• 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
maquiscat said:
If you are talking about the quote in post #153, then it leads to nowhere, which makes one wonder what exactly you are responding to and quoting for context.
Click to expand...

What I wonder is: Why delete it in the first place?

I think he is the first to do this in the history of DP, from my recollection.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I clearly said, "for all I know" meaning that I don't know and I am not going to make an assumption.
Click to expand...

It was a pointless jab. I'm not atheist.

_
I may well be an expert compared to you...
Click to expand...
Doubt it.




Appeal to Popularity... that is a logical fallacy, BTW.
Click to expand...
No its a response to your belief that you stance is the obvious conclusion.

I've given you full responses explaining why you are wrong, as have others.



It is an issue. It needlessly and stupidly complicates a simple communication process for no reason. I am over it in the sense that I care that you do it... I am not over it in the sense that you doing it is ****ing stupid though.
Click to expand...

Get over it.
 
Zinthaniel said:
It was a pointless jab. I'm not atheist.
Click to expand...

:lol: Whatever... you seem to get this as "well" as the rest.

No its a response to your belief that you stance is the obvious conclusion.

I've given you full responses explaining why you are wrong, as have others.
Click to expand...

...and you have no idea what an Appeal to Popularity is too?

The individual responses are not the fallacy... the argument that: by the looks of it many disagree with you. is the fallacy because it suggests that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held.

Appeal to Popularity
Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity

Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Popularity

Get over it.
Click to expand...

Grow up?
 
Perotista said:
LOL, We all or the average is we work for the government until may something to pay our taxes. That is working almost 5 months before we can earn a cent for ourselves. one might as well bow down and worship government, they have us by the balls anyway. At least me, maybe not you. Did I just say that?
Click to expand...

Yep! :lamo: But I think with us, it's our t*** in the wringer till June!

Good night, Pero. See you tomorrow. :2wave:
 
Bodhisattva said:
What I wonder is: Why delete it in the first place?

I think he is the first to do this in the history of DP, from my recollection.
Click to expand...

No I've done it too. Now in my case what I will usually do is leave up the first line or two and then add in "<snip>" to show that I am quoting the entire thread, but not bothering to show it all because it was too long overall. So I am a little more obvious about what I am doing, but it is pretty much the same thing that Zin just said that he does.
 
Bodhisattva said:
..
Click to expand...

I didn't make an appeal to popularity. I referenced the poll because you claim that your stance is the obvious conclusion. if that were the case then the poll should be in your favor this is in regards to your assumption that your stance is obvious, not your argument as a whole, or that it's common sense. It's not a common conclusion.
 
polgara said:
Yep! :lamo: But I think with us, it's our t*** in the wringer till June!

Good night, Pero. See you tomorrow. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Okay, that got me a belly laugh, now I will have a hard time going to sleep. Take care and until tomorrow.
 
maquiscat said:
No I've done it too. Now in my case what I will usually do is leave up the first line or two and then add in "<snip>" to show that I am quoting the entire thread, but not bothering to show it all because it was too long overall. So I am a little more obvious about what I am doing, but it is pretty much the same thing that Zin just said that he does.
Click to expand...

I have done that as well... but at least we have left a part for context. If I come back from this weekend and see your snipped quote and his quote with three dots in it I will remember your quote and have no idea what the hell he is referencing. That is the point, right? The context?
 
Zinthaniel said:
I didn't make an appeal to popularity. I referenced the poll because you claim that your stance is the obvious conclusion. if that were the case then the poll should be in your favor this is in regards to your assumption that your stance is obvious, not your argument as a whole, or that it's common sense. It's not a common conclusion.
Click to expand...

You did it again somehow. I think you need to take a little time and watch what you are doing as you are somehow changing the link structure while deleting what is the post. ANd quite honestly, I don't see that particular post as being long enough to warrant such a complete deletion due to length. I agree with your premise on the action, especially since I do it myself, but your application of the premise leaves me scratching my head.

ecofarm said:
Do they vary on possible deities?
Click to expand...

You honestly don't know what an Agnostic is? Here is one definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism said:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2]
Click to expand...

I've always heard it as more of they believe in some kind of higher power, but they are not accepting any given religion's claim as to what exactly that higher power is.
 
Zinthaniel said:
Atheism is more absolute.

Agnostism is more ambivalent
Click to expand...

Atheism is the denial of a deity, agnosticism is :shrug: So, is there a particular deity you find feasible?


maquiscat said:
You honestly don't know what an Agnostic is?
Click to expand...

