Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Weak Atheism

2009-10-16T02:59:48Z

Gogyra:

<blockquote>In all [[United States]] Federal and State courts, the burden of proof starts on the party making an assertion (the "moving party"). Once a specific standard has been met (which varies on numerous conditions), the burden shifts to the "non-moving party." In criminal cases in the United States, the government must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defendant need do nothing. In civil cases, the party making an assertion must prove that assertion is more likely true than not. Still, if the moving party fails to meet that burden, the assertion is deemed false. The United States courts unequivocally find that the defending party need not do anything until the moving party meets its burden of proof. Note that in a number of other countries, criminal defendants bear the burden of proving that they are not guilty.</blockquote>
I removed this section, because the States' justice system's method of determining on whom to place the burden of proof is not relevant to the question of which philosophical beliefs possess the burden of proof.

Talk:Weak Atheism

2009-10-16T02:59:03Z

Gogyra: Created page with '|In all United States Federal and State courts, the burden of proof starts on the party making an assertion (the "moving party"). Once a specific standard has been met (whic...'

|In all [[United States]] Federal and State courts, the burden of proof starts on the party making an assertion (the "moving party"). Once a specific standard has been met (which varies on numerous conditions), the |burden shifts to the "non-moving party." In criminal cases in the United States, the government must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defendant need do nothing. In civil |cases, the party making an assertion must prove that assertion is more likely true than not. Still, if the moving party fails to meet that burden, the assertion is deemed false. The United States courts |unequivocally find that the defending party need not do anything until the moving party meets its burden of proof. Note that in a number of other countries, criminal defendants bear the burden of proving that they |are not guilty.

I removed this section, because the States' justice system's method of determining on whom to place the burden of proof is not relevant to the question of which philosophical beliefs possess the burden of proof.

Weak Atheism

2009-10-16T02:56:04Z

Gogyra: Removed section about the United States' criminal justice system, as it was irrelevant.

'''Weak atheism''' (sometimes referred to as "negative [[atheism]]") describes all belief systems which lack a belief in [[God]], without claiming to meet the [[burden of proof]] that God does not exist. It differs from [[strong atheism]], which claims to have positive reason or evidence proving that God does not exist. It also differs from [[agnosticism]], in that a weak atheist says there is no God, while an [[agnostic]] only says he doesn't know whether there is a God or not.

Most commonly, weak atheism is premised on the belief that the ''[[theist]]'', not the atheist, bears the burden of proof to show that God does not exist, because it is the theist who is asserting the existence of an entity. They typically compare belief in God with belief in absurd beings like "flying spaghetti monsters,"<ref>http://www.venganza.org/</ref> or "invisible pink unicorns,"<ref>http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/</ref> and argue, "The person attempting to convince me that the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] exists has the burden of proof. In the absence of sufficient proof to warrant belief, I am justified in disbelieving in all these beings."

As George Smith wrote:
:"If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed.",<ref>Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith</ref>

This principle on which the philosophy is founded comes from the Latin phrases like ''necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit'' meaning "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains" and ''ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat,'' meaning "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies."
== Theistic responses ==
{{rewrite|it is confusing or unclear}}
Weak [[atheism]] is often construed by theists as a highly negative and destructive point of view, that lacks a positive, thought out alternative. As Jacques Maritain wrote:
:"By negative atheism I mean a merely negative or destructive process of casting aside the idea of God, which is replaced only by a void. Such a negative atheism can be only shallow and empirical, like the [[atheism]] of the libertians of the seventeenth century: it hollows out a vacuum at the center of the universe of thought which has taken shape for centuries around the idea of God, but it does not bother about altering that universe; it is concerned merely with making us live comfortably in the empirical freedom of doing whatever we want. On the other hand, negative atheism can be deeply and metaphysically lived: in which case the void it creates at the center of things extends to and lays waste our whole universe of thought; the freedom it claims for the human ego is absolute independence, a kind of divine independence that this ego, like Dostoievski's Kirilov, has no better way of affirming than by suicide and self-destruction."<ref>Jacques Maritain, ''On the Meaning of Contemporary [[Atheism]]'', The Review of Politics, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 267-280, July, 1949.</ref>

Other theists respond by saying that theists ''have'', in fact, met the burden of proof, through [[arguments for the existence of God]].

