The majority were merely nominal Christians who deliberately put their beliefs aside to instead endorse the ideals of the Enlightenment, which was Deist in the sense that they believed there was at the beginning of the Universe a prime mover/creator who may not still exist and who definitely does not interact with man or nature. It was a totally abstract and dry notion of a “God”, and is utterly alien from the creature who is today given the name “God”, as in “under God”.
As I read Dan’s post I thought the point was that you refered to atheism as a “belief system”. That is incorrect, and the simple analogy demonstrates it very well.
Well, I have an explanation for the creation of all things. Don’t know how good it is. It’s from Brian R. Greene, and it’s called Brane theory. Basically, and this is simplifying to the nth power, our universe is a object called, say, a 3-Brane. It is connected to another 3-Brane by a 1-Brane. The 1-Brane is elastic, and every so often, the two 3-Branes smash together, creating a new Big Bang.
Of course, this all just pushes everything back another step. On the other hand, where did God come from?
Maybe there was a Creator. Maybe there were eleventy. Maybe we all came from the earth below, like the Navajo say. Maybe we’re actually a computer simulation. Maybe I’m a brain in a jar and you’re a hallucination.
See, science can’t really tell us anything about much before the beginning of time. There’s no there, there. It can tell us about pretty anything we can analyze, but that’s it.
The rest of it is what Faith is for. On the other hand, things we can make a hypothesis about, test, and then alter our hypothesis in accordance with the results of the test, and test again, ad infinitum? That’s science.
We can do that to a lot of the world we see. Which is pretty neat. Science, however, is concerned soley with things of this world, not the next. Or even if there is a next.
Have you read t6he report about religion being bad for society in the other thread? It’ll make you do the happy dance. 
It did not provide the US with any basis for law and is irrelevant to the conversation.
[quote[The D of I is not a document that states our laws, but it is an authoritative document.[/quote]
No it isn’t.
The Constitution is the only document that matters. The DoI has no authority in US law.
Since the DoI was written before the COTUS, it is not useful in that regard. It cannot shed light on a document that didn’t exist yet. The founders also left plenty of writings subsequent to the writing of the COTUS which make their stance on SOCAS very clear.
Deism is the philosophical belief that the universe had a “Creator” but that this frst mover does not intervene in the universe or interact with humans or do miracles or answer prayers or any of the rest of it. The analogy of winding a watch gets used. The Creator “wound up” the universe and then had nothing else to do with it. It operates on its own and it’s only laws are the laws of nature. This is distingusihed from traditional theistic religion for all the obvious reasons.
Yes. They said so.
Their religious beliefs began and ended with a belief in a “Creator,” and even that was a more abstract and remote concept than the kind of personal God we’re more familiar with. It really wasn’t much more than a space-filler- a term to designate a Prime Motor at a time when the Cosmological argument seemed philosophically insurmountable.
Sme were nominal Christians (like George Washington, who attended church rarely and always declined to participate in prayers even when he did). Others didn’t even bother to try that much (like Jefferson who openly rejected the divinity of Christ and even compiled his own “Jefferson Bible” in which he removed all of the miracles and the resurrection from the Gospels).
I’m not sure what your point is. I, too, thought Dan’s analogy was a good one. As far as a “belief system”, we must be using the term to mean two different things. I was using it in the most flat-footed way. If you believe there is no Santa Claus (or don’t believe there is a Santa Claus) that’s a belief system, as in a “set of beliefs”. I assume there are other beliefs that would fall into the “system”. Surely, atheists must hold opinions or philosophical positions, which I simply termed “beliefs”. I’m struggliing to see why you and Dan both focused on the term. Any clarification would be appreciated.
You need an entire system to not believe in someone you have never seen and whose imaginary stories can be factually traced through the children’s stories of Asia Minor, Northern Europe, and North America?
I find that definition of “belief system” to be overbroad.
Do you need a belief system to not believe in Odin and Thor? How about Cthulhu? In what way does not believing in any of those characters affect your life?
Well, I happen to think it isn’t. But the REAL question is, if the Mets fans then say “hey, this praise for the Yankees in our town song bothers us and makes us feel unwelcome… can we remove it and just not mention either team?”, is that a reasonable and justified request, or is it the Mets fans being unable to compromise, wanting everything their own way, etc?
So, let me see if I’m understanding your position. You believe that society is (at least) potentially teetering on the brink of a widespread movement to stigmatize voluntary religious expression, and you’re afraid that a well-publicized event like the courts removing UG from the pledge would tilt the balance and then suddenly people would be afraid to wear crosses on their necklaces? So it’s not so much that you think that it’s right-and-good for UG to be in the pledge, you’re just afraid of meddling in the situation at all?
