AMERICA: A Christian Nation?

[Morr]

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?

You think human beings have souls?

Walking sticks are not one-dimensional.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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?

You think human beings have souls?

Walking sticks are not one-dimensional.

Why would I not believe human beings have souls?

What I meant was that you seem to make the assumption (erroneously) that humans have no depth and no variance like walking sticks. Humans cannot be constrained in stupid analogies such as that of a stick because they don't apply.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

So in that case we can both agree that a perfect child is a child whose parents see no error in judgement relative to the parents' judgement of the actions of the child?

[Morr]

You think human beings have souls?

Walking sticks are not one-dimensional.

Why would I not believe human beings have souls?

What I meant was that you seem to make the assumption (erroneously) that humans have no depth and no variance like walking sticks. Humans cannot be constrained in stupid analogies such as that of a stick because they don't apply.

I'm asking if you do, because it is very pertinent to this discussion, as your methodology for defining people is tremendously different from defining anything else...not merely you definition of people, but the very methodology of defining them. I'm also inclined to ask if you think there is a God, since you say that things (other than humans) should be defined by the intent of their creator. And if do think there is a God, do you think our definitions of things which are non-human or created by humans, come directly from this God?

[Morr]

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

So in that case we can both agree that a perfect child is a child whose parents see no error in judgement relative to the parents' judgement of the actions of the child?

Yes.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why would I not believe human beings have souls?

What I meant was that you seem to make the assumption (erroneously) that humans have no depth and no variance like walking sticks. Humans cannot be constrained in stupid analogies such as that of a stick because they don't apply.

I'm asking if you do, because it is very pertinent to this discussion, as your methodology for defining people is tremendously different from defining anything else. I'm also inclined to ask if you think there is a God, since you say that things (other than humans) should be defined by the intent of their creator. And if do think there is a God, do you think our definitions of things which are non-human or created by humans, come directly from this God?

Ah, I'm terribly sorry I can think situationally instead of absolutely. I had no idea situational logic would be so hard to comprehend.

things should be defined by their intent of their creator. You asked about a walking stick. A walking stick is something that humans have created as a walking aid. We made the thing. The definitions of things which are created by humans proceed from humans themselves. The belief that God created us with a purpose and we define ourselves as having a soul because we believe that's how God made us and we have a purpose as God intended us to have doesn't necessarily translate to God actually having influence on how we as humans define language and how we define things we have created.

[Morr]

I'm asking if you do, because it is very pertinent to this discussion, as your methodology for defining people is tremendously different from defining anything else. I'm also inclined to ask if you think there is a God, since you say that things (other than humans) should be defined by the intent of their creator. And if do think there is a God, do you think our definitions of things which are non-human or created by humans, come directly from this God?

Ah, I'm terribly sorry I can think situationally instead of absolutely. I had no idea situational logic would be so hard to comprehend.

things should be defined by their intent of their creator. You asked about a walking stick. A walking stick is something that humans have created as a walking aid. We made the thing. The definitions of things which are created by humans proceed from humans themselves. The fact that God created us with a purpose and we define ourselves as having a soul because we believe that's how God made us and we have a purpose as God intended us to have doesn't necessarily translate to God actually having influence on how we as humans define language and how we define things we have created.

But you believe things should be defined by the intent of their creator? And therefore the closer a definition is to God's intent, the more perfect it is?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But you believe things should be defined by the intent of their creator? And therefore the closer a definition is to God's intent, the more perfect it is?

Quite.

When it comes to God, this only relegates itself with the things God created; not to the things we made after.

[Morr]

But you believe things should be defined by the intent of their creator? And therefore the closer a definition is to God's intent, the more perfect it is?

Quite.

When it comes to God, this only relegates itself with the things God created; not to the things we made after.

Then you are a philosophical essentialist, yes? Except for humans, in which case you are an existentialist?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Quite.

When it comes to God, this only relegates itself with the things God created; not to the things we made after.

Then you are a philosophical essentialist, yes? Except for humans, in which case you are an existentialist?

Yes.

[Morr]

Then you are a philosophical essentialist, yes? Except for humans, in which case you are an existentialist?

Yes.

Then since you consider material praxis to be utterly irrelevant in the delineation of reality, and instead ascribe 100% of delineation to the ideas of God and soul, are you a subjective idealist?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes.

Then since you consider material praxis to be utterly irrelevant in the delineation of reality, and instead ascribe 100% of delineation to the ideas of God and soul, are you a subjective idealist?

You could say that, but that's boxing me in a very narrow spot with my philosophy.

[Morr]

Then since you consider material praxis to be utterly irrelevant in the delineation of reality, and instead ascribe 100% of delineation to the ideas of God and soul, are you a subjective idealist?