Other theists criticize weak atheism as seeking to "dodge the issue." Terry Miethe argued:
:"the "negative [[atheist]]" ends up denying God's existence just as much as the "positive [[atheist]]." For the believer (and in reality) to deny the idea of God is to deny the actual existence of God no matter what language game you want to play. Remember, Hans Kung is quite correct in pointing out that there is also an "atheistic language game" that is not self-justified…We must not---cannot---arbitrarily "define" out of existence vast ranges of reality simply because they do not meet our predetermined definition. It is not good enough to say that I have no idea of God therefore I am denying nothing about "his" actual existence. You must examine all of reality and answer or explain why millions have had what they thought was an adequate idea or concept of God, from great philosophers to the 'common folk.'"<ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>

== References==
<small><references/></small>
==See also==
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Strong atheism]]
{{Nb Atheism}}

Speech codes

2007-04-10T03:37:05Z

Gogyra: Nazi Germani was Facist, not Socialist.

'''Speech codes''' are restrictions on [[free speech]] typical of [[totalitarian]] fascist or socialist regimes such as [[Nazi Germany]], the [[Soviet Union]] and [[Communist China]].

Talk:Benjamin Franklin

2007-03-28T00:13:49Z

Gogyra: /* Too Much mention of religion */

==Deist vs. Christian==

One dictionary definition of "Christian" is "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."

In 1792, in the letter he wrote to Ezra Stiles, he expresses "doubt as to his Divinity," further suggested by his referring to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth" rather than as "Jesus Christ." In adulthood he was never a member of any organized denomination. In the letter to Stiles it is clear that he admires the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus, and that he is not ''opposed'' to Christianity... nor to any sect which embodies "the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion" as he describes them.

He clearly does not meet definition #1. He might just possibly be considered to meet definition #2.

When he says that that the religion of Jesus "has received many corrupting Changes" this is surely distancing himself from the organized religious denominations that label themselves as Christian. I can't help seeing a wry lifted eyebrow when he says "I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has good consequences, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed." The same is surely true when he says "I do not observe that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any Marks of his displeasure." In other words, live and let live. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:38, 28 January 2007 (EST)

The quote from his letter to Ezra Stiles, pretty clearly shows that he himself was not a christian, but believed it usefull for the public to be christians, because they would follow christian morals. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:49, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I think that this page is focused too much on the religion of Ben Franklin instead of his life and accomplishments. We should have maybe 1-2 paragraphs on his religion. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:59, 28 January 2007 (EST)

*Given the interest in the topic here, I don't think it should be shortened, but perhaps it should be a separate section. Currently the story is told ''mostly'' in Franklin's own words, which is a Good Thing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 29 January 2007 (EST)

*Exactly. I think that We could maybe have a debate page: "What was Benjamin Franklin's Religion," but I think that the page on Benjamin Franklin should not be almost completely devoted to his religion. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 08:52, 29 January 2007 (EST)

*One dictionary definition of deism is:
::The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
::I think I have to agree that Franklin didn't fit this definition, since he believes in "Providence." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:11, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Part of Conservapedia's value is in debunking distortions and misperceptions. The claim that Benjamin Franklin was a deist is incorrect and worth debunking by clearing stating Franklin's beliefs in his own words. I'm going to see what Wikipedia says about this now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:'''Reply''' Benjamin Franklin ''Was'' a Deist. The evidence also shows that he changed his mind later in life. We cannot deny that he was a deist. what we can say that other sources will usually not say is that he gave it up later. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 09:22, 29 January 2007 (EST)

'''What is being debated here?''' Franklin was clearly '''not''' a christian. He clearly '''was''' a deist at one point, and he clearly gave up this deism. What is in question, the degree of his deism?

