• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America is or is not a Christian Nation.

Is America a Christian Nation?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 25.7%
  • No

    Votes: 75 74.3%

  • Total voters
    101
why do you assume that an agnostic has to make some sort of
ambivalent affiliation with an already existing diety?

Without such, the concept is hardly meaningful. You have a new deity in mind?
 
Without such, the concept is hardly meaningful. You have a new deity in mind?

A deity/deities is a supernatural being that somehow created the universe. That is the basic description.

And agnostic is unsure such a creature/thing exists. They do not flat out deny it nor do they champion the notion and many believe it is impossible to ascertain any sort of information about such a thing.
 
I would agree 100% with that.. along with a cap on campaign contributions and that corporations are not people, people are people.

As long as we are also agreeing that unions are not people either, I fully agree with you.

Does an agnostic consider the possibility of Zeus and Jesus or Allah to be equal? Surely an agnostic has a deity or deities in mind when granting the possibility.

Yes. All are equally possible, including the possibility of no deity at all. They neither believe nor disbelieve as the site says. Is there a particular image that pops to mind of a given agnostic that is influenced by this religion or that? Maybe. I've not seen a study that shows that though.
 
A deity/deities is a supernatural being that somehow created the universe. That is the basic description.

Not necessarily. Remember that both the Greek and the Roman gods were children (actually grandchildren I think) of other deities who were the ones that actually created the universe.
 
Not necessarily. Remember that both the Greek and the Roman gods were children of other deities (actually grandchildren I think) who were the ones that actually created the universe.

Right. Well you catch my drift. An Agnostic doesn't have to appeal to any currently or previously accepted god claim. There doesn't need to be an identity attached to it. It can simply be I don't know nor flat out deny that a creature that could fit the description and qualities of a deity can or does exist - I believe that such a creature is unknowable.
 
So, Agnostics believe there is an equal chance of Zeus and the Abrahamic God.

?

Without a concept of deity, what does believing in one or the possibility matter?


I believe in the possibility of a concept I do not have.

Yeah, that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
So, Agnostics believe there is an equal chance of Zeus and the Abrahamic God.

?

Without a concept of deity, what does believing in one or the possibility matter?


I believe in the possibility of a concept I do not have.

Yeah, that makes sense.
A deity is already a concept in of it's self. You notion that a currently existing identity needs to be attached to it is false.
 
A deity is already a concept in of it's self. You notion that a currently existing identity needs to be attached to it is false.

Without a notion the possibility is irrelevant.
 
If there is no notion, no concept, of a deity, then the possibility of its existence is ir-re-****in-relevant.

A deity is already a notion. Pondering whether THAT notion is possible or not or even possibly knowable is what Agnostism is. No extra notions need to be added.
 
A deity is already a notion. Pondering whether THAT notion is possible or not or even possibly knowable is what Agnostism is. No extra notions need to be added.

So you might believe something that you cannot describe. Very impressive position.
 
I can describe what a deity is without having to assign it one of your identities.

My identities are not important. What's important is you have some concept of that which you may or may not believe. Without a concept of deity beyond definition your uncertainty is meaningless.
 
My identities are not important. What's important is that you have some concept of that which you may or may not believe. Without a concept of deity, beyond definition, your uncertainty is meaningless.

It's not meaningless at all. The concept of a deity is what agnostism is regarding. That is not meaningless.
 
I would argue that this is a heterosexual nation or a right handed nation... yes. It is.

Yet you won't admit its a female nation. If majority Christians makes the U.S. a christian nation, majority women makes the U.S. a female nation using the same logic. Funny how you don't seem to apply the same standards when you are the one being excluded.
 
As a Christian myself I can easily say America is not a christian nation. Never has been, never will be.
THis is by design and this fact wont change unless we redo the constitution and everyone rights.

It is a nation filled with mostly Christians though and like just about every single nation religion has played parts in its creation and laws.
 
Yes I agree Christianity has left it's mark, but I don't believe it's a permanent mark - and current trends show that this country is redefining it's self as it always has. We are becoming more and more secular - many laws based in arbitrary social standards related to Christianity are being appealed. New generations are not only turning their back on faith but are actively fighting agaisnt strict traditional religious views on social standards.

I don't know. We seem to be moving the opposite way and becoming a more Christian nation, unfortunately. Our founding document, the Constitution, lists as one of the missions of the country "to promote the general welfare". Now that is a nice, objective, secular, goal. Yet one of the main political issues today is wealth inequality and having programs to help the poor and the sick. Those are simply Christian values that have no place in a secular society. Sure, if it helps the GENERAL welfare to provide charity for the poor and sick than, fine, do it. But do it because it helps the general welfare. Don't do it out of a sense of "social justice" or some silly religious nonsense.
 

It is troubling when people argue for the separation of church and state yet fall back on Judeo-Christian definitions. Sociologists normally don't equate belief in gods or deities with religion and tend to have a more inclusive, universal definition. For example, Buddhism, Unitarianism, and Juche are all considered religions despite lacking any belief in god. A religion is simply a:
is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[
according to Wikipedia. Einstein's "god" or Jefferson's "endowed by their creator" is a deist god that is distinctly different from the theistic god.
 
Of course it isn't. It's a multicultural, multi-religious nation. That includes non-religious. It's not Protestant, it's not Catholic, it's not Jewish, it's not Muslim, it's not atheist. It's everyone.
 
It is troubling when people argue for the separation of church and state yet fall back on Judeo-Christian definitions. Sociologists normally don't equate belief in gods or deities with religion and tend to have a more inclusive, universal definition. For example, Buddhism, Unitarianism, and Juche are all considered religions despite lacking any belief in god. A religion is simply a: according to Wikipedia. Einstein's "god" or Jefferson's "endowed by their creator" is a deist god that is distinctly different from the theistic god.

You are confusing my arguments. I was informing Eco that an Agnostic does not have to affiliate theirself with any religion to validate their belief.
 
Why does this nonsense keep coming up? Every year it seems someone has to ask this question???

We are a nation of predominantly self described Christians. We have been this way for a long time and it will probably remain this way for a long time with the influx of spanish speaking peoples who are predominantly Christian.

None of this makes us a "Christian nation" at all.
 
Yet you won't admit its a female nation. If majority Christians makes the U.S. a christian nation, majority women makes the U.S. a female nation using the same logic. Funny how you don't seem to apply the same standards when you are the one being excluded.


uh, yes, females are the majority population,,males are the minority...

if it brings you joy to call America a "female" nation, why would anyone object?

we as individuals are free to call our country anything we want....christian, female, socialist,
baseball, soccer,,,whatever....

but that does beg the question.....
at this point...





WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!
 
You are confusing my arguments. I was informing Eco that an Agnostic does not have to affiliate theirself with any religion to validate their belief.

Well, I was really continuing to respond to your initial posting on this thread. If 73% of Americans consider themselves Christian, as stated in your linked Wikipedia article, I would contend that we are a Christian country. I would also contend that you can take away any belief in god or Jesus being the son of god and you are still left with Christian morality. Atheists in the US tend to have Christian morality. Karl Marx came from a long line of Rabbis and his Marxism seems imbued with Christian morality despite the fact that he did not believe in god. Christianity is not simply the mythological stuff, it is also the ethical stuff. Take out god and you still have Christianity. I suspect that the majority of the 27% who claim that they are not Christians still retain a belief in Christian morality.
 
Back
Top Bottom