Texas education vote reflects far-right views

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.twincities.com/ci_14668076?nclick_check=1


A far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education succeeded Friday in injecting conservative ideals into social studies, history and economics lessons that will be taught to millions of students for the next decade.

Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state. Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

[foofighter20x]

2nd paragraph:

I agree with everything in the last sentence, but nothing before that.

[RedStripe]

2nd paragraph:

I agree with everything in the last sentence, but nothing before that.

Same.

[nf7mate]

How about we introduce the concept of separation of school and state?

[Andrew-Austin]

and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

Hallelujah.

[jsu718]

Important to note... what appears in the textbook does NOT correlate to what the students are being taught or required to study. When I teach I rarely use the textbook unless it gives a nice example or picture/graph. The textbook is NOT the curriculum.

[RedStripe]

The textbook is NOT the curriculum.

For a lot of crappy teachers, it may as well be. Honestly if teaching paid more I think they could attract more quality teachers like yourself.

[Dustancostine]

The bad thing is they took Thomas Jefferson out of the world history book and replaced him with Calvin.

Either way in SBOE district 5 we voted out the main religious guy and replaced him with someone who is a little more logic based.

BTW the religious guy was pretty nice, just overboard on inserting Christianity into the curriculum.

[Anti Federalist]

Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state. Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

Wow, what a news flash.

History is taught in history class.

Amazing amazing.

[AuH20]

If I'm correct many in the liberal establishment would love to erase pre-1877 American history from the curriculum. In other words, jettison those pesky founding fathers and their troublesome ideas. ;)

[V4Vendetta]

As a native Texan I can tell you I agree with everything they passed. The founding fathers were devout Christians!

Oh and We are not a Democracy

[RedStripe]

If they are going to tell kids that the founding fathers are Christians, they should also tell the kids that the founders were basically racists and some of them were slave-owners. It's just as relevant.

[low preference guy]

they were definitely not devout Christians. in his autobiography benjamin franklin talks about how he skipped church since he was a kid because he thought it was a waste of time. jefferson made fun of literal interpretations of the bible and those who believed in miracles.

[RedStripe]

they were definitely not devout Christians. in his autobiography benjamin franklin talks about how he skipped church since he was a kid because he thought it was a waste of time. jefferson made fun of literal interpretations of the bible and those who believed in miracles.

Jefferson's Bible for the win.

[V4Vendetta]

If they are going to tell kids that the founding fathers are Christians, they should also tell the kids that the founders were basically racists and some of them were slave-owners. It's just as relevant.

agreed

Although, they should also be taught the facts of slavery during the day. Alot of the slave owners knew that if they didn't buy them, they would be sold to someone else that would torture them to death.

[V4Vendetta]

they were definitely not devout Christians. in his autobiography benjamin franklin talks about how he skipped church since he was a kid because he thought it was a waste of time. jefferson made fun of literal interpretations of the bible and those who believed in miracles.

Franklin commonly attended O'Cult rituals. So no, he was not christian.

But yes, that's true, however, they read the bible and prayed everyday, if that does not define "devout" what does?

[RedStripe]

agreed

Although, they should also be taught the facts of slavery during the day. Alot of the slave owners knew that if they didn't buy them, they would be sold to someone else that would torture them to death.

Of course. Let's face it though, the majority of history education consists of massive generalizations.

Realistically, unless they set their newly-bought slaves free, it's fair to assume that even the most benevolent of slave-owners were still ignorant racists motivated by personal gain, ultimately.

[low preference guy]

Franklin commonly attended O'Cult rituals. So no, he was not christian.

But yes, that's true, however, they read the bible and prayed everyday, if that does not define "devout" what does?

i disagree with this too. they believed in a sort of God that didn't intervene in the universe. that's called "deist". some of the ideas of deism were written in the book "Age of Reason", by Thomas Paine. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams shared that belief about the deists. As for Washington... "Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]"

You gotta google "founding fathers deism". Remember to look at the context: The Enlightenment, in which these believes were not uncommon at all.

as for reading the bible, many of them looked for moral lessons. washington wanted to use the religion as a tool to unite the troops, even if he didn't believe in it. thomas paine read the bible a lot, but then argued that its teachings were irrational. jefferson also read the bible, but in the so called "Jefferson Bible" he removed any reference to the supernatural and miracles. that's not being devout in my book.

[Imperial]

As a native Texan I can tell you I agree with everything they passed. The founding fathers were devout Christians!

Oh and We are not a Democracy

As a native Texan I can tell you I disagree with a significant portion of what they passed.

The question isn't about whether they are right or wrong. They are presenting a one-sided view of things that have significant academic debate today.

And to be most specific, the US is a federalist constitutional democratic republic. Democracy is present in the system at the local level in particular and at the statewide level in many states. And while democracy isn't stated in the Constitution, the process of elections essentially replicates democracy. It is not direct democracy, it is indirect. But the democracy is there.

[haaaylee]

As a native Texan I can tell you I agree with everything they passed. The founding fathers were devout Christians!


As a native Texan i call tell you: No. they were not. In fact, some were actually Atheists. And most were Deists.


I would think people on this forum, of all places, would know that.


And i think it is very telling that they took out Thomas Jefferson and his passion for separation of Church and State. That is the beginning of indoctrination. Take out the part of history you don't like, and replace it with what you want.


Whatever any of their views were on religion is actually irrelevant, as most early Colonists came here for religious freedom.