You could say that, but that's boxing me in a very narrow spot with my philosophy.

I think that is the purpose of definition, but you have the prerogative to redefine your platform.

Now I must ask: if the ideas of souls and God are all that is relevant, then a soul creates naught but an idea. So if someone creates the idea of a walking stick, and I create the idea of a club in its place, why is my idea not pertinent? I did not create any less than the original creator did. To use a materialist parallel: if someone carves a chair out of a wood, and I carve a rosary out of the chair, is my rosary not a rosary because the chair made prior use of the wood?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You could say that, but that's boxing me in a very narrow spot with my philosophy.

I think that is the purpose of definition, but you have the prerogative to redefine your platform.

Now I must ask: if the ideas of souls and God are all that is relevant, then a soul creates naught but an idea. So if someone creates the idea of a walking stick, and I create the idea of a club in its place, why is my idea not pertinent? I did not create any less than the original creator did. To use a materialist parallel: if someone carves a chair out of a wood, and I carve a rosary out of the chair, is my rosary not a rosary because the chair made prior use of the wood?

See, you are confusing the two.

If someone calls something a walking stick and you call it a club, but the other person is the creator of the walking stick, then your idea is not pertinent because your definition is not authoritative. Language is used to give definition and meaning to things.

If someone carves a chair out of a piece of wood, and then your decide to carve a rosary out of the chair it is still called a rosary because if you define it as such. Language is simply a layer which we use to interpret the world around us which we have created. The rosary is a rosary because you as the creator are using a word to define what you have just created out of the chair which is made out of a piece of wood.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

A nation of Christians, but not run by their bible.

[The Archregimancy]

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.

In NSG, I've only ever seen atheists make the argument.

Here's one example of an atheist attempting to appropriate both deists and pantheists.

See also this exchange from May 2013, which bears some similarity to the discussion in the current thread.

The second link and the present thread perhaps only goes to show the extent to which people are willing to go to appropriate the USA's 'founding fathers' to their worldview, but I've never seen an NSG Christian make the same argument about deism - though I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong here. It's not as if I can keep up with every thread.

[Geanna]

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".

Welcome to the woes of uneducated thinking...

[Geanna]

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.

In NSG, I've only ever seen atheists make the argument.

Here's one example of an atheist attempting to appropriate both deists and pantheists.

See also this exchange from May 2013, which bears some similarity to the discussion in the current thread.

The second link and the present thread perhaps only goes to show the extent to which people are willing to go to appropriate the USA's 'founding fathers' to their worldview, but I've never seen an NSG Christian make the same argument about deism - though I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong here. It's not as if I can keep up with every thread.

I'm inclined to agree - I've seen more atheists make the argument than theists. It's somewhat disheartening if not a bit unsettling, I'd imagine, as you said - shifting the fathers to their worldview would be an apt application. Somewhat like a jab at the theists, ''FOUNDING FATHERS WERE CLOSET ATHEISTS THEREFORE MURICA=ATHEISM'' - I'd sum it up to uneducated swabble in reality, or a malperceived view. Founding fathers were deists not atheists - we've not the common courtesy to give the horse a rest, it's been beaten to the point of finely pressed powder.

Them being deists, does not negate the fact that the United States' Government is, and is meant to remain a secular entity, absent of religious influence or power-sharing within the confines of its borders and respective legislation. People can make the argument either way, but god forbid we use rationalism to really understand that we can't go either way with it even if we wanted to.

[Neutraligon]

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.

In NSG, I've only ever seen atheists make the argument.

Here's one example of an atheist attempting to appropriate both deists and pantheists.

See also this exchange from May 2013, which bears some similarity to the discussion in the current thread.

The second link and the present thread perhaps only goes to show the extent to which people are willing to go to appropriate the USA's 'founding fathers' to their worldview, but I've never seen an NSG Christian make the same argument about deism - though I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong here. It's not as if I can keep up with every thread.

No thanks, deism is not atheism and I don't plan on pretending it is. Same for pantheism.

[The Archregimancy]

In NSG, I've only ever seen atheists make the argument.

Here's one example of an atheist attempting to appropriate both deists and pantheists.

See also this exchange from May 2013, which bears some similarity to the discussion in the current thread.

The second link and the present thread perhaps only goes to show the extent to which people are willing to go to appropriate the USA's 'founding fathers' to their worldview, but I've never seen an NSG Christian make the same argument about deism - though I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong here. It's not as if I can keep up with every thread.

No thanks, deism is not atheism and I don't plan on pretending it is. Same for pantheism.

That strikes me a slightly odd reply to my post; perhaps you misunderstood me?

I think everyone currently posting in the thread, except Morr, is agreeing with us that deism and atheism aren't the same thing, functionally or otherwise.