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:45, 29 January 2007 (EST)

I am not totaly convinced that Franklin ever did give up Deism. Just because he believed in providence. Looking at several different sources, some say that providence is against deism, while others say that deists can either believe or deny the existence of providence. all of Franklin's other beliefs were clearly deist. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 29 January 2007 (EST)

"Mr. President [George Washington] ... I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men."

This quote seems to indicate that Franklin believed that God involves himself in affairs on the earth -- a belief that ''does'' seem to go against deism.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:06, 29 January 2007 (EST)

: Ben, under your reasoning, St. Paul was not a Christian. Should we say that? Of course not. Benjamin Franklin considered, accepted and THEN REJECTED deism.
: Thanks, by the way, to Dpbsmith for his further information below on this interesting issue. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:49, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:Since deism isn't an organized denomination, there isn't any really definitive statement of what deism is or is not. But, just for laughs, suppose we construct a scale with "Christian" at 10 and "deist" at 0. Put the dictionary definition I quoted at 0. Put Thomas Paine (who rejected revelation and the divinity of Jesus) at 0. Put the Nicene Creed at 10. Where would Franklin fall? I'd personally say about a 2... and I'd put modern-day Unitarian Universalists at about the same place. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:30, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:The Columbia Encyclopedia says, by the way:
::d´sts) (KEY) , term commonly applied to those thinkers in the 17th and 18th cent. who held that the course of nature sufficiently demonstrates the existence of God. For them formal religion was superfluous, and they scorned as spurious claims of supernatural revelation. Their tenets stemmed from the rationalism of the period, and though the term is not now generally used, the tenor of their belief persists. The term freethinkers is almost synonymous. Voltaire and J. J. Rousseau were deists, as were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.[http://www.bartleby.com/65/de/deists.html]
:This is a broader definition of "deist" than the dictionary definition I cited. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:33, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:Encyclopaedia Britannica has some interesting things to say [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109477/Deism here]. Apparently you can read the whole article, but you need to page through it... In particular:
::At times in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the word Deism was used theologically in contradistinction to theism, the belief in an immanent God who actively intervenes in the affairs of men. In this sense Deism was represented as the view of those who reduced the role of God to a mere act of creation in accordance with rational laws discoverable by man and held that, after the original act, God virtually withdrew and refrained from interfering in the processes of nature and the ways of man. So stark an interpretation of the relations of God and man, however, was accepted by very few Deists during the flowering of the doctrine, though their religious antagonists often attempted to force them into this difficult position....
:It identifies deism closely with "Edward Herbert (later 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury) in the first half of the 17th century" and says that
::By the end of the 18th century, Deism had become a dominant religious attitude among intellectual and upper class Americans. Benjamin Franklin, the great sage of the Colonies and then of the new republic, summarized in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, a personal creed that almost literally reproduced Herbert's five fundamental beliefs. The first three presidents of the United States also held Deistic convictions, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence. “The ten commandments and the sermon on the mount contain my religion,” John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1816. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:41, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:The ''1911'' Encyclopaedia Britannica has a long article which I've no time to digest now, available online at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Deism . This is an interesting source because the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, while not exactly Christian, had a typical mainstream Victorian point of view, i.e. Church of England. It doesn't say anything specific about any Founding Fathers. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:46, 29 January 2007 (EST)

The founder of Deism was [[Lord Herbert of Cherbury]]. <ref>http://www.theologicalstudies.org/what_is_deism.html</ref> He came up with 5 esentials of Deism which are "(1) a belief in the existence of the Deity, (2) the obligation to reverence such a power, (3) the identification of worship with practical morality, (4) the obligation to repent of sin and to abandon it, and, (5) divine recompense in this world and the next"<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/deismeng.htm</ref> Recompence means: To award compensation for; make a return for. <ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/recompense</ref> "Recompense in this world" would then imply that God does display some amount of control over the earth. Franklin's belief in Providence, therefore is not contradictory with the beliefs of deism, and along with his other beliefs almost exactly matches Cherbury's 5 statements. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:10, 29 January 2007 (EST)