Honestly, overall, I’m having trouble understanding exactly what your position is, as many of the things you say accord very very closely with my positions, but to me it’s 100% clear that UG should not be in the pledge, so I’m puzzled.
I hope so too. But it seems to me that one of the pernicious effects of UG, aside from the whole conformity-and-coercion aspect, is that it sends the message that this is a theistic nation, and that atheists are outsiders, less-American, different. I think that in a society without UG, people are MORE likely to respect the equality and rights of people of all religions.
fairER, certainly. But that’s not a great analogy with the pledge, as with the pledge, it’s either say the pledge, or visibly DON’T say the pledge, as opposed to “pick one of various school sanctioned activities, one of which is saying the pledge”.
I don’t understand why the issue of it being mandatory is so important to you. I would object to UG being in the pledge even if it was never said by schoolkids at all, as it’s an official implement of the US government. If the government passed a law saying “it is the official position of the US that Jesus Chris is our savior”, would you object to that? That’s clearly not mandatory, as it doesn’t even do anything at all. Having UG in the pledge is making a statement about what the US government believes, one that I don’t think it should be making, regardless of what is or is not mandatory.
Really? How so, specifically?
I don’t think your argument about why the Constitution doesn’t mention God holds water. The preamble isn’t “practical” at all (in the sense that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” is practical); it’s yet another statement of fundamental philosophy:
The preamble proclaims where the ultimate authority of the government the constitution establishes comes from (“the people of the United States”) and proclaims some general principles of what the government is there for (insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, securing liberty). It would be the perfect place to have mentioned God: “We the People of the United States, under the authority of the Supreme Governor of the World…”; “We the People of the United States, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties…” Yet the men who wrote the constitution left if out.
The omission is truly striking; I can’t imagine that if the constitution were being debated today it would escape some sort of “ceremonial deism” in the preamble. I don’t think the Founders were a bunch of god-hating militantly anti-religion atheists, but just maybe the words they used reflect their beliefs on the proper relationship between religion and government. Which makes me wonder why anyone would think including God in a patriotic recitation intended to unite ALL patriotic citizens somehow reflects what the Founders would have wanted.
Actually, one need not have an explanation for a first cause of all things to fail to be persuaded that the first cause of all things is an anthropomorphic or personalized deity or necessarily any sort of purposeful intelligence at all. I may have only the dimmest of notions as to how a radio works, and still feel confident in saying it’s not a little invisible man inside there who’s really good at doing impressions.
WHAT is the problem? I said I was using it in a very flat-footed way. Here is the my original mention:
It might help my understanding if you could answer this? Is Atheism primarily a belief system that thinks the world can be fully understood (eventually) and because it can, there is no use for God. Or do they start with the opinion that there is no God, so we will (eventually) be able to understand the world?
In other words, what came/comes first: the belief that there is no Creator? Or the rationalistic look at the world?
Then, when questioned, I explained:
I was using it in the most flat-footed way. If you believe there is no Santa Claus (or don’t believe there is a Santa Claus) that’s a belief system, as in a “set of beliefs”. I assume there are other beliefs that would fall into the “system”.
The term was not used to make a specific point. There was some confusion, and I clarified. Now I’ve clarified my intent further. Hopefully, that will suffice.
I don’t think that there neccesarily needs to be a first cause, things might have always been what they are. For me, believeing in a creator would not make it any more clear as it just raises the question of what created the creator.
Coming from a religious background I have a lot of respect for those who believing in God, take that belief very seriously. If God does exist, and does take an active part in how things work, then it is very profound and important.
I don’t want yot to feel ganged up on. I think you ask a really interesting question and it’s one that I have thought about a good deal. It comes down to what is the default "belief: In our society, choosing to not believe in God often takes a consience choice as the default belief is a Judeo/Chrisitian/Islamic-style God. On the other hand, people rarely have to make an active choice not to believe in Thor; as such, there is no term a-Thor (though I have been called a similar name 
). In the same way, there is not a belief system for people that don’t believe in Thor. That doesn’t man that people who don’t believe if Thor don’t have a belief system, it’s just that their belief systems are not related to being an a-Thor.
It is a reasonable request. It would be reasonable for the Yankee fans to respond with, "Sorry, although we support your right to cheer for any team you like and don’t require you to sing that part of the song because of that respect, since we are the majority, we have decided to leave it in.
I can go off on tangents sometimes that can be confusing. I’m sure it can be annoying. sorry.
Here’s my view in a nutshell.
Looking just at the words contained in the 1st amendment I believe that it is designed to prevent the federal government from establishing an official specific religion, period. So is the presence of UG in the pledge unconstitutional? I’d have to no. I think it walks up to the line and teters on the brink but doesn’t cross it. A reference to JC would cross the line which is probably why it has never succeeded.
