What is a Deist?

This is for you Phreak. Since you say the founding fathers were Deists...

This poll allows for multiple choices...

Sorry Tori, but I think deism is a great alternative to the fucked up shit that shrub and israel are selling at the mo.

Deists had several different beliefs at the time of the founding of America.

 

Some supported a creator and some were atheists.

 

Our nation's government was not founded by Deists; rather Deists had influence in the founding of our nation.

 

Deists cannot be equated to progressive secularist thinking of modern times. The thought of the time was Social Darwinism or the fit of the fittest will survive... this is a very conservative thinking lending little to compassion for weak...

You're arse about face crispydude. It's the survival of the fittest. That would equate to the fittest of the fit, rather than your claim of the fit of the fittest.

 

When you say compassion for the weak, are you concerning yourself with the lower end of the evolutionary scale? You support those who are undeserving of forward motion in evolution? Interesting.

 

Keep frying chooks mate. I'm figuring that you're protecting your consumer interests.

You're arse about face crispydude. It's the survival of the fittest. That would equate to the fittest of the fit, rather than your claim of the fit of the fittest.

 

When you say compassion for the weak, are you concerning yourself with the lower end of the evolutionary scale? You support those who are undeserving of forward motion in evolution? Interesting.

 

Keep frying chooks mate. I'm figuring that you're protecting your consumer interests.

Builder what is a chook mate?

 

I wrote:

Deists cannot be equated to progressive secularist thinking of modern times. The thought of the time was Social Darwinism or the fit of the fittest will survive... this is a very conservative thinking lending little to compassion for weak...

America was based on a system of the survival of the fittest... the weak were at the mercy of the family and church... I didn't say America was founded on any type of compassion. Compassion for the weak is a progressive secular modern concept. At founding of the nation there were nothing in the constitution for losers, weak, undeserving and such compassion was left to the family and the church.

 

What we have here is a failure to communicate...

From: www.deism.org/

 

Deism (n): Belief in God as revealed by nature and reason combined with a disbelief in scripture, prophets, superstition and church authority.

 

Deism is a free-thought philosophy, much like Agnosticism, Atheism or Pantheism in that it rejects the dogmas and superstitions of religion in favor of individual reason and empirical observation of the universe. Deism differs from these other free-thought philosophies in that it sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates a Creator. The word "God" is used to describe this creator, not to be confused with the "Biblegod."

 

Deism notes that we as humans are endowed with the power of reason and an indomitable spirit. It follows that we are intended to exercise them. Therefore, skepticism and doubt are not "sins" but rather natural expressions of God's gift of reason.

 

Because skepticism and doubt are not sins, Deists view with extreme suspicion any efforts by other humans to claim divine authority, such as claiming to be a "prophet" or citing "sacred scripture" said to be written by alleged prophets (as in the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc.). Placing faith in scriptures, prophets, priests, churches, "holy" figures, or traditions is surrendering your personal reason to another source. Usually, this other source has far less interest in "the state of your soul" as the accumulation of wealth and political power.

 

With scripture and revelation removed, all that remains to know God is personal reason and observation of the universe. Essentially, this is getting to know the artist by studying the artwork. The only "Word of God" is the universe itself.

 

Deism has had many famous advocates throughout history, particularly during the Age of Enlightenment. Some of the most famous American examples were many of the Founding Fathers of America. Contrary to the assertions of Christian Fundamentalists today, America was not founded on Christian ideals. "Nature's God", as invoked by the Declaration of Independence, is a reference to Deism.

 

My views are still here on GF in the "PHREAKWARS' GOD" post

 

Although I have been raised in a Catholic philosophy, but consider myself Deist, I do not reject the Holly Bible 100%. I accept the teachings of it that are HUMAN based and not spiritual.

.

.

Deism differs from these other free-thought philosophies in that it sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates a Creator. The word "God" is used to describe this creator, not to be confused with the "Biblegod."

So all Deists should support Intelligent Design being taught in school along with Darwinism? Deists are President Bush thinkers or not?

I support intelligent design, just not the story of adam and eve.

 

 

.

.

OK so that is the closest thing to a lable for myself that I can accept. HHMM as for the founding fathers, I believe they took religious iseals and applied them to the experience of living in a new and very foriegn land as well as what was learned from the natives. Very interesting. Persoanlly I never really thought that much about the religious beliefes of teh founding fathers until the issue came up here recently. Persoanlly I don't think it is important unless you are tryingto use it to justify a personal political beliefe, but it is interesting

America was based on a system of the survival of the fittest... the weak were at the mercy of the family and church... I didn't say America was founded on any type of compassion. Compassion for the weak is a progressive secular modern concept. At founding of the nation there were nothing in the constitution for losers, weak, undeserving and such compassion was left to the family and the church.

