Who? Solzhenitsyn? Why do you think I admire Solzhenitsyn?
For the sake of argument, let's say I don't admire him. Does that mean I shouldn't ever agree with what he believes or says even if I agree with it?
Zone1 We are all NATURAL THEISTS with “homage to reason” unless we lock~in to or against revealed theist-ism vs anti-revelation atheist-ism
- Thread starter whutTHEYsay
- Start date
For the sake of argument, let's say I don't admire him. Does that mean I shouldn't ever agree with what he believes or says even if I agree with it?
BreezeWood
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 19,376
- 1,598
- 85
surly that - rather the devil for both their liking's ... the above.
- Jul 27, 2021
- 61,899
- 74,119
- 3,488
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 94,046
- 134,896
- 3,615
No. Theism is a manifestation of insecurity.
Paradoxical#1
Platinum Member
- Apr 20, 2025
- 943
- 479
- 873
This canard about Jefferson being some sort of Christian or our founding fathers being Christian needs to be put to bed for the propaganda and indoctrination it is by the Christian cultists. Here is the Copilot response:
You're correct that Thomas Jefferson did not identify as a traditional Christian. He was deeply influenced by Enlightenment ideals and was critical of organized religion. Jefferson admired Jesus' moral teachings but rejected the idea of his divinity and miracles. He famously created the Jefferson Bible, in which he removed supernatural elements from the New Testament, focusing only on Jesus' ethical philosophy. His beliefs aligned more closely with Deism, which emphasizes reason and morality while distancing itself from divine revelation or intervention. His views on religion were complex, but he consistently advocated for religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
I love the fact that you are partnering with this guy. Too funny.
Did Thomas Jefferson believe in a moralistic and providential creator?
Einstein and Spinoza before him were natural theists in that they observed a magnificent order of the Universe, the unimaginable beauty that is found within it, the predictableness of what we are able to observe and understand. Both concluded the probability of some kind of cosmic universal intelligence behind it all, driving the process.
Neither believed in a personal God who interacted with humankind. But they did not dismiss the probability of a higher power/intelligence. To call Spinoza or Einstein an atheist is gravely in error re what they believed.
I don't know if either ever applied critical thinking or even noticed that there are no godless civilizations on Earth. The most primitive, isolated people on the planet all believe or create something they call "God" whatever word(s) they use for that. Those of us who do ponder that phenomenon and think critically about it have no problem thinking those people too, like Spinoza and Einstein, had a sense that there was something greater than themselves at work in their world. And they expressed that as much as they were able.
Atheists still exist. But given their interest in what everybody else thinks, how often they are drawn to discussions like this, how much they can strain at gnats to disprove/disparage/criticize/ridicule what others believe, I believe they all have a nagging sense of that Divine presence and are desperate to dismiss it lest they have to admit they were wrong.
“Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one. —Thomas Jefferson.”
The Jefferson Bible Quotes by Thomas Jefferson
10 quotes from The Jefferson Bible: ‘To the corruptions of christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Chr...
www.goodreads.com
Thomas Jefferson affirmed the core of classical philosophical theology. Jefferson understood Nature’s God to be a creating, particularly providential, and moralistic being, whose existence and causal relation to the world was essential to the foundations of natural-rights
Thomas Jefferson, Nature’s God, and the Theological Foundations of Natural-Rights Republicanism (Chapter 3) - The Classical and Christian Origins of American Politics
The Classical and Christian Origins of American Politics - December 2022
www.cambridge.org
"Thomas Jefferson and many of his contemporaries understood that the natural rights of man depended upon teleological considerations. So viewed, and accepting the premise that man's goal is being with his Creator for eternity, man has the duty to abide by His will and directions, because they are necessary to satisfy man's duties. Jefferson wrote that "the true office is to declare and enforce our natural rights and duties."24 The existence of natural duties and the relationship of rights to duties were quite apparent to Jefferson, and anyone who has studied the man should realize that the only natural duties Jefferson acknowledged were not to temporal kings, but to the Creator.
James Madison was even more explicit that the source of rights exists in man's duty to his Creator. Writing of the unalienable right of religion in his Memorial and Remonstrance, he stated that the right is unalienable "because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homeage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to Him. His duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign." 25
Another leading Virginian, George Mason, was equally clear in asserting that the obligation of man to his Maker was the source of natural rights. In 1772 he wrote: "Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God: A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict His laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." 26
The imperative necessity of understanding ends and duties in order to delineate natural rights was appreciated not only by Messrs. Jefferson, Madison, and Mason, but also by Virginians generally in our formative period. The members of the Virginia convention that ratified the United States Constitution saw and stated that the natural rights of conscience and religion are predicated upon an obligation to God. They contended that it was because of "the duty which we owe to our Creator," that "all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience." 27"
Founding Fathers were anti-atheist
James Madison was even more explicit that the source of rights exists in man's duty to his Creator. Writing of the unalienable right of religion in his Memorial and Remonstrance, he stated that the right is unalienable "because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homeage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to Him. His duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign." 25
Another leading Virginian, George Mason, was equally clear in asserting that the obligation of man to his Maker was the source of natural rights. In 1772 he wrote: "Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God: A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict His laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." 26
The imperative necessity of understanding ends and duties in order to delineate natural rights was appreciated not only by Messrs. Jefferson, Madison, and Mason, but also by Virginians generally in our formative period. The members of the Virginia convention that ratified the United States Constitution saw and stated that the natural rights of conscience and religion are predicated upon an obligation to God. They contended that it was because of "the duty which we owe to our Creator," that "all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience." 27"
Founding Fathers were anti-atheist
Odin begs to differ.
How so? I see it the other way.
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 94,046
- 134,896
- 3,615
YOU don't see needing the security of some all powerful being you can depend on to make everything ok as being a product of insecurity?
Then you just flat don't see.
Paradoxical#1
Platinum Member
- Apr 20, 2025
- 943
- 479
- 873
Why do you ask, grasshopper?
Paradoxical#1
Platinum Member
- Apr 20, 2025
- 943
- 479
- 873
At best they were deists and yet you and others have this intense need to shoehorn Christianity in so that your beliefs can be validated.
Why does it bother you what others believe in the matter of religion and religious faith? What inspires your need to criticize others, to attempt to shake or destroy their faith?
Is it a fear the theists are right?
I don't see it as needing the security of some all powerful being nor do I depend upon God to make everything OK.
Got anything else?
Because I didn't think you knew the answer.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
I LOVE this video, real life Sister Act :-)- Started by NewsVine_Mariyam
- Replies: 1
-
-
