Accept or reject these beliefs?

[xBiffx]

Yes, I know. And when I originally said the Founding Fathers were agnostic I didn't capitalize it.

Troll troll troll your boat.

 

[zsdersw]

Troll troll troll your boat.

We've already heard your activities recap.

 

[Incorruptible]

obama has killed innocent children in Pakistan and the POS has the nerve to tell people not to fear government.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well a quick perusal of idiom definitions on Google all read that 'just around the corner' means something that will be happening very soon, which is basically the definition of imminent.

Okay, I see what you're getting at. I didn't read it that way because the paragraph didn't suggest timing in any way -- I read it as just a general comment about those who fear tyranny.

Regardless of the language particulars, the contrast in the beliefs of Jefferson and Obama with respect to the role of government and its potential for tyranny couldn't be more clear, and that's the point of the split image in the OP.

Yes, I know. And when I originally said the Founding Fathers were agnostic I didn't capitalize it.

The term "agnostic" is not a proper noun and is not capitalized except when any other word would be. When it is used without qualifiers, it refers to religious beliefs; when a qualifier is provided, it refers to whatever is being discussed. This is grade-school stuff.

Example from this very forum, starring our very own IDC, less than a month ago.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, I see what you're getting at. I didn't read it that way because the paragraph didn't suggest timing in any way -- I read it as just a general comment about those who fear tyranny.

Regardless of the language particulars, the contrast in the beliefs of Jefferson and Obama with respect to the role of government and its potential for tyranny couldn't be more clear, and that's the point of the split image in the OP.

I think Obama's views on the role of government and its potential for tyranny are extremely poorly expressed by the OP. If that quote was supposed to be a proxy for his beliefs, it was also a straw man.

This doesn't mean that their views aren't different, but both choices presented by the OP are things that I personally ascribe to. Be distrustful of government, ignore the crazies.

 

[zsdersw]

The term "agnostic" is not a proper noun and is not capitalized except when any other word would be. When it is used without qualifiers, it refers to religious beliefs; when a qualifier is provided, it refers to whatever is being discussed. This is grade-school stuff.

Yes it is grade school stuff, and apparently the modern colloquial usage of "agnostic" (that eskimospy pointed out in post #56) doesn't matter if one's goal is to ignore the original point I was making (see post #24 in reference to post #7)... which is what Biff likes to do.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think Obama's views on the role of government and its potential for tyranny are extremely poorly expressed by the OP. If that quote was supposed to be a proxy for his beliefs, it was also a straw man.

It's an Internet meme, not a doctoral thesis in public policy.

Yes it is grade school stuff, and apparently the modern colloquial usage of "agnostic" (that eskimospy pointed out in post #56) doesn't matter if one's goal is to ignore the original point I was making (see post #24 in reference to post #7)... which is what Biff likes to do.

I don't see what posts #7 and #24 have to do with anything. In post #18 you flatly said "They were agnostic." They were not. Full stop. As I said at the start, you appear to be unable to ever admit error, but your comment was erroneous nonetheless.

Also, I don't know what you think eskimospy said in #56 but it appears to me that he too was saying that they were not agnostic.

 

[FerrelGeek]

They were agnostic.

They were a mix. Either way, they respected religious beliefs. And they wanted to protect religion from government. They saw how politics corrupted the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church and wanted to avoid that - even though a fair number of them were deists, like Jefferson. Your bigotry clouds your view of history.

 

[zsdersw]

They were a mix. Either way, they respected religious beliefs. And they wanted to protect religion from government. They saw how politics corrupted the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church and wanted to avoid that - even though a fair number of them were deists, like Jefferson.

Probably more the other way around.

Your bigotry clouds your view of history.

I'm not sure someone can be bigoted against institutions like religion, but if you say so.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't see what posts #7 and #24 have to do with anything. In post #18 you flatly said "They were agnostic." They were not. Full stop. As I said at the start, you appear to be unable to ever admit error, but your comment was erroneous nonetheless.

Biff originally had a hissy fit because I was critical of religion (too bad, so sad). I mentioned the double-standard by gun zealots when it comes to the Founding Fathers, which he never addressed. Atreus then said they weren't atheists, which is obvious, then I said they were agnostic... which is closer to the truth than them being either atheists or Christians.