*Looking for common ground... anyone seriously disagree with any of the following statements?
**Benjamin Franklin did not subscribe to the Nicene Creed.
**Benjamin Franklin was not a member of any Christian denomination or any "organized religion."
**Benjamin Franklin believed in a judgement and an afterlife, and a God that "governs by Providence."
**Benjamin Franklin praised "Jesus of Nazareth" and "the Christian religion."
**Benjamin Franklin at one time held beliefs that he described as "deist."
**Benjamin Franklin was not an atheist.
**Benjamin Franklin was not an agnostic.
::: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:43, 29 January 2007 (EST)

I agree, and would add the following
**Benjamin Franklin was not a Christian.
**Benjamin Franklin Held beliefs consistant with or very close to deism for most of his life.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:49, 29 January 2007 (EST)

==Too Much mention of religion==
This page should not read like a debate on Franklin's religion. I would propose significantly cutting down the section on his religion, and expanding the section on the rest of his life. Any objections? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:37, 4 March 2007 (EST)
:We're this not the Conservapedia I would be inclined to agree with you. However, in this place, the only information of consequence is clearly how Ben Franklin, a man who describes himself as a Deist who has doubts as to Christ's divinity, is a Christian. If we cant decide what his religion is and correlate it to every facet of his life, then whats the point of talking about him at all? </smarm>
:Seriously people, it would kill you to tone down the Religious commentary just a bit? Or if not, can I ask you to re-read his "passionate plea?" Reads to me more like he's just acknowledging the power of belief among the masses and how he believes that prayer isn't a bad thing, which doesn't contradict Deism at all.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dispute over Franklin's religious position is crucial to the matter of "debunking the founding". Let's not discourage development of this aspect of the article. If it needs to be a spin-off, we can create [[Religion of Ben Franklin]] (or something).

::Remember, there are home-schooled kids here. They would like to contribute, if we let them. Let's not make this project hostile to Christian or Conservative ideas. Water the plants, give them sunshine, and watch them grow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If growth requires that we let them claim Ben Franklin wasn't a Deist when he himself says that he was, is that something that really ought to be encouraged? If it means endorsing the selective quoting of passages where he acknowledges the social value of religions and moral systems, Christianity in particular, to endorse the idea that he was a practicing Christian himself, that should just be allowed without comment? Growth means we allow the distorted suggestion that Franklin worshipped Jesus when not only did he doubt Christ's divinity, but also believed that Christ Himself was a Deist? We should encourage this?

That's not what I meant. We should allow contributors to cite arguments for and against any view of Benjamin's Franklin's religious outlook.

A typical argument of biased liberals is to claim that no one disagrees with them. If that doesn't hold water, they say no one worth listening disagrees, etc.

A balanced treatment would simply note all expressed viewpoints and let the reader decide which are more credible. For example, suppose all you knew about global warming was 4 statements: two by politicians, one by a scientists speaking for himself, and one by an international panel convened by the United Nations:
#Former VP: warming is caused by humans and we must stop it
#Senator: that's a hoax, and we should ignore it
#Scientist: [[Anthropogenic global warming]] is not a matter of scientific consensus, and proponents of immediate action exaggerate the risks of further warming
#IPCC: warming is caused by humans and we must stop it

On this basis alone, how would you choose?

Although the topic of Benjamin Franklin's religious views is certainly worthy of merit in an article about him, it should not dominate the article. This article reads like a debate about Franklin's religion that assumes the reader to have prior knowledge about Franklin. An encyclopedia article about a topic should first lay out as many relevant, unbiased facts as possible, before delving into controversial topics. The introductory paragraph of Wikipedia's entry has more factual information about Franklin than this entire article, which uses most of its length to "prove" that Franklin was not a deist using a couple quotes. For God's sake, this article doesn't even mention the date (beyond year) or place of Franklin's birth! If you want people to use Conservapedia over Wikipedia, it has to become a source of actual information instead of a site for people to post the conservative side of a debate about some topic relating to the article. -[[User:Gogyra|Gogyra]]

:A rather sensible idea. This should be on a policy page somewhere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Benjamin Franklin

2007-03-27T18:59:30Z

Gogyra: /* Too Much mention of religion */

==Deist vs. Christian==

One dictionary definition of "Christian" is "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."