However, given that Norstal was of the opinion that Christians argue that deism and atheism are the same more often than atheists do, I noted some examples of the small subset (and it's important to re-stress my initial observation from a couple of posts back that it is only a very small subset) of NSG atheists who've made that same argument in the past, and invited him to offer some examples of NSG Christians making the argument since I acknowledge I can't read every thread, and my sample may not be representative.

Nothing more controversial than that.

[Neutraligon]

No thanks, deism is not atheism and I don't plan on pretending it is. Same for pantheism.

That strikes me a slightly odd reply to my post; perhaps you misunderstood me?

I think everyone currently posting in the thread, except Morr, is agreeing with us that deism and atheism aren't the same thing, functionally or otherwise.

However, given that Norstal was of the opinion that Christians argue that deism and atheism are the same more often than atheists do, I noted some examples of the small subset (and it's important to re-stress my initial observation from a couple of posts back that it is only a very small subset) of NSG atheists who've made that same argument in the past, and invited him to offer some examples of NSG Christians making the argument since I acknowledge I can't read every thread, and my sample may not be representative.

Nothing more controversial than that.

I was agreeing with you with the little addition that I wold not want to count either of those two as atheism, since it makes the word atheist meaningless.

[Geanna]

That strikes me a slightly odd reply to my post; perhaps you misunderstood me?

I think everyone currently posting in the thread, except Morr, is agreeing with us that deism and atheism aren't the same thing, functionally or otherwise.

However, given that Norstal was of the opinion that Christians argue that deism and atheism are the same more often than atheists do, I noted some examples of the small subset (and it's important to re-stress my initial observation from a couple of posts back that it is only a very small subset) of NSG atheists who've made that same argument in the past, and invited him to offer some examples of NSG Christians making the argument since I acknowledge I can't read every thread, and my sample may not be representative.

Nothing more controversial than that.

I was agreeing with you with the little addition that I wold not want to count either of those two as atheism, since it makes the word atheist meaningless.

Might be best to bold what you're adressing next time to avoid miscommunication.

[Morr]

I think that is the purpose of definition, but you have the prerogative to redefine your platform.

Now I must ask: if the ideas of souls and God are all that is relevant, then a soul creates naught but an idea. So if someone creates the idea of a walking stick, and I create the idea of a club in its place, why is my idea not pertinent? I did not create any less than the original creator did. To use a materialist parallel: if someone carves a chair out of a wood, and I carve a rosary out of the chair, is my rosary not a rosary because the chair made prior use of the wood?

See, you are confusing the two.

If someone calls something a walking stick and you call it a club, but the other person is the creator of the walking stick, then your idea is not pertinent because your definition is not authoritative. Language is used to give definition and meaning to things.

If someone carves a chair out of a piece of wood, and then your decide to carve a rosary out of the chair it is still called a rosary because if you define it as such. Language is simply a layer which we use to interpret the world around us which we have created. The rosary is a rosary because you as the creator are using a word to define what you have just created out of the chair which is made out of a piece of wood.

The person is the creator of [the idea of] the walking stick, the other person is the creator of [the idea of] the club. If you subscribe to subjective idealism, then there is no distinction between creating an idea and creating a thing. Making a rosary out of a chair is same process as making a club out of walking stick, because "walking stick" is simply the idea of a walking stick, and "club" is simply an idea of a club. You'd have to contend that some ideas are less real than other ideas, but without any meta-idea reality that we can reference as yardstick to gauge the realness of an idea, you have no precedent to due this.

[The Archregimancy]

I was agreeing with you with the little addition that I wold not want to count either of those two as atheism, since it makes the word atheist meaningless.

Ah well; just a minor misunderstanding, then. No harm done.

[Morr]

No thanks, deism is not atheism and I don't plan on pretending it is. Same for pantheism.

That strikes me a slightly odd reply to my post; perhaps you misunderstood me?

I think everyone currently posting in the thread, except Morr, is agreeing with us that deism and atheism aren't the same thing, functionally or otherwise.

However, given that Norstal was of the opinion that Christians argue that deism and atheism are the same more often than atheists do, I noted some examples of the small subset (and it's important to re-stress my initial observation from a couple of posts back that it is only a very small subset) of NSG atheists who've made that same argument in the past, and invited him to offer some examples of NSG Christians making the argument since I acknowledge I can't read every thread, and my sample may not be representative.

Nothing more controversial than that.

I agree with this, that (at least American) atheists tend to make the argument more than Christians do as a result of the cultural veneration of the Founding Fathers, the motive of this assertion probably being to impose a closer ideological kinship than Christians supposedly have upon icons in order to bolster one's corner of the ring.