[split] Ask a Theist! - Jzyehoshua Q&A
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2013, 10:20 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(06-05-2013 10:11 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  As far as I'm concerned Jefferson was in some ways a lot like me, he didn't think the Catholic church was Christian and didn't even think too highly of organized Christianity, but did think highly of the Bible and revere the Creator. I do not like Calvinism or Catholicism either, in part because both persecuted real Christians like the Anabaptists, killing innocent people for their beliefs contrary to Christianity. Where Jefferson and I diverge somewhat is that he refused to believe in the deity of Christ and didn't like to believe God intervened with miracles like the Bible said, so we do have our differences. However, Jefferson was certainly no atheist or secular as is clear from his legislation, in particular the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is the crowning achievement for the separation of church and state and a secular society. I may not know enough about Jefferson to say with any degree of certainty that he was a deist (although that is what I think is most likely), but I can safely say he was a secularist.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-05-2013, 10:27 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(06-05-2013 10:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 10:11 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  As far as I'm concerned Jefferson was in some ways a lot like me, he didn't think the Catholic church was Christian and didn't even think too highly of organized Christianity, but did think highly of the Bible and revere the Creator. I do not like Calvinism or Catholicism either, in part because both persecuted real Christians like the Anabaptists, killing innocent people for their beliefs contrary to Christianity. Where Jefferson and I diverge somewhat is that he refused to believe in the deity of Christ and didn't like to believe God intervened with miracles like the Bible said, so we do have our differences. However, Jefferson was certainly no atheist or secular as is clear from his legislation, in particular the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is the crowning achievement for the separation of church and state and a secular society. I may not know enough about Jefferson to say with any degree of certainty that he was a deist (although that is what I think is most likely), but I can safely say he was a secularist.

So if you recognize the authoritativeness of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, would you then agree with the following from it?

-It's okay to say a Creator is the source of rights given to man in government legislation.
-It's okay to forbid judges from restricting the faith of others and intruding into the realm of opinion.
-No one should have to publicly fund opinions they don't believe like the theory of evolution.
-Civil rights should not depend on religious opinions any more than opinions on physics or geometry.
-Everyone should be "free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities."

All of that seems pretty clearly stated in the Virginia Statute, though I expect you'll disagree that the theory of evolution is an opinion (which it is).

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(06-05-2013 10:27 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 10:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is the crowning achievement for the separation of church and state and a secular society. I may not know enough about Jefferson to say with any degree of certainty that he was a deist (although that is what I think is most likely), but I can safely say he was a secularist.

So if you recognize the authoritativeness of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, would you then agree with the following from it?

-It's okay to say a Creator is the source of rights given to man in government legislation.
-It's okay to forbid judges from restricting the faith of others and intruding into the realm of opinion.
-No one should have to publicly fund opinions they don't believe like the theory of evolution.
-Civil rights should not depend on religious opinions any more than opinions on physics or geometry.
-Everyone should be "free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities."

All of that seems pretty clearly stated in the Virginia Statute, though I expect you'll disagree that the theory of evolution is an opinion (which it is).

Are you a complete moron, or do you just pretend?

Let me put it this way.
-It's okay to say a Creator is the source of rights given to man in government legislation.
Given the knowledge of the time, why should I expect them not to?

-It's okay to forbid judges from restricting the faith of others and intruding into the realm of opinion.
That would be the basis for the separation of church and state. That someone in a position of government authority can't tell you what religious opinion to have.

-No one should have to publicly fund opinions they don't believe like the theory of evolution.
The scientific theory of evolution is the opinion of science. Which can demonstrate its likelihood as a reality. The public's money doesn't fund the theory of evolution, it funds science. And research on evolution, falls under that category. The reason we don't publicly support ID research, is that it isn't science. The reason we teach Evolution in science classrooms and it is publicly endorsed, is because it is science. The same way that the bible is taught in religion classes in public-funded institutions as well.

-Civil rights should not depend on religious opinions any more than opinions on physics or geometry.
Right, so religious opinions are negligible when considering Civil Rights. No, shit.

"Everyone should be "free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities."
Once again, the basis for separation of church and state and the promotion of free speech. The Westboro Baptist Church has the right to spew forth their nonsense, in the same way the Catholic Church has, in the same way I have.

What are you on about again? Drinking Beverage

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-05-2013, 10:49 AM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2013 10:53 AM by Jzyehoshua.)
RE: Ask a Theist!
(06-05-2013 10:38 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 10:27 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  So if you recognize the authoritativeness of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, would you then agree with the following from it?

-It's okay to say a Creator is the source of rights given to man in government legislation.
-It's okay to forbid judges from restricting the faith of others and intruding into the realm of opinion.
-No one should have to publicly fund opinions they don't believe like the theory of evolution.
-Civil rights should not depend on religious opinions any more than opinions on physics or geometry.
-Everyone should be "free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities."

