CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Twentytwo

Reward Points:16
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
99%
Arguments:17
Debates:1
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
3 points

My "spiritualism" comes from the recognition that I am related to all people and to all life on Earth biologically, to the planet chemically, and to the universe atomically. That looks like the end-all for me, which is fine because it kicks the shit out of a burning bush or a stroll on the water 10 rounds out of 10.

1 point

"Quid est veritas?"

But seriously, a statement of one's belief in absolutes is not in itself an absolute. All positions of belief are tentative. For myself, I only believe in absolutes for as long as they can travel as concepts. I believe in conceptual absolutes, which for the sake of example, could be sold under the brand name of the Law of Identity. A=A or, as Leibniz would have it, "Everything is what it is." There seems to be no conceptual wiggle-room here, so I would say this concept represents an absolute. Truth seems to me to be on shakier ground with regard to its status as an absolute.

1 point

I had a similar experience in high school. I wasn't raised an atheist but I ended up one anyway. In school I felt more of what you are talking about with regard to the Pledge as a nationalistic thing and I didn't mind the God thing so much. I used to just sit out, but eventually I just amended the Pledge for my use.

"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the Republic upon which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

2 points

I was having a real hell of a time trying to add an issue description. I whittled the description down to a single sentence just to know if the box was screwing with me when it said something about a five thousand character limit. The result: It was screwing with me. The following is the issue description as it was meant to appear above.

On the 23rd of last month, Indonesia's electoral commission certified the winner of the country’s recent presidential election, an open and free race that confirmed the strength of growing democratic standards in a state ruled for decades by men-on-horseback supported by the United States. I wish I could say the same for Burma, where a political show trial is preparing to convict that country’s legitimately elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, of “crimes” she did not commit; an obvious scheme to renew her jail sentence to prevent her from contesting the elections in Burma next year. Not surprisingly, President Obama’s administration seems to be rolling around the proposal of normalizing relations with Burma’s military junta in its collective head, just when Indonesia’s democratic example (and its leaders’ outspokenness about Burma’s repressive political system) should be encouraging the United States to lend greater support for democratic movements in Southeast Asia, instead of legitimizing the concept of President Obama and Secretary Clinton shaking hands with the Burmese ruling elite and then the freshly re-elected president of Indonesia without washing first. The strongman thesis on which Burma relies has been shown to be thoroughly discredited in Indonesia and across Southeast Asia and I don’t want to see high-fives distributed fairly to the now mirror-image next-door neighbors, fair enough?

So should President Obama’s administration play ball with Burma or support pro-democracy forces in Southeast Asia? Both? Neither? You decide!

1 point

...Congress is the primary legislative organ of the State.

3 points

I agree with essentially all of that, but I feel that some nitpicking is in order.

"The First Constitutional Amendment did not retract religion from the Declaration of Independence."

No, it does not, but as we have been discussing, the DoI does not contain the kindling of any specific religion. The First Amendment does clearly forbid the endorsement of a particular religion by the State. As long as the State is not forming legislation with preference to the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, or any other holy text, everyone can play nice. If the State endorses scripture-dependent legislation, it clearly violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I think all of our disagreements are pretty much hammered out now, wouldn't you say?

1 point

I am on the pure hype side, but I have to correct the date of the event. The attacks occurred on September 11th, 2001. The attack didn't occur in the year 2000. It's a little thing, but it was bugging the hell out of me.

3 points

In Thomas Jefferson's letters and papers (my copy: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094045016X/), ,) he labeled himself a "Materialist" (letter to William Short, April 13, 1820), rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Justin Pierre, Count de Rieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to F. A. Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith" (letter to John Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, not only did Jefferson deny the central tenants of Christianity, he also issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith. As I said, unknowingly, but not unexpectedly, in concert with Encyclopedia Britannica, "The second and third presidents of the United States also held Deistic convictions, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/156154/Deism/38254/Deists-in-other-countries

Jefferson studied the philosophy of John Locke and the "natural theology," which was the subject of Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason," and agreed with Paine's convictions that it was a grave injustice to lock God into a sacred text. Paine immeasurably influenced Jefferson's interpretation of the Bible, as evidenced by the so-called "Jefferson Bible," which deliberately excludes the claims of Christ's divinity (...and to deny the divinity of Christ is to not be a Christian). For Thomas Paine, the only revelation from God is one that is perceived in creation. Only through creation does "God speaketh universally to man." To not understand Thomas Jefferson's philosophical relationship with his Deistic colleagues and with the Church is not to understand Thomas Jefferson.

I think I have sourced TJ's Deism enough at least for my own satisfaction, if not for yours, but I will add that the following words appear in Volume 3 of Dumas Malone's rightfully celebrated biography, "Jefferson and His Time," with regard to the accusation that Jefferson was an atheist: "...it was not only made in the public press, it was hurled from pulpits in various places, most of all probably in Connecticut. ... Actually, he was a deist (481)."

This whole problem about identifying the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence reminds me of a similar problem Jefferson encountered with regard to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom. He wrote in his autobiography, "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

This is the very same vision of the Creator mentioned in the DoI; a creator that is accessible to people of all faiths because his name isn't Jesus Christ.

All of this said, I don't know if I want to carry on defending gay marriage in this debate. I did want to defend the historical integrity of Thomas Jefferson and I do not feel you can properly claim that I haven't.

1 point

Very well, so I did... :)

(...filling up character space...)

3 points

I believe my point rests unchallenged. It is clear from the letters of Jefferson, especially to his esteemed Deist comrades, that Jefferson's God was not the God of the Bible. If you can shake that case, I will relent. Until then, you have not confirmed Biblical authority over morality or the law of the United States, nor contributed anything I would call a refutation of my claim.


Winning Position: Yes, regional democracy first.

About Me


"I live outside Sacramento, CA and I am currently going into my second year of college. I am studying history and political science, but my other burning interests include philosophy, religion, and literature."

Biographical Information
Name: Aaron Scott
Gender: Male
Age: 32
Marital Status: In a Relationship
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Postal Code: 95630
Religion: Atheist
Education: In College

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here