"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." - Thomas Jefferson

[jsu718]

I think a lot of you still have the wrong idea about what exactly is going on... the purpose of textbook selection at the state level is to create a list of 5 books that they will suggest to the schools in the state. The schools may choose any of those 5 books and get them free, or choose 1 that isn't on the list and pay for them at the district level. Nothing that is decided here has anything to do with what actually gets taught in the classroom.

[nate895]

First of all, King George called the American Revolution the "Presbyterian Parson's rebellion."


i disagree with this too. they believed in a sort of God that didn't intervene in the universe. that's called "deist". some of the ideas of deism were written in the book "Age of Reason", by Thomas Paine. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams shared that belief about the deists. As for Washington... "Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]"

You gotta google "founding fathers deism". Remember to look at the context: The Enlightenment, in which these believes were not uncommon at all.

as for reading the bible, many of them looked for moral lessons. washington wanted to use the religion as a tool to unite the troops, even if he didn't believe in it. thomas paine read the bible a lot, but then argued that its teachings were irrational. jefferson also read the bible, but in the so called "Jefferson Bible" he removed any reference to the supernatural and miracles. that's not being devout in my book.

You're calling Adams a deist? That is as untrue to history as you can be. John Adams was a Congregationalist-turned-Unitarian, and wasn't a Unitarian until later in his life (there wasn't even a Unitarian church in the United States until 1785-87).

Besides, everyone who claims the founders weren't explicitly Christian in their ideas concerning the revolution hasn't really looked at the American people, and has instead focused on a narrow band of elites up top. The American people were the ones who started the Revolution, and they were heavily influenced to do so by parsons, Presbyterian or otherwise. Also, to quote George Bancroft, "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin [my avatar] knows but little of the origin of American liberty."

[V4Vendetta]

Only 2 of the founders were Atheists. Some were deist, MOST were Christians. I mean am i the only one on this forum that knows how deeply these men and Americans of the day were Christian?

In Thomas Paine's Common Sense he wrote in his paragraph on religion, "that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness." The keyword is our. He wrote the word "our", which either includes him as to being in the christian group or he was calling America a Christian nation. Do I believe he was a radical Christian, No, but this quote is truth of his own words.

[haaaylee]

everyone who claims the founders weren't explicitly Christian in their ideas concerning the revolution hasn't really looked at the American people.

We aren't talking about the American people, we are talking about what is taught about the Founders. And they were not explicitly Christian.

And for that matter, neither were the early Americans. We were not all on the same page in the early days, and it is wrong to teach that we were.

[haaaylee]

Only 2 of the founders were Atheists. Some were deist, MOST were Christians. I mean am i the only one on this forum that knows how deeply these men and Americans of the day were Christian?

Who cares though? If they were all of different religious backgrounds but came to the same conclusions of the importance of liberty and freedom then clearly that had nothing to do with religion. To teach that these ideas came through Christianity (and therefore in a since can only come through Christianity) is bad. Very bad.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yes the founders were CHRISTIANS..not JUDEO CHRISTIANS, NOT Deists, not atheists..CHRISTIANS...we 've been through this on here ad nauseum and you never learn a thing. The evidence from the Library of congress has been placed before you..and you still do'nt get it. I'm glad the Texas school board did that..righton. TONES

[nate895]

We aren't talking about the American people, we are talking about what is taught about the Founders. And they were not explicitly Christian.

And for that matter, neither were the early Americans. We were not all on the same page in the early days, and it is wrong to teach that we were.

Most were, and the American people at the time are the founders, which would make the overwhelming majority explicitly Christian. You are ignorant of American history if you don't think that our early history is Christian. Heck, the only three colonies that weren't explicitly Calvinist were Pennsylvania, which was founded by a Quaker but wound up being mostly Calvinist by the time of independence; Maryland, which was Roman Catholic, but was overwhelmingly Protestant by the time of independence; and Georgia, which was a penal colony.

The evidence of significant Christian influence on the founding is even its most most virulent opponent, Thomas Paine, made reference to Scripture as a great part of his argument in Common Sense. Benjamin Franklin, another non-Christian, funded the ministry of George Whitefield, who in turn supported American independence. Those are just a couple of examples to show even non-Christians at the time were forced to use Christian arguments to get their political agenda enacted.

[haaaylee]

Most were, and the American people at the time are the founders, which would make the overwhelming majority explicitly Christian. You are ignorant of American history if you don't think that our early history is Christian. Heck, the only three colonies that weren't explicitly Calvinist were Pennsylvania, which was founded by a Quaker but wound up being mostly Calvinist by the time of independence; Maryland, which was Roman Catholic, but was overwhelmingly Protestant by the time of independence; and Georgia, which was a penal colony.

The evidence of significant Christian influence on the founding is even its most most virulent opponent, Thomas Paine, made reference to Scripture as a great part of his argument in Common Sense. Benjamin Franklin, another non-Christian, funded the ministry of George Whitefield, who in turn supported American independence. Those are just a couple of examples to show even non-Christians at the time were forced to use Christian arguments to get their political agenda enacted.





I'm not ignorant of American History, btw.

[low preference guy]

Thomas Paine on religion:


Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.


Thomas Paine, made reference to Scripture as a great part of his argument in Common Sense.

I see. Making reference to the Scripture makes someone a Christian. LOL.

Jefferson had Jefferson's Bible, which removed every reference to the supernatural and miracles. He also made fun of those who thought Christ was anything more than a human.

Wiki on Franklin:


Franklin as a young man adopted the Enlightenment religious belief in Deism, that God’s truths can be found entirely through nature and reason.[91] "I soon became a thorough Deist."

Tones and Nate: Wishful thinking doesn't change history.

[haaaylee]

Tones and Nate: Wishful thinking doesn't change history.