That’s a different question than should it be in there? It becomes a question of what is best for all citizens and not about what is fair or unfair or the desires of a small group vs. the majority. In that respect I think it would be best for it to be taken out.
I don’t see it that way. I think it says we are a country of predominantly theists, which happens to be true. The 1st amendment had established freedom of religion long before the pledge was around. So the understanding is that we are a nation with a majority of theists who support freedom of religion for all. That’s a fact, not oppression.
Another option is to say the pledge in it’s original form if you are so inclined. The other activities I mentioned was freedom of religion. If you don’t like Minigolf {Christianity and/or Judism} pick whatever you like.
I do understand your objection. I imagine you would object much more if it was made mandatory. I sure would. For me the fact it isn’t mandatory is the recognition of others rights to worship as they choose.
I would strongly object. That crosses the line in making a specific religion the religion of choice.
Again, not quite specific enough. Regardless of where the phrase came from and what it represents to others when and if I say it it means exactly what it means to me and nothing else. If I say under God then I recognize my concept of God and I don’t care what someone elses concept is. For those who have no concept of God or have a concept of no God it isn’t that easy although they can still insert their own meaning in the spirit of independent thinking and individual conscience. All that being said, I still understand the objection and have explained my position.
It was intended to be a playful poke only but in post #436 when I asked how we protect the teachers rights to express her religion you responed
only to later in that post to say
no big deal. It just seemed a bit of a contradiction
They also didn’t take the opportunity to say: “We the people of the United States, having broken with the archaic trappings of both royalty and religion…” or “We the people of the United States, answerable to our fellow man and no other…” Such a sentiment would have been astounding at the time. Surely, if they intended such a break from tradition they would have mentioned it.
I think the “striking” thing would be that if you are correct, and they intended the document to be evidence of a government totally divorced from religion, that they would not have used the preamble to declare this new and novel idea.
There are two parts to your point. One is that the cause of all things need be some anthropomorphic or personalized deity, with which I agree wholeheartedly. Your second point—concerning purposeful intelligence—I may or may not agree with. (I hope this doesn’t turn into a hijack.) I think that at some point, the wheels had to be set in motion. I think that this universe and us are results of that. That does not necessarily mean that we were the purpose of our own creation. We (and the universee) could simply be the detritus of some grand plan or experiment of which we are unaware. I think that goes a bit too far, but it is a possibility nonetheless.
This was the Google ad at the bottom of the page a minute ago:
Beliefs
Quality new and used beliefs.
Find a belief now.
www.ebay.com
I almost fell off my chair.
First, thanks for the tenor of your post.
I think that people don’t have to make an active choice not to believe in Thor because Thor never comes up in our lives. Now if we met in a bar and I mentioned in all seriousness that the thunder is caused by the the god Thor, you might want to sahre your beliefs on Thor and thunder. At that point you are expressing a belief about both Thor and the scientific causes thunder, you know, the bowling pins.
You guys have got me thinking about this (always a good thing) and I’ve been mulling over this: if a non-belief in a thing has attached to it—necessarily—a postive statement of belief. Meaning, I don’t believe in Thor. Why? Well becuase I believe that when air is super-heated then contracts, quickly, etc.
I think that to be the case, so I ask those who do not believe in a Supreme Being: Why? How do you then explain the beginnings of “everything”. And whatever that answer might be constitutes what I was calling a “belief system”.
Since most atheists I have met start with a position of “I do not see a need for a god” with no “system” behind that lack of belief, I found your claim that not believing in Santa was also a “system” confusing. I am afraid your clarification has just added to my confusion regarding your point, but I am not a principle in this part of the discussion, so I will bow out for a bit without pursuing it.
I don’t explain the “beginning of everything”. We may someday figure it out, but then again, we may not. Our brains evolved as a response to problem solving here on earth. If our suvival as a species is necessitated on understanding the “beginning of everything”, then perhaps the ability to understand that will evolve. But there is nothing that says our brains have to be capable of understanding everything (or any particlular thing). It just may be beyond human comprehension, or we simply may never be able to come up with the right test or theory, even if just by trial and error.
Certainly we have been able to understand much that is beyond our need in terms of survival, but that doesn’t mean we have to be able to understand everything.
Kind of like solving the mystery of “Lost”. It simply may not be possible.
Yes, I have seen many of these “funnies”. Ebay has an automated program that will stick anything searched for into one of these “ads.” It really is meaningless.
How do you explain the beginnings of your Supreme Being? I doubt you have a more satisfying explanation than I do to explain the beginnings of the universe. I’m content to say there’s no possible explanation and move on to more practical questions, just as I’m sure you don’t spend too much time worrying about where God came from.