Accept or reject these beliefs?

[zsdersw]

You are hopeless. You will ague anything even when its proven completely wrong. Grow up and learn something. Your little insults only add to the vast amount of ignorance you've displayed here.

What's been proven? You haven't proven anything.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So now we agree then? Nowhere did Obama say to never fear tyranny, and nowhere did we talk about who was closer to what the founding fathers wanted. (although I must admit I don't give a shit what people 200 years ago wanted)

I don't think we agree. I do not see paranoia in fearing tyranny, where you obviously do, and I don't understand why you are taking issue with the contrast between Jefferson and Obama when it is self-evident that they had completely different ideas about the role of government.

You are hopeless. You will ague anything even when its proven completely wrong.

He's been like this as long as I've been here. Some people just view admitting an error as a weakness and absolutely, categorically will not do so, no matter how ridiculous they make themselves look in the process.

This one is particularly silly because the claim has absolutely no merit and all of the evidence shows that these men most certainly did believe in a creator of one sort or another. For crying out loud, it's all over the Declaration of Independence. So, instead of supporting his obviously ludicrous claim, he just lashes out with childish insults.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think we agree. I do not see paranoia in fearing tyranny, where you obviously do, and I don't understand why you are taking issue with the contrast between Jefferson and Obama when it is self-evident that they had completely different ideas about the role of government.

This is incorrect. I absolutely see virtue in fearing tyranny, but not all situations merit the belief that tyranny is imminent. I thought that was clear from what I've written before. If you believe that Jefferson was saying that tyranny was always imminent, then Obama clearly is correct here. I personally believe that both statements are correct.

As for the role of government, that's at best a tangential issue.

 

[xBiffx]

What's been proven? You haven't proven anything.

The Founding Father's weren't agnostic because:

1. They believed in God.
2. As Charles told you, agnostic wasn't even a term until well after the Founding Fathers were around.

You have proven nothing except that you continue to display a great deal of ignorance towards subject that you either hate or disagree with. Fact of the matter is, the Founding Fathers believed in God, a higher authority. Those beliefs are ingrained into the founding documents and ideals of this country. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it fact.

I pointed out that they were most likely desist. You then try to conflate that with agnosticism. Wrong. Then you claim that somehow I called them Christians. Wrong. Now again you are conflating Theistic rationalism with agnosticism. Wrong again. Theistic rationalism is still a form of religion. It also still acknowledges the belief in God. Also, this term wasn't around until well after the Founding Fathers (1860s).

You sir, are wrong. But I doubt you will ever admit it.

 

[kage69]

What's funny is that those who clothe themselves in the Founding Fathers when waxing patriotic about guns can't run away from the Founding Fathers fast enough when the subject changes to Christianity and/or religion in general.

I've been making that remark to my outspoken religious partisan friends since college, and oddly enough I've always received weak non-answers just like you did!

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[zsdersw]

This one is particularly silly because the claim has absolutely no merit and all of the evidence shows that these men most certainly did believe in a creator of one sort or another. For crying out loud, it's all over the Declaration of Independence. So, instead of supporting his obviously ludicrous claim, he just lashes out with childish insults.

Thomas Paine was agnostic about some things, including the immortality of the soul:

I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it, in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body; and it appears more probable to me that I shall continue to exist hereafter than that I should have had existence, as I now have, before that existence began.

 

[kage69]

Oh is Jefferson back in favor with the right now? Or is this more pick and choose where Jefferson's position on separation of church and state doesn't matter?

 

[zsdersw]

The Founding Father's weren't agnostic because:

1. They believed in God.
2. As Charles told you, agnostic wasn't even a term until well after the Founding Fathers were around.

You have proven nothing except that you continue to display a great deal of ignorance towards subject that you either hate or disagree with. Fact of the matter is, the Founding Fathers believed in God, a higher authority. Those beliefs are ingrained into the founding documents and ideals of this country. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it fact.

Believing in God was not ingrained into the founding of the country. The country was founded and based on the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.

I pointed out that they were most likely desist. You then try to conflate that with agnosticism. Wrong. Then you claim that somehow I called them Christians. Wrong. Now again you are conflating Theistic rationalism with agnosticism. Wrong again. Theistic rationalism is still a form of religion. It also still acknowledges the belief in God. Also, this term wasn't around until well after the Founding Fathers (1860s).