All of that seems pretty clearly stated in the Virginia Statute, though I expect you'll disagree that the theory of evolution is an opinion (which it is).

Are you a complete moron, or do you just pretend?

Let me put it this way.
-It's okay to say a Creator is the source of rights given to man in government legislation.
Given the knowledge of the time, why should I expect them not to?

-It's okay to forbid judges from restricting the faith of others and intruding into the realm of opinion.
That would be the basis for the separation of church and state. That someone in a position of government authority can't tell you what religious opinion to have.

-No one should have to publicly fund opinions they don't believe like the theory of evolution.
The scientific theory of evolution is the opinion of science. Which can demonstrate its likelihood as a reality. The public's money doesn't fund the theory of evolution, it funds science. And research on evolution, falls under that category. The reason we don't publicly support ID research, is that it isn't science. The reason we teach Evolution in science classrooms and it is publicly endorsed, is because it is science. The same way that the bible is taught in religion classes in public-funded institutions as well.

-Civil rights should not depend on religious opinions any more than opinions on physics or geometry.
Right, so religious opinions are negligible when considering Civil Rights. No, shit.

"Everyone should be "free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities."
Once again, the basis for separation of church and state and the promotion of free speech. The Westboro Baptist Church has the right to spew forth their nonsense, in the same way the Catholic Church has, in the same way I have.

What are you on about again? Drinking Beverage

1. If it was okay to say that then, why not now? What knowledge do you think we have that disproves the existence of a Creator?

2. So why then do judges rule on matters related to religious expression at all? Aren't they restricting the religious freedom of others in some cases?

3. When forced to fund the teaching of evolution in schools, and that God doesn't exist, it's violating the rights of the 46% of Americans who don't believe in evolution at all, and the additional rights of the 32% of Americans who think God guided evolution. (Source: Gallup) Yes, funding scientific research that includes research on evolution is fine so long as competing views like Creationism are likewise funded (which right now they aren't) and that isn't taught as the only alternative in schools (which it is). Doing so is a violation of what Jefferson said on forcing people to fund opinions they don't believe, and a violation of the beliefs of 78% of Americans no less.

4. Yet I hear atheists these days increasingly advocating that Christians shouldn't have the right to vote or run for office because of their opinions, the same sort of religious dictatorship entrenching atheistic religion Jefferson argued against.

5. Westboro I'd argue actually violates the boundaries on free speech since one shouldn't have a right to protest funerals like that. Westboro is a group of lawyers who just protest whatever they can to get people mad then sue for settlements. They just call themselves a church so they can abuse the 1st amendment. Free speech yes, but once that right harms others like slander, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, and protesting funerals in sight of loved ones it's gone too far. Then you're no longer seeking your own religious expression and rights but to harm the rights of others (which is also why I oppose unrestricted abortion on demand).

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(06-05-2013 10:49 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 10:38 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Are you a complete moron, or do you just pretend?

Let me put it this way.
-It's okay to say a Creator is the source of rights given to man in government legislation.
Given the knowledge of the time, why should I expect them not to?

-It's okay to forbid judges from restricting the faith of others and intruding into the realm of opinion.
That would be the basis for the separation of church and state. That someone in a position of government authority can't tell you what religious opinion to have.

-No one should have to publicly fund opinions they don't believe like the theory of evolution.
The scientific theory of evolution is the opinion of science. Which can demonstrate its likelihood as a reality. The public's money doesn't fund the theory of evolution, it funds science. And research on evolution, falls under that category. The reason we don't publicly support ID research, is that it isn't science. The reason we teach Evolution in science classrooms and it is publicly endorsed, is because it is science. The same way that the bible is taught in religion classes in public-funded institutions as well.

-Civil rights should not depend on religious opinions any more than opinions on physics or geometry.
Right, so religious opinions are negligible when considering Civil Rights. No, shit.

"Everyone should be "free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities."
Once again, the basis for separation of church and state and the promotion of free speech. The Westboro Baptist Church has the right to spew forth their nonsense, in the same way the Catholic Church has, in the same way I have.

What are you on about again? Drinking Beverage

1. If it was okay to say that then, why not now? What knowledge do you think we have that disproves the existence of a Creator?

2. So why then do judges rule on matters related to religious expression at all? Aren't they restricting the religious freedom of others in some cases?

3. When forced to fund the teaching of evolution in schools, and that God doesn't exist, it's violating the rights of the 46% of Americans who don't believe in evolution at all, and the additional rights of the 32% of Americans who think God guided evolution. (Source: Gallup) Yes, funding scientific research that includes research on evolution is fine so long as competing views like Creationism are likewise funded (which right now they aren't) and that isn't taught as the only alternative in schools (which it is). Doing so is a violation of what Jefferson said on forcing people to fund opinions they don't believe, and a violation of the beliefs of 78% of Americans no less.