Was TONES not banned? Or was that just wishful thinking?

[nate895]

I'm not ignorant of American History, btw.

Then you do think America's early history is Christian?

If you don't believe that America's early history is Christian, then you are ignorant of America's early history. Therefore, either you do believe America's early history is Christian or you are ignorant of America's early history via the rule of implication. I am not saying that you cannot necessarily know about America's early history in a very broad way and not believe it is explicitly Christian, but it is impossible to do an in depth study at American colonial and early history and not come to the conclusion that Christianity has had a deep impact on the beliefs of the American people at virtually every turn.

[nate895]

Thomas Paine on religion:





I see. Making reference to the Scripture makes someone a Christian. LOL.

Jefferson had Jefferson's Bible, which removed every reference to the supernatural and miracles. He also made fun of those who thought Christ was anything more than a human.

Can you not read? I said that even they weren't Christians they had to argue like Christians in order to get their way politically. I am arguing that the American people, who are the ones who fought the Revolution and made the whole thing happen, were overwhelmingly Christian, and explicitly Christian in their thoughts concerning the Revolution.

[low preference guy]

Nate, you're conceding then that the Founders were not Christian. OK, I agree with that. That's what the discussion was about.

[axiomata]

I see. Making reference to the Scripture makes someone a Christian. LOL.

I fail to see how nate calling Paine Christianity's "most virulent opponent" could in any way be read as him calling Paine a Christian but you managed to do just that.

[nate895]

nvm

[low preference guy]

I fail to see how nate calling Paine Christianity's "most virulent opponent" could in any way be read as him calling Paine a Christian but you managed to do just that.

The discussion was about whether or not the Founders were Christians. I didn't know someone changed the topic to something else, but I'm just arguing that saying "The Founders were devout Christian" is a false statement.

[haaaylee]

Then you do think America's early history is Christian?

If you don't believe that America's early history is Christian, then you are ignorant of America's early history. Therefore, either you do believe America's early history is Christian or you are ignorant of America's early history via the rule of implication. I am not saying that you cannot necessarily know about America's early history in a very broad way and not believe it is explicitly Christian, but it is impossible to do an in depth study at American colonial and early history and not come to the conclusion that Christianity has had a deep impact on the beliefs of the American people at virtually every turn.



Let me rephrase this in a way you might understand better: The Founders were of all different religions (or lack thereof). And did not found this country based on Christianity. Your argument that Americans themselves were mostly Christian is irrelevant to this topic, which discusses the teaching of the FOUNDER'S ideas. Not the population.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Thomas Paine was the ONLY deist and the founders told him to stop spreading that stuff around. Deism was TRENDY in England at the time. THe founders looked into it but didn't BITE. Franklin wrote a letter to Paine tellin him to CEASE. tones

[low preference guy]

Thomas Paine was the ONLY deist and the founders told him to stop spreading that stuff around. Deism was TRENDY in England at the time. THe founders looked into it but didn't BITE. Franklin wrote a letter to Paine tellin him to CEASE. tones

But wasn't Paine a Founding Father? Didn't he write Common Sense? What about Jefferson? Didn't he write Jefferson's Bible? And as to Franklin, didn't he admit he saw Christianity's usefulness in that men will have morals, but didn't believe in it?

[haaaylee]

Thomas Paine was the ONLY deist

HA!

[nate895]

Let me rephrase this in a way you might understand better: The Founders were of all different religions (or lack thereof). And did not found this country based on Christianity. Your argument that Americans themselves were mostly Christian is irrelevant to this topic, which discusses the teaching of the FOUNDER'S ideas. Not the population.

I am saying that the founders were acting like Christians because the American public wouldn't have let them act any other way. I don't understand how you can fail to see my point: Even the most anti-Christian founding fathers used Christianity to try to convince the American people. The American people wouldn't have went along with the Revolution unless it was Christian. At the time, the few colleges America had were dedicated to turning out ministers and lawyers, most of the people who could read learned to read simple to read the Bible, and the primary schools are run out of small local congregations for the purposes of giving an elementary Bible education to the students. I mean, this is like a Puritan's utopia for the most part, and you deny Christianity's influence on the founding of America?

[low preference guy]

You're calling Adams a deist? That is as untrue to history as you can be.

Wikipedia calls him a deist, but I'm not going to argue since wikipedia is sometimes inaccurate and I'm no expert on Adams.

[haaaylee]

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
- John Adams.

[tonesforjonesbones]

You might as well accept it Hayleeeee...I know it dosent go along with your little atheist agenda..but you are wrong. as for the poster above you..no Jefferson did n't write any bible..the story is he cut out the miracles...that's all. I'm not so sure i even believe that. THere has been an agenda to erase Christianity from our history since the progressives came along early in the 1900's.. along with all the other dastardly things they did, Federal Reserve, Irs..etc...wicked wicked people. I am THRILLED that a precident has been set in Texas to return our country to it's REAL history....it's a start...and I sure hope it catches on in many states. Florida recognizes Creationism in science classes now...good. TONES

[low preference guy]

I am saying that the founders were acting like Christians because the American public wouldn't have let them act any other way. I don't understand how you can fail to see my point: Even the most anti-Christian founding fathers used Christianity to try to convince the American people. The American people wouldn't have went along with the Revolution unless it was Christian. At the time, the few colleges America had were dedicated to turning out ministers and lawyers, most of the people who could read learned to read simple to read the Bible, and the primary schools are run out of small local congregations for the purposes of giving an elementary Bible education to the students. I mean, this is like a Puritan's utopia for the most part, and you deny Christianity's influence on the founding of America?

