AMERICA: A Christian Nation?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm always amused by this apparent need on the part of a small subset of atheists to argue that 18th-century deists were actually atheists in disguise.

Really? More Christians argue this than atheists do. Probably because atheists are sick and tired of having to explain what atheism is so much they'd know the difference.

To be fair, as someone who holds a somewhat deistic belief in God this is irritating as all fuck to explain the difference to religious people who think deists are just "atheists in drag".

[Morr]

I'm saying that deism in government would be effectively the same as having an atheist government. It would mean the government's official position is that there is no afterlife, that there is no intervening God, and that prayers are pointless apart from placebo. It would officially recognize God as creating the universe, but from my perspective, it would nonetheless be an effectively atheist government in ways that a secular government is not.

that is the difference right there. An atheist does not hold that belief.

Who cares? Part of deist doctrine is that the belief is irrelevant to anything but abstract sophism totally detached from life.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

that is the difference right there. An atheist does not hold that belief.

Who cares? Part of deist doctrine is that the belief is irrelevant to anything but abstract sophism totally detached from life.

No it isn't.

In my case I just don't think a deity which Christians claim to be so absolutely perfect that we cannot even imagine it can create an imperfect universe in which he has to intervene.

That's logically inconsistent with what perfection is. Either he is so perfect he created a perfect universe or he is so imperfect he has to intervene in the fabric of the universe. A perfect being doesn't do imperfect things.

[Norstal]

Really? More Christians argue this than atheists do. Probably because atheists are sick and tired of having to explain what atheism is so much they'd know the difference.

To be fair, as someone who holds a somewhat deistic belief in God this is irritating as all fuck to explain the difference to religious people who think deists are just "atheists in drag".

The Christians I know keeps accusing anyone, including other Christians, who doesn't go to church regularly as atheist.

Anecdotal I know, but it's just irritating to me as well.

[Morr]

I'm talking about individual substance, not about God's substance.

I just described to you that non-interventionism =/= rejection.

Does that mean that if the United States takes a non-interventionist policy that the United States doesn't exist?

You statement doesn't logically proceed from the question, so I will rephrase it: do you, or do you not, consider praxis relevant in the definition of something's being? You are coming from an unusual angle here if you are a philosophical materialist and an atheist, because you're defining what something is based on a crypto-soul. If, for instance, I use what is nominally a walking stick to hit someone over the head, is it improper to call that walking stick a club?

[Morr]

Who cares? Part of deist doctrine is that the belief is irrelevant to anything but abstract sophism totally detached from life.

No it isn't.

In my case I just don't think a deity which Christians claim to be so absolutely perfect that we cannot even imagine it can create an imperfect universe in which he has to intervene.

That's logically inconsistent with what perfection is. Either he is so perfect he created a perfect universe or he is so imperfect he has to intervene in the fabric of the universe. A perfect being doesn't do imperfect things.

So you think that a perfect God is incompatible with human agency, yes?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I just described to you that non-interventionism =/= rejection.

Does that mean that if the United States takes a non-interventionist policy that the United States doesn't exist?

You statement doesn't logically proceed from the question, so I will rephrase it: do you, or do you not, consider praxis relevant in the definition of something's being? You are coming from an unusual angle here if you are a philosophical materialist and an atheist, because you're defining what something is based on a crypto-soul. If, for instance, I use what is nominally a walking stick to hit someone over the head, is it improper to call that walking stick a club?

In your example yes, it would be improper to call the walking stick a club because we have a word for it, it is a walking stick, not a club.

Words have meanings. What you are doing is saying we should call a walking stick a club because I hit someone with it over the head. That's not how language works.

[Morr]

You statement doesn't logically proceed from the question, so I will rephrase it: do you, or do you not, consider praxis relevant in the definition of something's being? You are coming from an unusual angle here if you are a philosophical materialist and an atheist, because you're defining what something is based on a crypto-soul. If, for instance, I use what is nominally a walking stick to hit someone over the head, is it improper to call that walking stick a club?

In your example yes, it would be improper to call the walking stick a club because we have a word for it, it is a walking stick, not a club.

Words have meanings. What you are doing is saying we should call a walking stick a club because I hit someone with it over the head. That's not how language works.

What if I use it for nothing but hitting people over the head?

[Norstal]

I just described to you that non-interventionism =/= rejection.

Does that mean that if the United States takes a non-interventionist policy that the United States doesn't exist?

You statement doesn't logically proceed from the question, so I will rephrase it: do you, or do you not, consider praxis relevant in the definition of something's being? You are coming from an unusual angle here if you are a philosophical materialist and an atheist, because you're defining what something is based on a crypto-soul. If, for instance, I use what is nominally a walking stick to hit someone over the head, is it improper to call that walking stick a club?

No because it's still a walking stick even if you used it as a club. If I used a bow to shoot someone, does that bow become a gun? Nonsense. What do you call in your world then? A "shooter?"

What if I use it for nothing but hitting people over the head?

It's still a walking stick.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No it isn't.

In my case I just don't think a deity which Christians claim to be so absolutely perfect that we cannot even imagine it can create an imperfect universe in which he has to intervene.

That's logically inconsistent with what perfection is. Either he is so perfect he created a perfect universe or he is so imperfect he has to intervene in the fabric of the universe. A perfect being doesn't do imperfect things.

So you think that a perfect God is incompatible with human agency, yes?

Quite. A perfect God who is omnipotent, omnisapient, and omnipresent cannot make a universe in which he already knows he has to intervene. That, to me, is not perfection.