4. Yet I hear atheists these days increasingly advocating that Christians shouldn't have the right to vote or run for office because of their opinions, the same sort of religious dictatorship entrenching atheistic religion Jefferson argued against.

5. Westboro I'd argue actually violates the boundaries on free speech since one shouldn't have a right to protest funerals like that. Westboro is a group of lawyers who just protest whatever they can to get people mad then sue for settlements. They just call themselves a church so they can abuse the 1st amendment. Free speech yes, but once that right harms others like slander, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, and protesting funerals in sight of loved ones it's gone too far. Then you're no longer seeking your own religious expression and rights but to harm the rights of others (which is also why I oppose abortion).

Well, that answers my first question

1. If it was okay to say that then, why not now? What knowledge do you think we have that disproves the existence of a Creator?

Because we are talking about legislation that governs all people under all manner of belief systems. Is my creator not my mother and father? Is nature not my creator? Did I not originate from the Universe and thus it is my creator? I could care less if it says creator, because it does not say "the god of the bible."

2. So why then do judges rule on matters related to religious expression at all? Aren't they restricting the religious freedom of others in some cases?

Like, a judge ruling that a group doesn't have the right to impose their religious views on a captive audience? Judges don't dictate their opinion onto the people with regards to their religious beliefs. I'd bet more than 78% of the judges in this country would claim Christianity as their beliefs. They are ruling in favor of protecting religious opinions, not imposing religious opinions.

3. When forced to fund the teaching of evolution in schools, and that God doesn't exist, it's violating the rights of the 46% of Americans who don't believe in evolution at all, and the additional rights of the 32% of Americans who think God guided evolution. (Source: Gallup) Yes, funding scientific research that includes research on evolution is fine so long as competing views like Creationism are likewise funded (which right now they aren't) and that isn't taught as the only alternative in schools (which it is). Doing so is a violation of what Jefferson said on forcing people to fund opinions they don't believe, and a violation of the beliefs of 78% of Americans no less.

No one is forced to fund the teaching of evolution in schools any more than they are forced to fund the teaching of grammar in English class. We teach what we know about each subject, in that course. What the majority of Americans choose to believe in, has no bearing on what science is or is not. Would you have alchemy taught as fact alongside chemistry because there exist people out there who think it viable? Should homeopathy be taught alongside the classes on pharmacology at Med School? No, because they are not science. If someone wants to teach a class on homeopathy, they can. They just can't teach it as medicine or as science. If someone wants to teach a class on creationism, they can. They just can't call it science.

The opinions of the majority, have no weight on the opinions of everyone else. Sorry.

4. Yet I hear atheists these days increasingly advocating that Christians shouldn't have the right to vote or run for office because of their opinions, the same sort of religious dictatorship entrenching atheistic religion Jefferson argued against.

Where do you hear this? Did I make that point? Where does this come from?

I don't give a shit if someone running for office is a Christian, Muslim, or Jew. As long as they govern in a secular way, I don't care. I don't want an atheist as president who uses that platform to advocate his religious opinion either.

5. Westboro I'd argue actually violates the boundaries on free speech since one shouldn't have a right to protest funerals like that. Westboro is a group of lawyers who just protest whatever they can to get people mad then sue for settlements. They just call themselves a church so they can abuse the 1st amendment. Free speech yes, but once that right harms others like slander, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, and protesting funerals in sight of loved ones it's gone too far. Then you're no longer seeking your own religious expression and rights but to harm the rights of others (which is also why I oppose abortion).

And yet, they don't violate free speech at all. Hate speech is still protected under free speech. The KKK can still hold rallies. The neo-Nazis can still publish their anti-semetic literature, and Westboro can protest wherever they like in public. I'm okay with all of that because because MLK Jr. held rallies and if we say who can and can't, what is to stop the government from stopping the next great rally for civil rights? If the neo-Nazis can't publish their literature, then would the presses stop churning out copies of "god is not great"? And if Westboro can't protest the funerals of whomever they so please, then will I not be allowed to protest the funeral of a pedophile priest who raped kids for decades?

The non sequitors and strawmen are piling up Drinking Beverage

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-05-2013, 11:27 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(05-05-2013 10:59 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(05-05-2013 10:28 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  My response and quotes are intended to support Rev's assertion that Jefferson was, indeed, a Deist as opposed to a Christian as you propose. Do you even know what you're arguing?