We are not discussing whether Christianity had influence in america, we are not talking about whether the founders acted like Christians. We are talking about whether the Founders were Christians. We are not denying anything you're claiming, we are just not talking about that.

[nate895]

Wikipedia calls him a deist, but I'm not going to argue since wikipedia is sometimes inaccurate and I'm no expert on Adams.

Wikipedia calls him a Unitarian (which is true for his later life, and during his presidency, but not in the Revolutionary or Constitutional stage, as there weren't any Unitarian in the US at that time), which is quite different from deism in many ways.

[low preference guy]

Wikipedia calls him a Unitarian (which is true for his later life, and during his presidency, but not in the Revolutionary or Constitutional stage, as there weren't any Unitarian in the US at that time), which is quite different from deism in many ways.

In the deism article they call him a deist, but as I said, I won't dispute your claim.

[The Patriot]

Great, a Public School is doing it's job. Why can't the "far" right control anymore state education boards? I am sure the Department of Education would love to override the state curriculum and create a uniform Federal Curriculum.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Haylee...if you are going to post quotes..post the entire quote in context...here is what John Adams REALLY said:

Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!' But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company—I mean hell.


Now, Bryant and Cleverly constantly argued about religion and it drove Adams CRAZY...that is what the quote is about. THe atheists took PART of it ...to make Adams appear to have disdain for religion..his father was a minister and he was supposed to be a minister also, but became a lawyer. Adams was a devout Christian and so was his wife Abigail. We are going to get this history straightened OUT. TONES

[nate895]

We are not discussing whether Christianity had influence in america, we are not talking about whether the founders acted like Christians. We are talking about whether the Founders were Christians. We are not denying anything you're claiming, we are not just talking about that.

Well, I concede that most of the big name founding fathers weren't orthodox Christians, but that really has no effect on anything at all. However, there were many Christians there.

Link (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html)

Edit: Deists are counted as Episcopalians, but have a deistic not besides them on the list.

[haaaylee]

I am saying that the founders were acting like Christians because the American public wouldn't have let them act any other way. I don't understand how you can fail to see my point: Even the most anti-Christian founding fathers used Christianity to try to convince the American people. The American people wouldn't have went along with the Revolution unless it was Christian. At the time, the few colleges America had were dedicated to turning out ministers and lawyers, most of the people who could read learned to read simple to read the Bible, and the primary schools are run out of small local congregations for the purposes of giving an elementary Bible education to the students. I mean, this is like a Puritan's utopia for the most part, and you deny Christianity's influence on the founding of America?



Now you're just making them sound like Politicians. :D

But, still, the point remains that the topic was in regards to their direct beliefs, not the pandering they may have done to the early Americans.

And the ideas that made this country great came about in spite of the majority opinion that God existed, not because. Look at the mother country. They were highly religious and we felt oppressed and decided to leave for religious freedom. To attempt to in any way make this country religiously based now would be against what the founders intended. We must not in any way attempt to imply to our children that the Founders left to create a Christian nation.

They wanted a nation of freedom.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Nate..you are correct..don't cave to the pressure. Stand firm. tones

[low preference guy]

Well, I concede that most of the big name founding fathers weren't orthodox Christians, but that really has no effect on anything at all. However, there were many Christians there.

Link (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html)

Edit: Deists are counted as Episcopalians, but have a deistic not besides them on the list.

Maybe that's a good point for a new discussion, but it's a completely different topic which probably require another thread, as the topic of whether or not the Founders were Christian is big enough.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Hayleeee...what the heck? YES Religious freedom...the freedom to be another CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION...not CHurch of England...that is all. TONES

[low preference guy]

Tones, you like full quotations. What do you think of this Thomas Jefferson quote?


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

[low preference guy]

Hayleeee...what the heck? YES Religious freedom...the freedom to be another CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION...not CHurch of England...that is all. TONES

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. That's a brand new interpretation and rewriting of history, it borders on insanity. TONES would be a great Minister of Culture in North Korea.

[nate895]

Tones, you like full quotations. What do you think of this Thomas Jefferson quote?



http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

Not addressing the quote, but the website url: Isn't it a belief that you have no beliefs; i.e., you believe that you have no beliefs? Quite a self-defeating thing to say that you have "no beliefs," since that would either make you a robot, or the world we live in is contradictory.

[nate895]

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. That's a brand new interpretation and rewriting of history, it borders on insanity. TONES would be a great Minister of Culture in North Korea.

You might disagree with it, but it isn't a new idea. The interpretation of the first amendment for quite some time was that it allowed the states to determine what would be their official church (or if they'd have an official church at all). Every state but Virginia had one, and some Southern states didn't give up their official church until after the War for Southern Independence.

[low preference guy]

Not addressing the quote, but the website url: Isn't it a belief that you have no beliefs; i.e., you believe that you have no beliefs? Quite a self-defeating thing to say that you have "no beliefs," since that would either make you a robot, or the world we live in is contradictory.

You really enjoy hijacking threads with random topics, don't you? The quote is accurate, there are other sources if seeing them will make you happy. I just did a quick google search and that's the site where I found it.