If he knows he has to intervene then he himself is already admitting his flaws as a supreme being, if he admits his flaws then he is not omnipotent, and if he is not omnipotent then he cannot be omnisapient because he doesn't know what his flaws might come about.

A perfect being like Christianity presupposes has to be, by necessity, a contingency planner as well as an absolutely perfect creator.

[Morr]

No because it's still a walking stick even if you used it as a club. If I used a bow to shoot someone, does that bow become a gun? Nonsense. What do you call in your world then? A "shooter?"

If you rig the bow to shoot bullets using gas compression of exploding gunpowder, it would be fair to call it a gun.

It's still a walking stick.

Please define "walking stick".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

In your example yes, it would be improper to call the walking stick a club because we have a word for it, it is a walking stick, not a club.

Words have meanings. What you are doing is saying we should call a walking stick a club because I hit someone with it over the head. That's not how language works.

What if I use it for nothing but hitting people over the head?

It is still a walking stick even if you are using it as a club.

[Morr]

So you think that a perfect God is incompatible with human agency, yes?

Quite. A perfect God who is omnipotent, omnisapient, and omnipresent cannot make a universe in which he already knows he has to intervene. That, to me, is not perfection.

If he knows he has to intervene then he himself is already admitting his flaws as a supreme being, if he admits his flaws then he is not omnipotent, and if he is not omnipotent then he cannot be omnisapient because he doesn't know what his flaws might come about.

A perfect being like Christianity presupposes has to be, by necessity, a contingency planner as well as an absolutely perfect creator.

Would you say that it would be a flaw for a parent to allow her children to make mistakes?

[Morr]

What if I use it for nothing but hitting people over the head?

It is still a walking stick even if you are using it as a club.

Please define "walking stick".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It is still a walking stick even if you are using it as a club.

Please define "walking stick".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Quite. A perfect God who is omnipotent, omnisapient, and omnipresent cannot make a universe in which he already knows he has to intervene. That, to me, is not perfection.

If he knows he has to intervene then he himself is already admitting his flaws as a supreme being, if he admits his flaws then he is not omnipotent, and if he is not omnipotent then he cannot be omnisapient because he doesn't know what his flaws might come about.

A perfect being like Christianity presupposes has to be, by necessity, a contingency planner as well as an absolutely perfect creator.

Would you say that it would be a flaw for a parent to allow her children to make mistakes?

If the parent is omnipotent, omnisapient, and omnipresent? Yes, they should have made their children perfect.

Again, a perfect being doesn't make flawed creations.

[Morr]

Please define "walking stick".

You seem to have difficulty with abstract thought. Are you suggesting that this picture defines "walking stick", and that and only that which strictly adheres to this representation is a walking stick?

[Morr]

Would you say that it would be a flaw for a parent to allow her children to make mistakes?

If the parent is omnipotent, omnisapient, and omnipresent? Yes, they should have made their children perfect.

Again, a perfect being doesn't make flawed creations.

What is a "perfect child"?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

(Image)

You seem to have difficulty with abstract thought. Are you suggesting that this picture defines "walking stick", and that and only that which strictly adheres to this representation is a walking stick?

And you seem to want to be pedantic as fuck.

A walking stick has a form which is meant to be used as a walking instrument. A club doesn't, a club has a rough shape meant to hit someone, sometimes it can even be shaped in a way that resembles a bat, but the primary form it takes is that of actually being used as a weapon, not as a walking instrument.

Form follows function, and function determines its common language. A walking stick has a form which is meant for a specific function, which is a walking instrument. If you just use it to bop people in the head with it that doesn't mean the walking stick is a club now, it simply means you are using a walking stick to hit people.

[Free Tristania]

America is a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers may have been secularists but the power belongs to the people! The American people are Christians! The Marxists are just fabricating the lies to push for an anti-religious agenda. Sooner or later, our Judeo-Christian roots will be lost.

From a European conservative perspective: I wouldn't call America Christian. Their liberal use of violence, their lack of proper healthcare and social care for the many, their abysmal education system, their failing justice system ---- ALL of which are in direct violation of what the Good Book teaches. To see what Conservative politics looks like - and what a Christian nation looks like: look at Bavaria in Germany, look at Austria, Ireland and Switzerland. Even where in those places the importance of the religion is falling - you'd see that the ethics are still very much alive.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If the parent is omnipotent, omnisapient, and omnipresent? Yes, they should have made their children perfect.

Again, a perfect being doesn't make flawed creations.

What is a "perfect child"?

Why don't you do me a favor, instead of asking me to define YOUR words, why don't you define your own.

What is, to you, a child that makes mistakes? What is a mistake?

[Morr]

A walking stick has a form which is meant to be used as a walking instrument.

Now I see we are getting somewhere. So an object is defined by the intent of its creator. Therefore you believe that if parents defined their child as a Christian and created her with that intention, she could never cease to be one?

[Neutraligon]

Please define "walking stick".

Alternative

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Now I see we are getting somewhere. So an object is defined by the intent of its creator. Therefore you believe that if parents defined their child as a Christian and created her with that intention, she could never cease to be one?

How the fuck is a walking stick the same as a human?

Are you assuming humans are one-dimensional beings or are you just pretending to be obtuse?

[Morr]

What is a "perfect child"?

Why don't you do me a favor, instead of asking me to define YOUR words, why don't you define your own.

What is, to you, a child that makes mistakes? What is a mistake?

An error in judgement relative to the person judging the mistake, in this case myself.