In 1792, in the letter he wrote to Ezra Stiles, he expresses "doubt as to his Divinity," further suggested by his referring to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth" rather than as "Jesus Christ." In adulthood he was never a member of any organized denomination. In the letter to Stiles it is clear that he admires the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus, and that he is not ''opposed'' to Christianity... nor to any sect which embodies "the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion" as he describes them.

He clearly does not meet definition #1. He might just possibly be considered to meet definition #2.

When he says that that the religion of Jesus "has received many corrupting Changes" this is surely distancing himself from the organized religious denominations that label themselves as Christian. I can't help seeing a wry lifted eyebrow when he says "I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has good consequences, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed." The same is surely true when he says "I do not observe that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any Marks of his displeasure." In other words, live and let live. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:38, 28 January 2007 (EST)

The quote from his letter to Ezra Stiles, pretty clearly shows that he himself was not a christian, but believed it usefull for the public to be christians, because they would follow christian morals. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:49, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I think that this page is focused too much on the religion of Ben Franklin instead of his life and accomplishments. We should have maybe 1-2 paragraphs on his religion. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:59, 28 January 2007 (EST)

*Given the interest in the topic here, I don't think it should be shortened, but perhaps it should be a separate section. Currently the story is told ''mostly'' in Franklin's own words, which is a Good Thing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 29 January 2007 (EST)

*Exactly. I think that We could maybe have a debate page: "What was Benjamin Franklin's Religion," but I think that the page on Benjamin Franklin should not be almost completely devoted to his religion. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 08:52, 29 January 2007 (EST)

*One dictionary definition of deism is:
::The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
::I think I have to agree that Franklin didn't fit this definition, since he believes in "Providence." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:11, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Part of Conservapedia's value is in debunking distortions and misperceptions. The claim that Benjamin Franklin was a deist is incorrect and worth debunking by clearing stating Franklin's beliefs in his own words. I'm going to see what Wikipedia says about this now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:'''Reply''' Benjamin Franklin ''Was'' a Deist. The evidence also shows that he changed his mind later in life. We cannot deny that he was a deist. what we can say that other sources will usually not say is that he gave it up later. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 09:22, 29 January 2007 (EST)

'''What is being debated here?''' Franklin was clearly '''not''' a christian. He clearly '''was''' a deist at one point, and he clearly gave up this deism. What is in question, the degree of his deism?

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:45, 29 January 2007 (EST)

I am not totaly convinced that Franklin ever did give up Deism. Just because he believed in providence. Looking at several different sources, some say that providence is against deism, while others say that deists can either believe or deny the existence of providence. all of Franklin's other beliefs were clearly deist. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 29 January 2007 (EST)

"Mr. President [George Washington] ... I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men."

This quote seems to indicate that Franklin believed that God involves himself in affairs on the earth -- a belief that ''does'' seem to go against deism.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:06, 29 January 2007 (EST)