[haaaylee]

TONES:

Really? That was all it was about? Being a different kind of Christian? Oiy.




and what happened to this reply that you seem to have deleted:


"You might as well accept it Hayleeeee...I know it dosent go along with your little atheist agenda..but you are wrong. as for the poster above you..no Jefferson did n't write any bible..the story is he cut out the miracles...that's all. I'm not so sure i even believe that. THere has been an agenda to erase Christianity from our history since the progressives came along early in the 1900's.. along with all the other dastardly things they did, Federal Reserve, Irs..etc...wicked wicked people. I am THRILLED that a precident has been set in Texas to return our country to it's REAL history....it's a start...and I sure hope it catches on in many states. Florida recognizes Creationism in science classes now...good. TONES"




PS. fuckin learn how to type out my name. it isn't hard. this is probably the third time you have deleted e's or added e's. its HAAAYLEE.


and there is nothing that directly implies i'm an atheist, or that i have an agenda. sorry that the world of history doesn't fit your want for Christian Founders.

and congrats, you have also proved yourself to be a Glen Beck Worshiper based on the above statements.

[tonesforjonesbones]

here is the letter in its entirety.....tones

To John Adams.
Monticello, January 24, 1814.

Dear Sir
I have great need of the indulgence so kindly extended to me in your favor of December 25, of permitting me to answer your friendly letters at my leisure. My frequent and long absences from home are a first cause of tardiness in my correspondence, and a second the accumulation of business during my absence, some of which imperiously commands first attentions. I am now in arrear to you for your letters of November 12, 14, 16, December 3, 19, 25.

* * * * * * * * *

You ask me if I have ever seen the work of J.W. Goethe's Schriften ? Never ; nor did the question ever occur to me before, where get we the ten commandments ? The book indeed gives them to us verbatim, but where did it get them ? For itself tells us they were written by the finger of God on tables of stone, which were destroyed by Moses ; it specifies those on the second set of tables in different form and substance, but still without saying how the others were recovered. But the whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful, that it seems vain to attempt minute inquiry into it; and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right from that cause to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man ; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. The matter of the first was such as would be preserved in the memory of the hearers, and handed on by tradition for a long time; the latter such stuff as might be gathered up, for imbedding it, anywhere, and at any time. I have nothing of Vives, or Budæus, and little of Erasmus. If the familiar histories of the Saints, the want of which they regret, would have given us the histories of those tricks which these writers acknowledge to have been practised, and of the lies they agree have been invented for the sake of religion, I join them in their regrets. These would be the only parts of their histories worth reading. It is not only the sacred volumes they have thus interpolated, gutted, and falsified, but the works of others relating to them, and even the laws of the land. We have a curious instance of one of these pious frauds in the laws of Alfred. He composed, you know, from the laws of the Heptarchy, a digest for the government of the United Kingdom, and in his preface to that work he tells us expressly the sources from which he drew it, to wit, the laws of Ina, of Offa and Aethelbert (not naming the Pentateuch). But his pious interpolator, very awkwardly, premises to his work four chapters of Exodus (from the 20th to the 23d) as a part of the laws of the land; so that Alfred's preface is made to stand in the body of the work. Our judges, too, have lent a ready hand to further these frauds, and have been willing to lay the yoke of their own opinions on the necks of others ; to extend the coercions of municipal law to the dogmas of their religion, by declaring that these make a part of the law of the land. In the Year-Book 34, H. 6, p. 38, in Quare impedit, where the question was how far the common law takes notice of the ecclesiastical law, Prisot, Chief Justice, in the course of his argument, says, "A tiels leis que ils de seint eglise ont, en ancien scripture, covient a nous a donner credence ; car ces common luy sur quels touts manners leis sont fondes; et auxy, sin, nous sumus obliges de canustre lour esy de saint eglise," &c. Finch begins the business of falsification by mistranslating and misstating the words of Prisot thus : "to such laws of the church as have warrant in Holy Scripture our law giveth credence." Citing the above case and the words of Prisot in the margin, in Finch's law, B. 1, c. 3, here then we find ancien scripture, ancient writing, translated "holy scripture." This, Wingate, in 1658, erects into a maxim of law in the very words of Finch, but citing Prisot and not Finch. And Sheppard, tit. Religion, in 1675 laying it down in the same words of Finch, quotes the Year-Book, Finch and Wingate. Then comes Sir Matthew Hale, in the case of the King v. Taylor, 1 Ventr. 293, 3 Keb. 607, and declares that "Christianity is part and parcel of the laws of England." Citing nobody, and resting it, with his judgment against the witches, on his own authority, which indeed was sound and good in all cases into which no superstition or bigotry could enter. Thus strengthened, the court in 1728, in the King v. Woolston, would not suffer it to be questioned whether to write against Christianity was punishable at common law, saying it had been so settled by Hale in Taylor's case, 2 Stra. 834. Wood, therefore, 409, without scruple, lays down as a principle, that all blaspheming and profaneness are offences at the common law, and cites Strange. Blackstone, in 1763, repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that "Christianity is part of the laws of England," citing Ventris and Strange, ubi supra. And Lord Mansfield, in the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, in 1767, qualifying somewhat the position, says that "the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." Thus we find this string of authorities all hanging by one another on a single hook, a mistranslation by Finch of the words of Prisot, or on nothing. For all quote Prisot, or one another, or nobody. Thus Finch misquotes Prisot; Wingate also, but using Finch's words; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate; Hale cites nobody ; the court in Woolston's case cite Hale ; Wood cites Woolston's case ; Blackstone that and Hale, and Lord Mansfield volunteers his own ipse dixit. And who now can question but that the whole Bible and Testament are a part of the common law ? And that Connecticut, in her blue laws, laying it down as a principle that the laws of God should be the laws of their land, except where their own contradicted them, did anything more than express, with a salvo, what the English judges had less cautiously declared without any restriction ? And what, I dare say, our cunning Chief Justice would swear to, and find as many sophisms to twist it out of the general terms of our declarations of rights, and even the stricter text of the Virginia "act for the freedom of religion," as he did to twist Burr's neck out of the halter of treason. May we not say then with Him who was all candor and benevolence, "woe unto you, ye lawyers, for ye lade men with burdens grievous to bear."