I suppose I can accept that Jefferson was a deist but I strongly oppose the concept that he was secular as he strongly believed in a Creator and refused to call himself an atheist. He also believed in the Bible as evidenced by his funding the Bible Society of Virginia. I think Jefferson struggled with the New Testament and concept of the supernatural, as do many Jewish deists. Given the struggles of the Jewish people, I suspect they are disinclined to believe God intervenes in the world, perhaps with some disappointment. Either way, Jefferson was a strong believer in a Creator and the Bible, whether a Christian or not, though he didn't want to believe parts of the Bible dealing with the supernatural.

You're pulling that Jefferson was a closeted Jew out of your ass aren't you?

If anything Jefferson discarded most, if not all, of the OT and concentrated specifically on the NT, especially the teachings of Jesus even though he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. The man cut and pasted from the NT and created his own edited version of the Bible.

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

I'm wasting my time with you aren't I? Fuck it, believe what you like, you're making shit up as you go anyway.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
06-05-2013, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2013 03:45 PM by Jeffasaurus.)
RE: Ask a Theist!
(06-05-2013 10:49 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  3. When forced to fund the teaching of evolution in schools, and that God doesn't exist, it's violating the rights of the 46% of Americans who don't believe in evolution at all, and the additional rights of the 32% of Americans who think God guided evolution. (Source: Gallup) Yes, funding scientific research that includes research on evolution is fine so long as competing views like Creationism are likewise funded (which right now they aren't) and that isn't taught as the only alternative in schools (which it is). Doing so is a violation of what Jefferson said on forcing people to fund opinions they don't believe, and a violation of the beliefs of 78% of Americans no less.

[chiming in]

The fact that there are so many people who don't believe in evolution just proves that the education is necessary. Too many individuals actually think that evolution means that a monkey can give birth to a human, thus underscoring the need for education. A populace not believing something to be true has never made it become reality. People used to believe that Earth was, not only the center of our solar system, but also the universe. When heliocentrism was discovered and accepted by the scientific community, I'm sure that far more than a mere 46% still held to their geocentric beliefs. Were their rights violated when taught the truth? Ignorance may be blissful, but I prefer the right to learn facts–scientific facts.
And those facts exclude any god, deity, demi-god, demon, or other supernatural influence on guiding evolution. Since there's no evidence for it, it should not be taught in a science class. It would be analogous to me wanting to teach in a quantum physics class that electrons are created by tree-dwelling gnomes. Even if half of the population believed it, there's still no evidence.

Every culture has their creation myths, and they have never been based upon science. Christians believe their creation myth just as adamantly as a buddhist believes theirs. Neither of which should be taught in a science class.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeffasaurus's post
06-05-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(06-05-2013 10:11 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  As far as I'm concerned Jefferson was in some ways a lot like me, he didn't think the Catholic church was Christian and didn't even think too highly of organized Christianity, but did think highly of the Bible and revere the Creator. I do not like Calvinism or Catholicism either, in part because both persecuted real Christians like the Anabaptists, killing innocent people for their beliefs contrary to Christianity. Where Jefferson and I diverge somewhat is that he refused to believe in the deity of Christ and didn't like to believe God intervened with miracles like the Bible said, so we do have our differences. However, Jefferson was certainly no atheist or secular as is clear from his legislation, in particular the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

You do not seem to understand the word 'secular'.

Jefferson was a firm believer in secular government. That is how religious freedom is insured.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2013, 03:58 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(06-05-2013 10:49 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  ...
3. When forced to fund the teaching of evolution in schools, and that God doesn't exist, it's violating the rights of the 46% of Americans who don't believe in evolution at all, and the additional rights of the 32% of Americans who think God guided evolution. (Source: Gallup) Yes, funding scientific research that includes research on evolution is fine so long as competing views like Creationism are likewise funded (which right now they aren't) and that isn't taught as the only alternative in schools (which it is). Doing so is a violation of what Jefferson said on forcing people to fund opinions they don't believe, and a violation of the beliefs of 78% of Americans no less.
...

Tim Minchin read that survey too...




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
06-05-2013, 04:06 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(06-05-2013 08:02 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  Which questions worth responding to did I ignore? I dislike false accusations.

Ah, so you respond to my true observation by making a false accusation of your own Drinking Beverage Since you dislike false accusations I assume you had a look of disgust and self-loathing on your face as you made that post.

Ignored questions:

Who made you God's special mouthpiece ?
Why should we believe anything you have to say ?
Why is gayness bad ? Hint: "it's bad 'cos it's bad" is not an answer.

Ah I see, you decided they weren't worth responding to. Well... kinda looks pretty weaselish doesn't it ? You'd much rather rabbit on about how Jefferson was a Christee, because that somehow in your deranged mind translates into "clever people are Christees" and by corollary "everyone should be a Christee" ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: