|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comments
Yeah...most people would.
One the plus side the fouders of this country were Deists.
posted by Boulder Dude, April 22, 2004 03:47 PM
Yup. Or, rather, many of them were. It was kind of the In Thing with the Enlightenment Crowd.
According to this page, Websters in 1941 defined Deist as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason." Which isn't all that bad a proposition, IMO (even if the page tends to be a bit smug about it all).
posted by *** Dave, April 22, 2004 04:00 PM
History of deism.
http://www.deism.org/historyofdeism.htm
posted by Captain Rooba, April 22, 2004 07:47 PM
This makes sense; other cultures have a similar seperation, i.e. Dao-jiao (Taoism as a religion) and Dao-jia (Taoism as a philosophy) in Chinese culture.
posted by TC, April 22, 2004 09:17 PM
Actually, agnostics don't take a position on the matter either way. Dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic&x=0&y=0
Using myself as an example, I'm an agnostic for reasons of epistemological honesty: I see no reason for a deity or deities to exist, and certainly most of the forms of the divine that people claim are laughable based on evidence and logic, but... You can't prove a negative, so I stay open on the question. I'd consider it an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, though.
Just putting in my $.02,
- Brad
posted by Brad, April 23, 2004 06:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|