You sir, are wrong. But I doubt you will ever admit it.

Rationalism is the dominant element in "theistic rationalism". Rationalism contends that reason and logic are the sources of knowledge... and agnosticism contends that some things are not (yet) knowable. Immanuel Kant distilled rationalism, especially about the existence of God, immortality, and free will into what we would later call agnosticism.

 

[xBiffx]

homas Paine was agnostic about some things, including the immortality of the soul:

Again that's not agnosticism, that's deism. Agnostics don't acknowledge the existence of God/a higher power. Deist don't believe that God/a higher has any influence on the natural world. Things happen according to a natural order/law. This is exactly what Paine was saying.

Someday you will figure out what Agnosticism is. Today isn't looking good.

 

[xBiffx]

Believing in God was not ingrained into the founding of the country. The country was founded and based on the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.

Wrong. The country was founded on the Declaration. It is defined by the Constitution. And where do those unalienable rights come from in the Constitution?

Rationalism is the dominant element in "theistic rationalism".

Rationalism contends that reason and logic are the sources of knowledge... and agnosticism contends that some things are not (yet) knowable. Immanuel Kant distilled rationalism, especially about the existence of God, immortality, and free will into what we would later call agnosticism.

Completely wrong. Rationalism revers to the combination of beliefs, some come from religion (Christianity), others are from the belief in natural order/law. It is the believe in the coexistence of God with natural law. Unlike Deism, though, theistic rationalism believes that God does influence man along with nature.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about. But you, no doubt, will continue to argue a point which is wrong.

 

[zsdersw]

Again that's not agnosticism, that's deism. Agnostics don't acknowledge the existence of God/a higher power. Deist don't believe that God/a higher has any influence on the natural world. Things happen according to a natural order/law. This is exactly what Paine was saying.

Someday you will figure out what Agnosticism is. Today isn't looking good.

Actually, it's more agnostic theism.

 

[xBiffx]

Actually, it's more agnostic theism.

Wow. You have to be trolling now.

Let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

In your case though, you could drop the Oxy.

If not trolling, keep typing yourself into that hole of idiocy you've dug.

 

[BoberFett]

Not really the same context, hmm?

And LOL @ the idea that gun ownership causes any fear in the government. Angry voters and powerful lobbies, now, that's what does it.

Yeah, I'm sure they're in terrible fear of voters. What's the rate of incumbency again? We're pissed off at congress, but we keep voting for the same people over and over and over and over and over...

 

[zsdersw]

Wrong. The country was founded on the Declaration. It is defined by the Constitution. And where do those unalienable rights come from in the Constitution?

The Declaration announced and explained separation from England. The Constitution is what founded the United States of America.

Unalienable rights are natural rights. As for the "creator", it is up to the personal beliefs of the reader to decide if that creator is nature or a higher intelligence/power/being of some kind.

Completely wrong. Rationalism revers to the combination of beliefs, some come from religion (Christianity), others are from the belief in natural order/law. It is the believe in the coexistence of God with natural law. Unlike Deism, though, theistic rationalism believes that God does influence man along with nature.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about. But you, no doubt, will continue to argue a point which is wrong.

Completely right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_rationalism

Theistic rationalism is a hybrid of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, in which rationalism is the predominant element.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

In more technical terms, it is a method or a theory "in which [n]the criterion of the truth[/b] is not sensory but intellectual and deductive"

As for Kant and rationalism/agnosticism:

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnosticism-faq.htm

Immanuel Kant’s philosophy was greatly influenced by Hume. Kant attempted to merge the ideas of rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism held that there is certain innate knowledge within everyone. On the contrary, empiricism maintained that we are born as blank slates, and all knowledge is gained by experience. Kant concluded by pulling together the merits of both sides. The content of knowledge came by experience (as the empiricists contended), but the structure or form of knowledge is developed in the mind (as the rationalists held).