 

What we have here is a failure to communicate...

 

Sounds like our gay rights conversation to me.....

 

Do you have any other arguments to anything?

Deism is more of a philosophy than a religion. I am of the Christian religion, but the Deist philosophy. I think 99.9% of the Bible is figurative rather than literal. It is a Book of lessons, not of precise history, and certainly not of science. The Bible should not be used to 'discredit' the facts of science, because that will only serve to raise doubt about the useful nature of the Bible, which has already happened.

Deism is more of a philosophy than a religion. I am of the Christian religion, but the Deist philosophy. I think 99.9% of the Bible is figurative rather than literal. It is a Book of lessons, not of precise history, and certainly not of science. The Bible should not be used to 'discredit' the facts of science, because that will only serve to raise doubt about the useful nature of the Bible, which has already happened.

That would be me too..

 

But, in order not to freak people out, I just say I'm a "NON-PRACTICING CATHOLIC".

 

I haven't been to chuch since the priest gave me the "Jesus Juice" when I was a kid. That's my story and I'm sticking to it !!

.

.

Does anyone here actually know what the term "survival of the fittest" is actually referring to?

Does anyone here actually know what the term "survival of the fittest" is actually referring to?

It means the survival of the most dominate of the species... when I was a kid we would buy baby chicks for raising for fresh eggs and Sunday fried chicken... If the goal was 25 adult chickens then you buy 100 chicks because Darwinsim would demand the weak would be pecked to death followed by fights between dominate males over mating rights... thus the term "pecking order."

 

And that is what it means, only the best of the best is allowed to live to reproduce... so you and all living beings are the best of the best with the exception of compassion given gays by society.

Actually no. In terms of evolution and the scientific theory, it refers to the dominant genes making it through the gene pool. It is what allows for ,utation do to enviormental changes to take over as dominant genes. It has nothing to do with the singular being or the here and now, it refers to the changes that occur over time and within and entire polulation of a goegraphic species.

 

The common term (or what everyone assumes darwin was referring to) is the singular survival of the strongest of a given socail group.

 

survival of teh fittest is a bout genes.

 

This is a pet peeve for me that is a carry over of studying anthropology.

Actually no. In terms of evolution and the scientific theory, it refers to the dominant genes making it through the gene pool. It is what allows for ,utation do to enviormental changes to take over as dominant genes. It has nothing to do with the singular being or the here and now, it refers to the changes that occur over time and within and entire polulation of a goegraphic species.

 

The common term (or what everyone assumes darwin was referring to) is the singular survival of the strongest of a given socail group.

 

survival of teh fittest is a bout genes.

 

This is a pet peeve for me that is a carry over of studying anthropology.

But the Deists related to the debate period applied Social Darwinism where the colonial nations of Western Europe used ethnocentric theories, the belief of ones ethnic group

LIke I said it is a pet peeve. The term in reality is ascociated with anthropology and genetics and I just get ticked that most people have no clue what the term originally refered to. It's a thing. I find myself explaining the real meaning to people quite often.

 

I blieve we are created by more than science, though in creation there lies a natural law that all living things must abide by in order to exist and survive. Even if you believe in the adam and eve story, that does not exclude the fact that nature was created to exist on it's own. It is actually an am amazing piece of engeneering no matter how you look at it. As far as man't ability to reason, the only explanation I have is that it proves we are here for something mre than just to live. Reason allows us only really one thing the animal do not have (to the same degree) and that is to make mistakes (free will) and to learn and grow from them. Therefore logic tells me that somehow that ability to grow from experince has something to do with the reasoning behind our existence

LIke I said it is a pet peeve. The term in reality is ascociated with anthropology and genetics and I just get ticked that most people have no clue what the term originally refered to. It's a thing. I find myself explaining the real meaning to people quite often.

 

I blieve we are created by more than science, though in creation there lies a natural law that all living things must abide by in order to exist and survive. Even if you believe in the adam and eve story, that does not exclude the fact that nature was created to exist on it's own. It is actually an am amazing piece of engeneering no matter how you look at it. As far as man't ability to reason, the only explanation I have is that it proves we are here for something mre than just to live. Reason allows us only really one thing the animal do not have (to the same degree) and that is to make mistakes (free will) and to learn and grow from them. Therefore logic tells me that somehow that ability to grow from experince has something to do with the reasoning behind our existence

I find your pet peeve interesting and then I think about the hen house and rams banging heads to decide who will breed to make the new generation and wonder how such a gene could have affect unless it was in the superior specimin of the species.