Also, I don't know what you think eskimospy said in #56 but it appears to me that he too was saying that they were not agnostic.

This:

"While plenty of the founding fathers and other adherents to enlightenment thinking rejected Christianity and might very well have been agnostics or atheists if they lived today, they all believed in some sort of creator to the best of my knowledge.

If you're talking about those who were deists, that creator was a very far removed one that did not interfere in the world and simply set up the laws of nature and walked away for the most part. While in day to day life that might be indistinguishable from agnosticism or atheism, it's not the same thing.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Biff originally had a hissy fit because I was critical of religion (too bad, so sad). I mentioned the double-standard by gun zealots when it comes to the Founding Fathers, which he never addressed.

Don't really care; I never commented on any of that. I was commenting on the claim that they were agnostics, which is incorrect.

Atreus then said they weren't atheists, which is obvious...

It's also obvious that they were not agnostic. So much so that I was really surprised that anyone would say they were. This isn't even a matter of dispute or controversy. I have never heard anyone, ever, say the founding fathers were agnostic before today.

then I said they were agnostic... which is closer to the truth than them being either atheists or Christians.

Saying they were agnostic was only, oh, 95% as utterly ridiculous as saying they were atheists, so if you need to cling to that to avoid admitting your mistake, go for it.

As for Christians, that is probably only true of some of them. Many of them were quite a bit closer to Christianity than agnosticism. And with respect to the important issue of whether God exists or not, all of them were closer to Christianity than agnosticism on that score.

If you're talking about those who were deists, that creator was a very far removed one that did not interfere in the world and simply set up the laws of nature and walked away for the most part. While in day to day life that might be indistinguishable from agnosticism or atheism, it's not the same thing.[/i]

First, he's talking about deists. Not all of them were deists.

Second, the passage you quoted is talking about the impact of beliefs on personal actions. That has nothing to do with belief systems themselves, which is what agnosticism is.

Third, well, the last five words of what you quoted.

 

[zsdersw]

Don't really care; I never commented on any of that. I was commenting on the claim that they were agnostics, which is incorrect.

It's also obvious that they were not agnostic. So much so that I was really surprised that anyone would say they were. This isn't even a matter of dispute or controversy. I have never heard anyone, ever, say the founding fathers were agnostic before today.

Saying they were agnostic was only, oh, 95% as utterly ridiculous as saying they were atheists, so if you need to cling to that to avoid admitting your mistake, go for it.

I don't need to cling to anything. Not doing what you think I should is more amusing to me than anything, at this point.

First, he's talking about deists. Not all of them were deists.

Who said all of them had to be?

Second, the passage you quoted is talking about the impact of beliefs on personal actions. That has nothing to do with belief systems themselves, which is what agnosticism is.

Belief systems guide personal actions, even agnosticism... and personal actions can give clues as to one's belief system.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't need to cling to anything. Not doing what you think I should is more amusing to me than anything, at this point.

Making snarky comments is a lot easier than actually providing evidence to back up your claims, isn't it?

Who said all of them had to be?

You did, by claiming, without any qualifications, that the founding fathers were agnostic.

Belief systems guide personal actions, even agnosticism... and personal actions can give clues as to one's belief system.

Except when they don't, as eskimospy clearly and specifically wrote at the end of what you quoted. Right?

 

[zsdersw]

Making snarky comments is a lot easier than actually providing evidence to back up your claims, isn't it?

I don't know, you appear to be the expert at the former so what about the latter?

You did, by claiming, without any qualifications, the the founding fathers were agnostic.

When qualifications are given initially, they're given in the reply. There were no such qualifications from Atreus.

Except when they don't, as eskimospy clearly and specifically wrote at the end of what you quoted. Right?

Except when they do.

 

[Atreus21]

They were agnostic.

Strange, considering the reference to divine providence in the declaration.

 

[fskimospy]

For the record, I do not consider agnosticism and deism to be interchangeable. The founders were Christians and Deists for the most part (at least as far as I am aware), not agnostics.

 

[zsdersw]

Strange, considering the reference to divine providence in the declaration.

And not strange, considering none of those references are in the Constitution.

 

[lotus503]

Firstly, I'm not trolling.
Secondly, I'm not endorsing the Gun Owners of America (got this from a FB post)

What are the thoughts on the message? Which message do you agree with?