This “solution” resulted in agnosticism for Kant. If one cannot know anything without experience through the senses, and if that sensed knowledge can only be structured in our minds by innate categories, then we can only know things as they are to us. We can never know reality as it actually is. Our reference point is always ourselves and not the things themselves. There is a gap between appearance to us and reality. Kant’s conclusion was agnosticism about reality and God.

 

[zsdersw]

Wow. You have to be trolling now.

Let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

In your case though, you could drop the Oxy.

If not trolling, keep typing yourself into that hole of idiocy you've dug.

Saying I'm trolling with a troll post yourself... nice. And you claim I'm the idiot?

 

[xBiffx]

The Declaration announced and explained separation from England. The Constitution is what founded the United States of America.

Unalienable rights are natural rights. As for the "creator", it is up to the personal beliefs of the reader to decide if that creator is nature or a higher intelligence/power/being of some kind.



Completely right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_rationalism

Theistic rationalism is a hybrid of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, in which rationalism is the predominant element.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

In more technical terms, it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive"

You are completely hopeless. Wiki isn't going to save you either.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I absolutely see virtue in fearing tyranny, but not all situations merit the belief that tyranny is imminent. I thought that was clear from what I've written before. If you believe that Jefferson was saying that tyranny was always imminent, then Obama clearly is correct here. I personally believe that both statements are correct.

Your posts in this thread greatly confuse me. First, you keep adding things to what Obama said that weren't there; first it was "paranoid", and now it's "imminent". Why are you drawing a distinction between fear of tyranny and immediacy of that fear? I don't get it. Jefferson didn't say or imply anything like that either.

Thomas Paine was agnostic about some things, including the immortality of the soul:

This is a remarkably weak argument.

First, you made a blanket statement about all the founding fathers, so cherry-picking one person is not too helpful.

Second, if you were going to pick one person, Paine is not a good choice as he's not representative, and only a founding father in the broadest sense of that term.

Third, Thomas Paine was not an agnostic. An agnostic does not title the first chapter of one of his most important books "The Author's Profession of Faith". An agnostic does not then write in that chapter: "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life".

Anyone who reads The Age of Reason can see quite clearly that Paine was no agnostic.

Fourth, even the quote you yourself provided shows that Paine is not an agnostic! Right in there he talks about "the power that gave [him] existence". And what is that power? It's laid out in the three paragraphs before the one you quoted. Here's your quote in context:

HAVING now extended the subject to a greater length than I first intended, I shall bring it to a close by abstracting a summary from the whole.

First, That the idea or belief of a word of God existing in print, or in writing, or in speech, is inconsistent in itself for the reasons already assigned. These reasons, among many others, are the want of an universal language; the mutability of language; the errors to which translations are subject, the possibility of totally suppressing such a word; the probability of altering it, or of fabricating the whole, and imposing it upon the world.

Secondly, That the Creation we behold is the real and ever existing word of God, in which we cannot be deceived. It proclaimeth his power, it demonstrates his wisdom, it manifests his goodness and beneficence.

Thirdly, That the moral duty of man consists in imitating the moral goodness and beneficence of God manifested in the creation towards all his creatures. That seeing as we daily do the goodness of God to all men, it is an example calling upon all men to practise the same towards each other; and, consequently, that every thing of persecution and revenge between man and man, and every thing of cruelty to animals, is a violation of moral duty.

I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it, in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body; and it appears more probable to me that I shall continue to exist hereafter than that I should have had existence, as I now have, before that existence began.

Agnostics do not say "the Creation we behold is the real and ever existing word of God, in which we cannot be deceived. It proclaimeth his power, it demonstrates his wisdom, it manifests his goodness and beneficence." LOL.

 

[zsdersw]

You are completely hopeless. Wiki isn't going to save you either.

Everything I've said about theistic rationalism, rationalism, and the distilling of rationalism into agnosticism that Kant did is referenced.

Your claim of me being "completely hopeless" is not.

 

[zsdersw]

This is a remarkably weak argument.

First, you made a blanket statement about all the founding fathers, so cherry-picking one person is not too helpful.

Second, if you were going to pick one person, Paine is not a good choice as he's not representative, and only a founding father in the broadest sense of that term.

Third, Thomas Paine was not an agnostic. An agnostic does not title the first chapter of one of his most important books "The Author's Profession of Faith". An agnostic does not then write in that chapter: "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life".