I think with you, that Priestley, in his comparison of the doctrines of philosophy and revelation, did not do justice to the undertaking. But he felt himself pressed by the hand of death. Enfield has given us a more distinct account of the ethics of the ancient philosophers ; but the great work of which Enfield's is an abridgment, Brucker's History of Philosophy, is the treasure which I would wish to possess, as a book of reference or of special research only, for who could read six volumes quarto, of one thousand pages each, closely printed, of modern Latin ? Your account of D'Argens' Æileus makes me wish for him also. Æileus furnishes a fruitful text for a sensible and learned commentator. The Abbé Batteaux, which I have, is a meagre thing.

You surprise me with the account you give of the strength of family distinction still existing in your State. With us it is so totally extinguished, that not a spark of it is to be found but lurking in the hearts of some of our old tories ; but all bigotries hang to one another, and this in the Eastern States hangs, as I suspect, to that of the priesthood. Here youth, beauty, mind and manners, are more valued than a pedigree.

I do not remember the conversation between us which you mention in yours of November 15th, on your proposition to vest in Congress the exclusive power of establishing banks. My opposition to it must have been grounded, not on taking the power from the States, but on leaving any vestige of it in existence, even in the hands of Congress ; because it would only have been a change of the organ of abuse. I have ever been the enemy of banks, not of those discounting for cash, but of those foisting their own paper into circulation, and thus banishing our cash. My zeal against those institutions was so warm and open at the establishment of the Bank of the United States, that I was derided as a maniac by the tribe of bank-mongers, who were seeking to filch from the public their swindling and barren gains. But the errors of that day cannot be recalled. The evils they have engendered are now upon us, and the question is how we are to get out of them ? Shall we build an altar to the old paper money of the Revolution, which ruined individuals but saved the republic, and burn on that all the bank charters, present and future, and their notes with them ? For these are to ruin both republic and individuals. This cannot be done. The mania is too strong. It has seized, by its delusions and corruptions, all the members of our governments, general, special and individual. Our circulating paper of the last year was estimated at two hundred millions of dollars. The new banks now petitioned for, to the several legislatures, are for about sixty millions additional capital, and of course one hundred and eighty millions of additional circulation, nearly doubling that of the last year, and raising the whole mass to near four hundred millions, or forty for one, of the wholesome amount of circulation for a population of eight millions circumstanced as we are, and you remember how rapidly our money went down after our forty for one establishment in the Revolution. I doubt if the present trash can hold as long. I think the three hundred and eighty millions must blow all up in the course of the present year, or certainly it will be consummated by the re-duplication to take place of course at the legislative meetings of the next winter. Should not prudent men who possess stock in any moneyed institution, either draw and hoard the cash now while they can, or exchange it for canal stock, or such other as being bottomed on immovable property, will remain unhurt by the crush ? I have been endeavoring to persuade a friend in our legislature to try and save this State from the general ruin by timely interference. I propose to him, First, to prohibit instantly, all foreign paper. Secondly, to give our banks six months to call in all their five-dollar bills (the lowest we allow); another six months to call in their ten-dollar notes, and six months more to call in all below fifty dollars. This would produce so gradual a diminution of medium, as not to shock contracts already made--would leave finally, bills of such size as would be called for only in transactions between merchant and merchant, and ensure a metallic circulation for those of the mass of citizens. But it will not be done. You might as well, with the sailors, whistle to the wind, as suggest precautions against having too much money. We must bend then before the gale, and try to hold fast ourselves by some plank of the wreck. God send us all a safe deliverance, and to yourself every other species and degree of happiness.



P.S. I return your letter of November 15th, as it requests, and supposing that the late publication of the life of our good and really great Rittenhouse may not have reached you, I send a copy for your acceptance. Even its episodes and digressions may add to the amusement it will furnish you. But if the history of the world were written on the same scale, the whole world would not hold it. Rittenhouse, as an astronomer, would stand on a line with any of his time, and as a mechanician, he certainly has not been equalled. In this view he was truly great, but, placed alongside of Newton, every human character must appear diminutive, and none would have shrunk more feelingly from the painful parallel than the modest and amiable Rittenhouse, whose genius and merit are not the less for this exaggerated comparison of his over-zealous biographer.

[low preference guy]

You might disagree with it, but it isn't a new idea. The interpretation of the first amendment for quite some time was that it allowed the states to determine what would be their official church (or if they'd have an official church at all). Every state but Virginia had one, and some Southern states didn't give up their official church until after the War for Southern Independence.

Sure, it allows them, but the first amendment only says "Congress Shall write no law". It applied to the Federal Government, not to the states.

Here are some quotes from the Virginia Act Establishing Religious Freedom


That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

I read "any", not "anything that is not some Christian denomination". Tones' statement might be true in some states, but the blanket statement she made isn't true.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Oiy...is that like Oy? are you jewish? is that why you have a hard time accepting that this country was founded by christians? tones

[nate895]

Sure, it allows them, but the first amendment only says "Congress Shall write no law". It applied to the FEDs, not to the states.

Here are some quotes from the Virginia Act Establishing Religious Freedom



I read "any", not "anything that is some Christian denomination". Tones' statement might be true in some states, but the blanket statement she made isn't true.

Her statement is true in every state but Virginia, the one you referenced, which I had already conceded.

[RedStripe]

Social Conservatives: "It isn't important that the founders were mostly racists and in some cases owners of slaves, but it IS important that some of them were Christians."