 

I was watching this thing on the history chanel today about dragons and changed my profile (the space under my avatar) to dragon slayer. The science concluded that dragons were in every culture in the world and possessed the traits of predators of snake, bird and lion. Thus the dragon is in humans what instinct is to animals to preditors in symbol. Since I'm a retired military I place myself as a dragon slayer since in Europe lore the knights were sent out to kill the dragon or predators.

 

Nature is 24-7-365 in my climate and I see some amazing nature like termites that hatch on a full moon with wings programmed to fly towards the moon and then their wings fall off as a method of dispercement. My wife bought a new plant and yesterday she was wattering it and she called me out to see the miracle... the seeds that had formed after the blooms had closed were popping like pop corn with the same noise shooting out sever feet from the plant. Such design just seems difficult to imagine developing from pond scum and random gene selection.

It means the survival of the most dominate of the species... when I was a kid we would buy baby chicks for raising for fresh eggs and Sunday fried chicken... If the goal was 25 adult chickens then you buy 100 chicks because Darwinsim would demand the weak would be pecked to death followed by fights between dominate males over mating rights... thus the term "pecking order."

 

And that is what it means, only the best of the best is allowed to live to reproduce... so you and all living beings are the best of the best with the exception of compassion given gays by society.

Actually no. In terms of evolution and the scientific theory, it refers to the dominant genes making it through the gene pool. It is what allows for ,utation do to enviormental changes to take over as dominant genes. It has nothing to do with the singular being or the here and now, it refers to the changes that occur over time and within and entire polulation of a goegraphic species.

 

The common term (or what everyone assumes darwin was referring to) is the singular survival of the strongest of a given socail group.

 

survival of teh fittest is a bout genes.

 

This is a pet peeve for me that is a carry over of studying anthropology.

LOL! Actually, you are both right, and wrong. Yes, the genes that are better suited to the environment survive and cause the evolution of a species, but individual humans have fixed genes. The only way to change or mix the genes is by meiosis(occurs during reproduction). The best suited individuals of a generation survive to pass on the traits that make them best suited. Therefore it is both individual and large scale. There is an example of a Canadian bird that could be grey or white. The coloring alone did not make one dominant over the other, however, the ability of the white bird to blend in with the snow made it less susceptible to predation. After the industrial revolution occurred in a certain area of Canada, the scarcity of grey birds was replaced by a scarcity of white birds and grey became the dominant color. Survival of the Fittest does not necessarily refer to the strongest or most dominant, as much as the most suitable. Those that are not suited die before they can reproduce. Changes in the environment can change the

Mutation is what causes evolution (simple explanation).

 

Crispy, I have a great interest in simply watching nature. The design of it all is hypnotic. So exact and perfect yet able to adapt to eviornmental changes both natural and man made. It never ceases to amaze me. I don't believe all life came froma single celled creature, but I do see where different species may have developed off one single species. I am sure geography has played the largest role in that occurence. But then there is still so much we don't know and so many species of life that we are still so far from even seeing let alone studying. It's just amazing. BTW what was teh plant your wife had with the popping seeds. Sounds like something fun to plant for my daughter.

Mutation can lead to evolution if the specific mutation is favored by the environment. Mutation is not the only vehicle of evolution, though. It is possible for a trait that already exists to become dominant or favored. There are many examples of mutations that are not favorable. Genetic diseases such as Parkinson

From the dictionary:

 

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

 

The founding fathers were not so much social darwinists, which really developed fully in the 19th Century with it's most powerful proponent being Herbert Spencer. The founding fathers were basically libertarian (classical liberals) at least as far as white males were concerned. They also were strong proponents of a limited federal government. Any government welfare programs were limited to the states. Social Security is blatantly unconstitutional under a originalist interpretation.

Mostly the unfavorable mutations are in teh human species (though of course not exclusively) and are most likely effects of man himself. I simply use the example of mutation as teh easiest and simplest way to explain it to people. Otherwise I end up going all the way back to gregor mendle and his work with tulips and dominant colors. Unless someone wants me to go further into it I usually stick to the basics.

Mostly the unfavorable mutations are in teh human species (though of course not exclusively) and are most likely effects of man himself. I simply use the example of mutation as teh easiest and simplest way to explain it to people. Otherwise I end up going all the way back to gregor mendle and his work with tulips and dominant colors. Unless someone wants me to go further into it I usually stick to the basics.

Mendle's work was on genetics and the discovery of dominant and recessive genes. It is not used in evolutionary explanations, but I would be curious to see how you tie his work in to evolution.

Well I usually get into long discussions where I end up having to explain to people the process of gene selection and dominant and recessive. So you can see why I try to keep it as simple as possible.