Oh, please. I'm asking which deity(s) might be possible.
 
Zinthaniel said:
I didn't make an appeal to popularity. I referenced the poll because you claim that your stance is the obvious conclusion. if that were the case then the poll should be in your favor this is in regards to your assumption that your stance is obvious, not your argument as a whole, or that it's common sense. It's not a common conclusion.
Click to expand...

I say something is obvious and
You say by the looks of it many disagree with you.

That is the Appeal to Popularity.

You are suggesting that an idea, my claim that something is obvious, is not true simply because it is widely held.

This is pretty basic stuff... or are you going to get some others to disagree with that as well and indicate that because they disagree with my argument that this is basic stuff I am therefore wrong.

Now I fully understand your inability to understand why America is a Christian Nation.
 
maquiscat said:
You did it again somehow. I think you need to take a little time and watch what you are doing as you are somehow changing the link structure while deleting what is the post. ANd quite honestly, I don't see that particular post as being long enough to warrant such a complete deletion due to length. I agree with your premise on the action, especially since I do it myself, but your application of the premise leaves me scratching my head.
Click to expand...

Get ready... he is about to tell you to get over it.
 
ecofarm said:
Oh, please. I'm asking which deity might be possible.
Click to expand...

That question runs counter to the entire concept of agnosticism, by either definition I listed. Any and all are possible under such a belief system.
 
maquiscat said:
That question runs counter to the entire concept of agnosticism, by either definition I listed. Any and all are possible under such a belief system.
Click to expand...

All agnostics believe in the possibility of all deities? I don't think so.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I say something is obvious and
You say by the looks of it many disagree with you.

That is the Appeal to Popularity.

You are suggesting that an idea, my claim that something is obvious, is not true simply because it is widely held.

This is pretty basic stuff... or are you going to get some others to disagree with that as well and indicate that because they disagree with my argument that this is basic stuff I am therefore wrong.

Now I fully understand your inability to understand why America is a Christian Nation.
Click to expand...

No you said it was common sense, meaning its commonly held piece of information. the poll shows that is not the case. that is not an appeal to popularity, that is evidence that you are wrong in assuming that your stance is a commonly held conclusion.
 
ecofarm said:
All agnostics believe in the possibility of all deities? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

You twisted the words around. Because they don't hold to any one religion's description then all hold the potential to be the correct one, even those not yet thought up by man. Because of working with the unknown and unknowable, all the possibilities are, at the risk of sounding simplistic, possible. Just because all the possibilities are there doesn't mean that they are all simultaneously true. IOW, the agnostic might hold that there is indeed one singular deity but still leaves open the possibility that it is the Christian God, the Wiccan Goddess, Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, Ra or any number of other possibilities. Some agnostics hold that both the singular deity and the pantheon are equal possibilities.
 
Bodhisattva said:
So what? That doesn't negate the fact that Christianity permeates most of American society. In fact, America was MORE Christian when that was written than it is now.
Using that treaty as evidence only indicates that you don't understand your history, which is ironic.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Did you ever hear of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

I suggest that you read it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
how about we have no organizations petition Washington and only individuals.

that is what the founders had in mind.
Click to expand...

I would agree 100% with that.. along with a cap on campaign contributions and that corporations are not people, people are people.
 
Bodhisattva said:
...and even worshipping the idea that there is no god and that those that arrive at the morals from God are ignorant.
Click to expand...

If one needs to cite a god to be moral then that person is ignorant. It also makes me wonder if it wasnt for the bible if Christians would be running around being immoral. I guess everyone that existed before the bible was written had no morals. And those damn godless non-christians are immoral heathens burn those assholes!


The claim that the US is a christian nation isnt a benign assertion that there is a large christian influence throughout American history. It is obvious that there is and has been a large christian populous and influence. By christian nation though the claim is that we virtually have or should have the christian religion in every aspect of our government. The assertion of this being a christian nation means that there wasnt any separation between church and state in the Constitution.

Christian deny the Constitutionality of the separation of church and state. They insist that was not what was meant by the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Christians assert that the meaning was construed and the 1st Amendment really says that god and government are inseparable and it only stands to protect christians.

America Acknowledges God

Separation of Church and State in America

Frequently Asked Questions - Religion | First Amendment Center

All in all christians are proving the point why there is a wall of separation between church and state, its to keep the fanatics from forcing religion on other people and to avoid what the framers of the Constitution ran from in England.
 
maquiscat said:
You twisted the words around.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

why do you assume that an agnostic has to make some sort of
ambivalent affiliation with an already existing diety?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom