Thomas Paine: Champion of Freedom and Reason II
Envoye par: overmind25
Video Description:
Thomas Paine was one of, if not the greatest American of his time. Music from Brett Keane's video.
part 2 two quotes quote
Tags pour cette video: Age American Atheism Atheist Deism Deist Father Founding Freedom French of Paine Quotes Reason Revolution The Thomas
Voir plus de video de "News" category
Voir plus de videos de overmind25
| Ben Griffin: Former SAS, Banned speech to Anti-War Rally on Torture, Rendition and War | The Sad Case Of Thomas Paine | Creative Quotations from Thomas Paine for Jan 29 |
 |  |  |
| SACRED FIRE #1 | Thomas Paine: Champion of Freedom and Reason | Thomas Paine |
 |  |  |
Partage cette videoo:
Commentaire pour cette video: Voir || Cacher
Tell a friend:
For all we know, christ might be an atheist today. Who the fuck knows, who the fuck cares. For Atheists to claim Paine as one of their own is absolutely arrogant; to claim himn as a fellow RATIONALIST or non-theist is different,however, and perfectly fine.
Darwinian evolution and other scientific discoveries have in no way disproven a deistic prime mover. If anything, the more we've leanred about our comsos, the less we know in 'some" respects. True science is agnostic at best. We have NO CLUE about the cosmos origens still{many scientific theories;
big bang, multiverse,etc}, the arrival of qunatum mechanics/physics, with dark matter/energy making up most of cosmos CONT
...dark matter and dark enenrgy are postulated scientifically to make up most of the unvierse, and we still have not seen them and know little about them; how then is that SCIENCE has disproven even a deistic "prime mover", when we obviously still know so little? Yes, we know lots more than we use
d to, but we still don't know ALL. A deus is still "possible", it did not suddenly become invalid as a theory when Darwin wrote origen of the species.
1) Any of YOUR speculations about what Paine would or would not believe if he were alive now have the same validity as mine: none--although I'm sorry it's so UPSETTING to you for someone to ponder such things. 2) Deism is theism without supernatural effects. Both are essentially dead concepts in
modern epistemological schemes. I make the reasonable suggestion that Paine would have followed modern thinking on this...more
I don't KNOW (==agnostic) whether pink sharks live in subsurface lakes on the moon. In a practical sense, since I have UTTERLY no reason to believe such a thing is plausible, I claim, provisionally, that there ARE NO such sharks. I think Paine would claim the same. Agnostics are atheists who avoi
d taking a stand to avoid the social consequences.
I actually was'nt even angry, annoyed maybe, angry no
1}Agreed. So maybe we should'nt be speculating; we should just honor the man as he was. 2}Deism is more complex than that. What you say was true for the Classic Deists of that era{or most anyhow; given his rhetoric in private I'd guess Jefferson was an agno-deist}; ditto for todays deists whom are
"strong"/classic deists. ut there ARE agno-deists, atheistic-deists/anti-theistic agno-deists CONT...
Myself for example. I "lean" deistic, but have a fiarly heavy dose of agnosticism in there, and am STRONGLY Anti-theistic as well.
That makes me in many ways a de-facto atheist; I live as if there is no god, and though I lean towards the theory that it exists as prime mover, I find that outside of "philosophical pondeirngs"- it's existence is largely irrelevent "if" it does exist.
Deism is not easily pinned, it has gradiations/types. But is rationalistic and non-theistic generally.
3} I strongly disagree. I am not agnostic regarding theistic deities, I KNOW they don't exist. I'm not subjetivist about this as many atheists whom are "trying" to "appear" open-ended and uncertain are. I can't understand WHY they do that? I can understand them beeing agnostic about a deistic forc
e, but not theistic sky-tyrants/parents. RATIONAL Agnosticism is NOT agnostic about theism, theism's absurd. But agnostic only about Deism, which is a rational view. In Reason.
" to avoid the social consequences. " Have you considered that maybe they are agnostics SINCERELY about a basic creative intelligence, not just avoiding social consequences? Not all RATIONALISTS are automatically Modern Atheists{whetehr overly or in closet}, I say 'modern", becayse atheism comes
from greek "atheos" -meaning "godless/without gods", by that classic def, ALL non-theists are "atheists/atheos"{agnostics and modern deists included}.
Those discoveries are SO GRAND that they reduce your favorite philosophical antropocentricies to less than a grain of dust. What you have to say is meaningless, and I will speculate that Paine would agree.
I hardly anthropocentrize, I leave that to the theists{and classic deists}. What I propsoe theoretically is not a anthropocetnric theory, it has NOTHING to do with humans in any way,shape,or form. I agree that those discoveries are SO GRAND, yet they don't disprove tghe basic deistic theory of a
possibly intelligent prime mover force. CONT...
What a theist has to say is meanignless, what classic deists have to say it quite questionablew, but the BASIC deistic theory stripped of the liberally theistic and CLASSIC deism anthropocentricisms, is quite reasonable. And I suspect that Paine would agree. But if your views are so reasonable,
why is that you choose such a strong from of Atheism over PURE Agnosticism? I don't choose strong deism, I have alot of agnosticism mixed in{not just a couple percentages}.
When I say 'Pure Agnosticism", I don't mean such in regards theistic deities, which deserve not but anti-theism, I speak of agnosticism regarding the basic deistic idea.
In Reason: Icono
You say you "hardly anthropocentrize," and then discuss "intelligent prime mover force." It's anthropocentric to even BELIEVE that the substance of the universe is related in any way to "logic" or "cause and effect." Look at the Behind the Looking Glass world of quantum physics, for example. The
idea of a "prime mover" is a provincial (anthropocentric) assumption about the fabric of the universe that...simply has no philosophical credence any longer.
It's healthy and productive to continue to understand what we can--but the truth is we've only BEGUN to understand how great our ignorance is. Speculation about "prime movers" is like ants thinking about the ant god in the vastness beyond the great rotting stick lands...
WHAT it was is open to speculation.
I don't think you're thimking outside the box when you hear deistic theory.
ant god, that's a theism. That is making it in their image, like human theists. What I'm suggesting is NOT spoken of by me in human image.
I see evidence to suggest apossible intelligenc eof some sorts, you don't; neither my theory nor yours blatantly condradicts evidence and rational argument so far collected, so we are both rationalists whom disagree rationally{hopefully} on the "cause" of what is.
I'm not indoctrinated into a deistic absolutism; are you indoctrinated into a atheistic absolutism? Neither of us can prove either view; I think freely, do you?
At least you're thoughtful. That's all we can be--all that's beyond just being an eating and humping animal, that is--so we should live it with pleasure and enthusiasm! (which is not to gainsay humping--I like your Kelsey Michaels favorite)!
Author of "The Elementary Common Sense of Thomas Paine: An Interactive Adaptation for All Ages"