: Ben, under your reasoning, St. Paul was not a Christian. Should we say that? Of course not. Benjamin Franklin considered, accepted and THEN REJECTED deism.
: Thanks, by the way, to Dpbsmith for his further information below on this interesting issue. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:49, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:Since deism isn't an organized denomination, there isn't any really definitive statement of what deism is or is not. But, just for laughs, suppose we construct a scale with "Christian" at 10 and "deist" at 0. Put the dictionary definition I quoted at 0. Put Thomas Paine (who rejected revelation and the divinity of Jesus) at 0. Put the Nicene Creed at 10. Where would Franklin fall? I'd personally say about a 2... and I'd put modern-day Unitarian Universalists at about the same place. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:30, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:The Columbia Encyclopedia says, by the way:
::d´sts) (KEY) , term commonly applied to those thinkers in the 17th and 18th cent. who held that the course of nature sufficiently demonstrates the existence of God. For them formal religion was superfluous, and they scorned as spurious claims of supernatural revelation. Their tenets stemmed from the rationalism of the period, and though the term is not now generally used, the tenor of their belief persists. The term freethinkers is almost synonymous. Voltaire and J. J. Rousseau were deists, as were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.[http://www.bartleby.com/65/de/deists.html]
:This is a broader definition of "deist" than the dictionary definition I cited. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:33, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:Encyclopaedia Britannica has some interesting things to say [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109477/Deism here]. Apparently you can read the whole article, but you need to page through it... In particular:
::At times in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the word Deism was used theologically in contradistinction to theism, the belief in an immanent God who actively intervenes in the affairs of men. In this sense Deism was represented as the view of those who reduced the role of God to a mere act of creation in accordance with rational laws discoverable by man and held that, after the original act, God virtually withdrew and refrained from interfering in the processes of nature and the ways of man. So stark an interpretation of the relations of God and man, however, was accepted by very few Deists during the flowering of the doctrine, though their religious antagonists often attempted to force them into this difficult position....
:It identifies deism closely with "Edward Herbert (later 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury) in the first half of the 17th century" and says that
::By the end of the 18th century, Deism had become a dominant religious attitude among intellectual and upper class Americans. Benjamin Franklin, the great sage of the Colonies and then of the new republic, summarized in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, a personal creed that almost literally reproduced Herbert's five fundamental beliefs. The first three presidents of the United States also held Deistic convictions, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence. “The ten commandments and the sermon on the mount contain my religion,” John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1816. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:41, 29 January 2007 (EST)

:The ''1911'' Encyclopaedia Britannica has a long article which I've no time to digest now, available online at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Deism . This is an interesting source because the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, while not exactly Christian, had a typical mainstream Victorian point of view, i.e. Church of England. It doesn't say anything specific about any Founding Fathers. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:46, 29 January 2007 (EST)

The founder of Deism was [[Lord Herbert of Cherbury]]. <ref>http://www.theologicalstudies.org/what_is_deism.html</ref> He came up with 5 esentials of Deism which are "(1) a belief in the existence of the Deity, (2) the obligation to reverence such a power, (3) the identification of worship with practical morality, (4) the obligation to repent of sin and to abandon it, and, (5) divine recompense in this world and the next"<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/deismeng.htm</ref> Recompence means: To award compensation for; make a return for. <ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/recompense</ref> "Recompense in this world" would then imply that God does display some amount of control over the earth. Franklin's belief in Providence, therefore is not contradictory with the beliefs of deism, and along with his other beliefs almost exactly matches Cherbury's 5 statements. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:10, 29 January 2007 (EST)

*Looking for common ground... anyone seriously disagree with any of the following statements?
**Benjamin Franklin did not subscribe to the Nicene Creed.
**Benjamin Franklin was not a member of any Christian denomination or any "organized religion."
**Benjamin Franklin believed in a judgement and an afterlife, and a God that "governs by Providence."
**Benjamin Franklin praised "Jesus of Nazareth" and "the Christian religion."
**Benjamin Franklin at one time held beliefs that he described as "deist."
**Benjamin Franklin was not an atheist.
**Benjamin Franklin was not an agnostic.
::: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:43, 29 January 2007 (EST)

I agree, and would add the following
**Benjamin Franklin was not a Christian.
**Benjamin Franklin Held beliefs consistant with or very close to deism for most of his life.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:49, 29 January 2007 (EST)

==Too Much mention of religion==
This page should not read like a debate on Franklin's religion. I would propose significantly cutting down the section on his religion, and expanding the section on the rest of his life. Any objections? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:37, 4 March 2007 (EST)
:We're this not the Conservapedia I would be inclined to agree with you. However, in this place, the only information of consequence is clearly how Ben Franklin, a man who describes himself as a Deist who has doubts as to Christ's divinity, is a Christian. If we cant decide what his religion is and correlate it to every facet of his life, then whats the point of talking about him at all? </smarm>
:Seriously people, it would kill you to tone down the Religious commentary just a bit? Or if not, can I ask you to re-read his "passionate plea?" Reads to me more like he's just acknowledging the power of belief among the masses and how he believes that prayer isn't a bad thing, which doesn't contradict Deism at all.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dispute over Franklin's religious position is crucial to the matter of "debunking the founding". Let's not discourage development of this aspect of the article. If it needs to be a spin-off, we can create [[Religion of Ben Franklin]] (or something).

