiest interest in hard sciences, especially ones that involve lab work. The thought of being in a biolab makes me want to half shower (looking at that...STUFF growing in a petri dish makes me want to vomit and bath) and half roll around in the dirt (in a lab, I feel like I am almost too clean)
I am not a hands on person in the least, would most likely break something (more like allot of things) in a lab and have the nasty habit of holding things in my mouth when ever I am working on something, which would be problematic in a labratory. When I studied religion class, I could just go to a local cafe, drink a chamomile tea, listen to ambient music on my headset and read The Avestan, the Bible, or some other book or text book, highlight and take notes, and that was that...lab would have been a completely different animal.
So, I hate the hard sciences and have no intrest in them and am quite happy without having to think about them in my day to day existince...BUT DO YOU SEE MY GOING TO THE SCIENCE BOARD TO TRASH THE SCIENCES? NO.
Same thing with sports: I can't stand them and at times feel like I am the only heterosexual man in America who does not like American football...althought, I have always been of the opinion that the fact that I do not enjoy watching "The Packers vs The Browns" and seeing the "tight end" and the "wide reciever" and cheering when a very large man in tight pants gets a "penetration in the end zone " would make me more heterosexual, and not less...
But any way, I hate sports...and yet, I have never been to the sports board and said "sports are dumb, I don't need sports and am happy without them" etc etc etc....
I mean, if you want to talk Atheism, why not just go to the board marked "Atheism"? If you have no real interest in religion, then why on Earth come to a religion board in the first place?
Because they get their kicks trying to disprove religion. Not that they are any good at it. Only weak-faithed people get dissuaded from most of their stuff.
They said there is not enough evidence, for example. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
Maybe it is you that know very few of them? Statistics please.
And Transponder, Darwinism (or any version of biological evolution hypothesis) don't prove Deism wrong... In fact, Darwinism is probably what made a lot of Deists become Deists (Watchmaker made a self-moving watch and left).
Because they get their kicks trying to disprove religion. Not that they are any good at it. Only weak-faithed people get dissuaded from most of their stuff.
They said there is not enough evidence, for example. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
That's a good start...with a classic mistake for an argument. Any rank and file atheist want to wise our pal up?
Maybe it is you that know very few of them? Statistics please.
And Transponder, Darwinism (or any version of biological evolution hypothesis) don't prove Deism wrong... In fact, Darwinism is probably what made a lot of Deists become Deists (Watchmaker made a self-moving watch and left).
Yes, but I think you missed my point. Perhaps Darwin did enough to sow doubt about Bible reliability to turn some of the religious into irreligious theists, deists or agnostics. It does not, I agree, disprove a god, but it does remove one of the primary pillars for supposing there is one. We do not need a god to explain how we got here, though of course Abiogenesis is unproven, but it is (at least) feasible. And that is enough to make a god unnecessary for life. Not even first cause is a compelling argument these days.
The point is that, these days, you don't need to believe in a god, either as the theist or deist, unless you want to.
Because they get their kicks trying to disprove religion. Not that they are any good at it. Only weak-faithed people get dissuaded from most of their stuff.
They said there is not enough evidence, for example. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
Agnosticism and atheism does not really attempt to disprove religion . Some anti theists do, for whatever reason, mostly I would presume because of the adverse affect bad religious ideas have on society.Basic atheism takes the stance that there is no solid evidence for forming a belief in God . And while this absence , which seems to admitted to by you, does not disprove a God who chooses to remain silent and invisible , it means what it means , i.e., there is no evidence upon which the belief in God is formed . And so lacking such evidence , what then is the basis for believing ? For most, it is a cultural thing or , sometimes fear of not believing and receiving punishment for not believing .For example, what is the basis of Pascals wager ?
But sending "unsure" young boys into the girls room is stupid.
Sending "unsure" young boys into the boys room is assuredly stupid. Adults, especially those who practiced such bullying when they were children, ignore the impact of gendered harassment on children as a matter of course. There was some general awareness of this spreading about three years ago, but that seemingly has been somewhat muted now, probably due in part to the unwillingness of former bullies to admit that gendered harassment is a problem. Needless to say, though, despite petulant claims to the contrary, there are far more boys attacked by "sure" boys in boys rooms in schools than girls attacked by "unsure" boys in the girls room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Commonsense is gone at this point.
If you want to talk about "common sense", then the only proposal you can put forward is to keep the "sure" boys away from everyone else, because that's apparently where the real danger is. But I suspect that doesn't jive with certain people's personal opinions, and so they may have difficulty recognizing it as the only thing close to "common sense" in this matter.
Because they get their kicks trying to disprove religion. Not that they are any good at it. Only weak-faithed people get dissuaded from most of their stuff.
They said there is not enough evidence, for example. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and many anti -religionists. At least, while they believed that religion was useful for teaching people morals and keeping them in order (and rank and file when needed) they wanted no dress wearing bible -punchers telling them how to run the country. 
" would make me more heterosexual, and not less...
That's a good start...with a classic mistake for an argument. Any rank and file atheist want to wise our pal up?