Is the case of todays times I think part of the tyranny is propaganda used to convince people they are living under tyranny.

 

[zsdersw]

For the record, I do not consider agnosticism and deism to be interchangeable. The founders were Christians and Deists for the most part (at least as far as I am aware), not agnostics.

I know you don't, but you did say (correctly) what was meant: they would be regarded as agnostics today because they recognized the difference between believing and knowing.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't know, you appear to be the expert at the former so what about the latter?

I've thoroughly documented my position. You have not.

You made a specific claim, that the founding fathers were agnostic. You have provided absolutely zero evidence to support this claim. Instead, you're engaging in personal attacks.

When qualifications are given initially, they're given in the reply. There were no such qualifications from Atreus.

Here's your entire post:

They were agnostic.

That's a flat declaration that the founding fathers were agnostic. In addition to you having absolutely nothing that supports this patently ludicrous claim, you've already admitted that not all of them were deists; the others were Christians, and therefore obviously not agnostics. (Though again, it was obvious already to everyone but you.)

Except when they do.

Now you're mischaracterizing eskimospy's post. He specifically said that while some outward appearances among deists and agnostics were similar, that the two were not the same.

I know you don't, but you did say (correctly) what was meant: they would be regarded as agnostics today because they recognized the difference between believing and knowing.

And you're mischaracterizing him again. That is not, at all, what he said.

I predicted several hours ago that you would refuse to concede your obvious error here, because you have a demonstrated pattern of being too insecure to admit a mistake, even when every single person here can see it. And you're doing exactly what I predicted. Some small part of me had actually hoped you might prove me wrong.

ETA: There are deists still today. They would give you a puzzled look if you said they were "regarded as agnostics".

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Deism defined, according to the World Union of Deists:

Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer.

That is not agnosticism. Period. End of story. In fact, "knowledge of God" is the exact opposite of agnosticism.

 

[zsdersw]

I've thoroughly documented my position. You have not.

You made a specific claim, that the founding fathers were agnostic. You have provided absolutely zero evidence to support this claim. Instead, you're engaging in personal attacks.

You've also given plenty of proof that making snarky comments is easier than documenting a position.

That's a flat declaration that the founding fathers were agnostic. In addition to you having absolutely nothing that supports this patently ludicrous claim, you've already admitted that not all of them were deists; the others were Christians, and therefore obviously not agnostics. (Though again, it was obvious already to everyone but you.)

Atreus said that they weren't atheists. There wasn't any conditional statement (all, some, none), so I didn't give one when I said they were agnostic.

Now you're mischaracterizing eskimospy's post. He specifically said that while some outward appearances among deists and agnostics were similar, that the two were not the same.

No one said deists and agnostics were the same.

And you're mischaracterizing him again. That is not, at all, what he said.

I predicted several hours ago that you would refuse to concede your obvious error here, because you have a demonstrated pattern of being too insecure to admit a mistake, even when every single person here can see it. And you're doing exactly what I predicted. Some small part of me had actually hoped you might prove me wrong.

For being so obvious, as you claim it is, you sure love to go on and on about it. Why is that?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Strange, considering the reference to divine providence in the declaration.

This guy would stand on a beach in California staring at the sun going down and insist that it actually set in the east.

I have never in my life EVER heard anyone claim the founding fathers were agnostic. Despite making the singularly stupidest set of ignorant comments about religion that I've seen around here in weeks -- and that's saying something -- he will never admit that he's wrong, because he's just too insecure to deal with it. He's always like this.

 

[zsdersw]

This guy would stand on a beach in California staring at the sun going down and insist that it actually set in the east.

I have never in my life EVER heard anyone claim the founding fathers were agnostic. Despite making the singularly stupidest set of ignorant comments about religion that I've seen around here in weeks -- and that's saying something -- he will never admit that he's wrong, because he's just too insecure to deal with it. He's always like this.

Me not making this admission you say I should give appears to bother you, and bothering you inspires me.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Me not making this admission you say I should give appears to bother you, and bothering you inspires me.

There's something seriously wrong with someone who cannot ever admit error, who will lie and distort and deflect and distract and even resort to childish behavior of this sort rather than simply say "I was wrong".

If you're more than, say, 12 years old, you're a really disturbed individual. It's unfortunate that you're the only vocal gay person around here, because you give them a bad name.