::Remember, there are home-schooled kids here. They would like to contribute, if we let them. Let's not make this project hostile to Christian or Conservative ideas. Water the plants, give them sunshine, and watch them grow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If growth requires that we let them claim Ben Franklin wasn't a Deist when he himself says that he was, is that something that really ought to be encouraged? If it means endorsing the selective quoting of passages where he acknowledges the social value of religions and moral systems, Christianity in particular, to endorse the idea that he was a practicing Christian himself, that should just be allowed without comment? Growth means we allow the distorted suggestion that Franklin worshipped Jesus when not only did he doubt Christ's divinity, but also believed that Christ Himself was a Deist? We should encourage this?

That's not what I meant. We should allow contributors to cite arguments for and against any view of Benjamin's Franklin's religious outlook.

A typical argument of biased liberals is to claim that no one disagrees with them. If that doesn't hold water, they say no one worth listening disagrees, etc.

A balanced treatment would simply note all expressed viewpoints and let the reader decide which are more credible. For example, suppose all you knew about global warming was 4 statements: two by politicians, one by a scientists speaking for himself, and one by an international panel convened by the United Nations:
#Former VP: warming is caused by humans and we must stop it
#Senator: that's a hoax, and we should ignore it
#Scientist: [[Anthropogenic global warming]] is not a matter of scientific consensus, and proponents of immediate action exaggerate the risks of further warming
#IPCC: warming is caused by humans and we must stop it

On this basis alone, how would you choose?

Although the topic of Benjamin Franklin's religious views is certainly worthy of merit in an article about him, it should not dominate the article. This article reads like a debate about Franklin's religion that assumes the reader to have prior knowledge about Franklin. An encyclopedia article about a topic should first lay out as many relevant, unbiased facts as possible, before delving into controversial topics. The introductory paragraph of Wikipedia's entry has more factual information about Franklin than this entire article, which uses most of its length to "prove" that Franklin was not a deist using a couple quotes. For God's sake, this article doesn't even mention the date (beyond year) or place of Franklin's birth! If you want people to use Conservapedia over Wikipedia, it has to become a source of actual information instead of a site for people to post the conservative side of a debate about topics. -[[User:Gogyra|Gogyra]]

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Benjamin Franklin

2007-03-27T18:58:40Z

Gogyra: /* Too Much mention of religion */

George W. Bush

2007-03-12T02:20:10Z

Gogyra:

[[Image:George_w_bush.jpeg|200px|right|]]
'''George Walker Bush''' (born 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1996-2001) and has served as the [[Republican]] [[President of the United States of America]] since 2001. Campaigning heavily on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html</ref>, He won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2000. Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, but then contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case ''Bush v. Gore''.

In 2004, George W. Bush won reelection by a popular margin of tens of votes, including a 300,000 vote (5%) victory<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> in the State of Florida where the outcome had been so close in 2000. Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] quickly conceded defeat the day after the election.

For many months after John Kerry conceded the outcome of the 2004 election to George W. Bush, some American [[liberals]] continued to claim that the election had somehow been stolen by voter fraud. <sub>citation needed</sub> But have so far failed to prove so in a court of law.

In 2006, the Democratic Party narrowly won control of both Houses of Congress, leaving the final two years of the Bush Administration in a state of [[divided government]].

== Foreign policy ==
George W. Bush has spent most of his Presidency focusing on foreign policy issues, namely the war on terror in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the USA. As part of the fight against terrorism, he has instituted regime changes in the countries of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]]. On January 10, 2007, he said "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable ... Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me".<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/</ref> He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region.

== Economic issues ==
Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/20/05ceoland.html]</ref>. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref>

== Family ==
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]