Anyone who reads The Age of Reason can see quite clearly that Paine was no agnostic.

Fourth, even the quote you yourself provided shows that Paine is not an agnostic! Right in there he talks about "the power that gave [him] existence". And what is that power? It's laid out in the three paragraphs before the one you quoted. Here's your quote in context:

Agnostics do not say "the Creation we behold is the real and ever existing word of God, in which we cannot be deceived. It proclaimeth his power, it demonstrates his wisdom, it manifests his goodness and beneficence." LOL.

Then there's an error in Wikipedia (shocking, I know): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

 

[zsdersw]

I've been making that remark to my outspoken religious partisan friends since college, and oddly enough I've always received weak non-answers just like you did!

Yeah, the essential truth of what I said:

What's funny is that those who clothe themselves in the Founding Fathers when waxing patriotic about guns can't run away from the Founding Fathers fast enough when the subject changes to Christianity and/or religion in general.

... has definitely been lost in this thread. Biff chose to whine about me bringing up religion rather than acknowledge it.

 

[fskimospy]

Your posts in this thread greatly confuse me. First, you keep adding things to what Obama said that weren't there; first it was "paranoid", and now it's "imminent". Why are you drawing a distinction between fear of tyranny and immediacy of that fear? I don't get it. Jefferson didn't say or imply anything like that either.

What's not to get? 'Just around the corner' means 'imminent', at least to me. What do you take 'just around the corner' to mean? As for paranoid people, that was the clear implication of Obama's passage.

Overall though, you seem to be agreeing with me again. My entire point from the beginning was that they were talking about two different things. Obama talked about how people who always say that tyranny is imminent should be ignored, while Jefferson was making a more general statement about the position of the people vs. government. I believe both to be correct. You appeared to be claiming that the two statements were in conflict, and the only way I could see that being the case was if you believed Jefferson always believed tyranny to be imminent.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Then there's an error in Wikipedia (shocking, I know): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

"Agnostic" is used in a general sense to refer to religion, and a specific sense to refer to particular issues. Being agnostic about a particular issue doesn't make you an agnostic in general. People who don't care about Intel vs. AMD are sometimes called "platform agnostic".

What's not to get? 'Just around the corner' means 'imminent', at least to me. What do you take 'just around the corner' to mean?

I read it as something to vigilant about, but not necessarily imminent.

As for paranoid people, that was the clear implication of Obama's passage.

But that's my point -- Obama thinks it's unreasonable to fear government, whereas people like Jefferson did not.

Obama talked about how people who always say that tyranny is imminent should be ignored, while Jefferson was making a more general statement about the position of the people vs. government. I believe both to be correct. You appeared to be claiming that the two statements were in conflict, and the only way I could see that being the case was if you believed Jefferson always believed tyranny to be imminent.

You keep saying "correct", which doesn't really apply here. It implies there's something to be correct about, when this is just a matter of how one views things.

I think the conflict is rather plain in the two men's quotes. Obama was deriding people who believe what Jefferson did.

 

[fskimospy]

I read it as something to vigilant about, but not necessarily imminent.

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.

But that's my point -- Obama thinks it's unreasonable to fear government, whereas people like Jefferson did not.

You agreed in your first reply that this was untrue. Nothing in Obama's quote says it is unreasonable to fear government, only that it is unreasonable to fear imminent tyranny at all times. Saying that Obama believes it is unreasonable to fear government not only contradicts your previous point, but is a straw man.

You keep saying "correct", which doesn't really apply here. It implies there's something to be correct about, when this is just a matter of how one views things.

I think the conflict is rather plain in the two men's quotes. Obama was deriding people who believe what Jefferson did.

Once again, only if you believed that Jefferson believed tyranny to be just around the corner at all times. Then they would be in conflict. As for what is correct or not, I think that the belief that we are always under threat from imminent tyranny is unhinged, and I view that position to be wrong.

 

[zsdersw]

"Agnostic" is used in a general sense to refer to religion, and a specific sense to refer to particular issues. Being agnostic about a particular issue doesn't make you an agnostic in general. People who don't care about Intel vs. AMD are sometimes called "platform agnostic".

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