LMFAO

[RedStripe]

are you jewish? is that why you have a hard time accepting that this country was founded by christians? tones

ahahahahaha

[low preference guy]

Oiy...is that like Oy? are you jewish? is that why you have a hard time accepting that this country was founded by christians? tones

According to your logic, you're confessing that you say that the Founders are Christians only because you are Christian. We got you Tones.

As for me, I care about the truth. I know that my beliefs don't have influenced on what happened in the past, so I just look at the evidence available to find out the truth. But to satisfy your curiosity, I'm not Jewish, and never was.

[nate895]

You really enjoy hijacking threads with random topics, don't you? The quote is accurate, there are other sources if seeing them will make you happy. I just did a quick google search and that's the site where I found it.

I didn't dispute the quote, I have seen it before, nor am I trying to claim Jefferson, I am just saying that atheists can be quite contradictory (and therefore, illogical) sometimes, specifically referring to the idea that one has no beliefs.

[RedStripe]

are you black? is that why you have a hard time accepting that this country was founded by racists? tones

[nate895]

Social Conservatives: "It isn't important that the founders were mostly racists and in some cases owners of slaves, but it IS important that some of them were Christians."

LMFAO

The difference would be that Christianity had an important influence on the founding, whereas slavery and racism weren't fundamental principles of America's founding, although slavery was tolerated as a necessary evil.

[haaaylee]

Oiy...is that like Oy? are you jewish? is that why you have a hard time accepting that this country was founded by christians? tones

You fell for my trap TONES! I said "Oiy" on purpose knowing full and well you would say this.


I'm not Jewish.


But whatever i am doesn't matter.


Just like whatever our Founders were doesn't matter.


And they were not all Christians!

[low preference guy]

I didn't dispute the quote, I have seen it before, nor am I trying to claim Jefferson, I am just saying that atheists can be quite contradictory (and therefore, illogical) sometimes, specifically referring to the idea that one has no beliefs.

Interesting. The way you discuss one particular issue is pointing mistakes of individuals from a group related to the source of a quote or the person who is making the argument. That really stretches guilt by association.

I don't consider myself an atheist, but if I was, whether other atheists were illogical would have nothing to do with the accuracy or inaccuracy of my own statements.

[slothman]

If I'm correct many in the liberal establishment would love to erase pre-1877 American history from the curriculum. In other words, jettison those pesky founding fathers and their troublesome ideas. ;)

Where did you hear this?
I've never heard it before in either(R or D) camps.

[RedStripe]

The difference would be that Christianity had an important influence on the founding, whereas slavery and racism weren't fundamental principles of America's founding, although slavery was tolerated as a necessary evil.

Um, slavery and racism were fundamental principles of America's founding.

3/5th's clause. Or how about the fact that none of the individual rights would have been accepted if the founders though that they would have applied to non-whites.

Christianity had an influence on the founding documents, as did racism.

Coincidentally, both are the result of irrational and antiquated cultural belief systems. Both are equally unfounded. Both beliefs are held disproportionately by the uneducated and ignorant.

Unfortunately we have a bunch of religious nutjobs trying to attach their latest crusade to the libertarian movement.

[nate895]

Interesting. The way you discuss one particular issue is pointing mistakes of individuals from a group related to the source of a quote or the person who is making the argument. That really stretches guilt by association.

I wasn't making an argument against your points about the American founding father being Christian or not, I was making an argument against atheism in general by saying that you have no beliefs is a contradiction unless you are a robot, and I can argue that if atheism were really then atheists should have, literally, no beliefs, which is a contradiction, so therefore atheism isn't true.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Low...ffs...the pilgrams came here to escape the church of ENGLAND..they were PURITANS...they were CHRISTIANS and they wanted to worship as they saw fit. Now...you are a fan of Thomas Woods right? here's what Thomas Woods writes in reference to the beginnings ...(The Politically Incorrect Guide to AMerican History)

"First basic fact: the colonists were not paragons of "diversity". They came from one part of Europe. They spoke a common language. They worshiped the same God.

** "Christianity was the most important factor shaping the colonists."

"The First AMendment to the COnstitution reflected this attitude: The federal government was prohibited from meddling in the religious affairs of the states. The First Amendment's declaration that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," was intended, according to historian David Hackett Fischer, to preserve religious freedom in Virginia and Pennsylvania and to guarantee that the religious establishments that existed in Massachusetts and elsewhere would be safe from outside intereference. " Thomas Woods

[haaaylee]

I wasn't making an argument against your points about the American founding father being Christian or not, I was making an argument against atheism in general by saying that you have no beliefs is a contradiction unless you are a robot, and I can argue that if atheism were really then atheists should have, literally, no beliefs, which is a contradiction, so therefore atheism isn't true.

Fine. Agnostic. Happy now?

[low preference guy]

I wasn't making an argument against your points about the American founding father being Christian or not, I was making an argument against atheism in general by saying that you have no beliefs is a contradiction unless you are a robot, and I can argue that if atheism were really then atheists should have, literally, no beliefs, which is a contradiction, so therefore atheism isn't true.

This is so nonsensical I'm not even going to respond.

[RedStripe]

I wasn't making an argument against your points about the American founding father being Christian or not, I was making an argument against atheism in general by saying that you have no beliefs is a contradiction unless you are a robot, and I can argue that if atheism were really then atheists should have, literally, no beliefs, which is a contradiction, so therefore atheism isn't true.

Ok - Having no belief is short-hand for having no belief in a particular thing.

I don't believe in Zeus. For the very same reasons, I don't believe in your fairy-tales either.

[nate895]

Um, slavery and racism were fundamental principles of America's founding.

3/5th's clause. Or how about the fact that none of the individual rights would have been accepted if the founders though that they would have applied to non-whites.

Christianity had an influence on the founding documents, as did racism.

Coincidentally, both are the result of irrational and antiquated cultural belief systems. Both are equally unfounded. Both beliefs are held disproportionately by the uneducated and ignorant.

Unfortunately we have a bunch of religious nutjobs trying to attach their latest crusade to the libertarian movement.

For one, you are trying the guilt by association I was just accused of from someone else. It just doesn't work. This is what atheism leads to, consistently logically fallacious arguments and name calling. You have no point so you must accuse the opposition of being "uneducated and ignorant," even when there are people who aren't "uneducated and ignorant" who are are still Orthodox Christians, nor would Christians being "uneducated and ignorant" have anything to do with Christian truth claims. Every single last Christian could, theoretically, be illiterate, and Christianity could still be true. That makes your argument fallacious.

[low preference guy]

Low...ffs...the pilgrams came here to escape the church of ENGLAND..they were PURITANS...they were CHRISTIANS and they wanted to worship as they saw fit. Now...you are a fan of Thomas Woods right? here's what Thomas Woods writes in reference to the beginnings ...(The Politically Incorrect Guide to AMerican History)

"First basic fact: the colonists were not paragons of "diversity". They came from one part of Europe. They spoke a common language. They worshiped the same God.

** "Christianity was the most important factor shaping the colonists."

"The First AMendment to the COnstitution reflected this attitude: The federal government was prohibited from meddling in the religious affairs of the states. The First Amendment's declaration that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," was intended, according to historian David Hackett Fischer, to preserve religious freedom in Virginia and Pennsylvania and to guarantee that the religious establishments that existed in Massachusetts and elsewhere would be safe from outside intereference. " Thomas Woods

Tones, you want to change the topic of discussion when it's clear you're wrong? Again, we are not discussing whether or not "Christianity was the most important factor shaping the colonists." We are arguing whether the particular group of people referred to as the "Founding Fathers" were devout Christians. That's how this whole discussion got started and the point haylee and I are arguing against.

[haaaylee]

Ok - Having no belief is short-hand for having no belief in a particular thing.

I don't believe in Zeus. For the very same reasons, I don't believe in your fairy-tales either.



This.



We are all Atheists about something.

[nate895]

Fine. Agnostic. Happy now?

Agnostic wouldn't make sense if atheism wasn't a possibility because the point of agnosticism is that you refuse to either affirm God's existence or deny God's existence, and yet if atheism has been proven false, it would make no sense to leave open that possibility.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Haylee..i wondered because you spelled it wrong.

now this: Um, slavery and racism were fundamental principles of America's founding.

3/5th's clause. Or how about the fact that none of the individual rights would have been accepted if the founders though that they would have applied to non-whites.

Let me tell you about the 3/5 clause. The NORTHERN congressmen did not want to count the slaves AT ALL..the south fought to get the 3/5's clause. The Northern congressmen didn't want to because it gave the slave states more power in congress.

Slavery was NOT a basis for the founding of this country. We were a colony of England under the king ..they had SLAVERY therefore the colonies had to also. THAT institution came from ENGLAND. TOnes

[RedStripe]

Low...ffs...the pilgrams came here to escape the church of ENGLAND..they were PURITANS...they were CHRISTIANS and they wanted to worship as they saw fit. Now...you are a fan of Thomas Woods right? here's what Thomas Woods writes in reference to the beginnings ...(The Politically Incorrect Guide to AMerican History)

"First basic fact: the colonists were not paragons of "diversity". They came from one part of Europe. They spoke a common language. They worshiped the same God.

** "Christianity was the most important factor shaping the colonists."

"The First AMendment to the COnstitution reflected this attitude: The federal government was prohibited from meddling in the religious affairs of the states. The First Amendment's declaration that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," was intended, according to historian David Hackett Fischer, to preserve religious freedom in Virginia and Pennsylvania and to guarantee that the religious establishments that existed in Massachusetts and elsewhere would be safe from outside intereference. " Thomas Woods

And the pilgrims were largely racist, sexist, and religious assholes. Good for them.

I'm glad we've gotten over that period of juvenile attitudes. Your superstitious delusions are your own, pathetic business. Don't bother me with your ridiculous beliefs.

[nate895]

Ok - Having no belief is short-hand for having no belief in a particular thing.

I don't believe in Zeus. For the very same reasons, I don't believe in your fairy-tales either.

Then you are ignorant of the Christian faith. Zeus and YHWH are fundamentally different on so many levels that to deny both on the same philosophical ground is to demonstrate that either you are intellectually lazy concerning the testing of YHWH as an axiom or that you don't know what I am talking about when I write YHWH.

[RedStripe]

Haylee..i wondered because you spelled it wrong.

now this: Um, slavery and racism were fundamental principles of America's founding.

3/5th's clause. Or how about the fact that none of the individual rights would have been accepted if the founders though that they would have applied to non-whites.

Let me tell you about the 3/5 clause. The NORTHERN congressmen did not want to count the slaves AT ALL..the south fought to get the 3/5's clause. The Northern congressmen didn't want to because it gave the slave states more power in congress.

Slavery was NOT a basis for the founding of this country. We were a colony of England under the king ..they had SLAVERY therefore the colonies had to also. THAT institution came from ENGLAND. TOnes

Yea it was one of the English institutions that many of the colonial representatives were very protective of.

Fact: most of the founding fathers believed that blacks were inherently inferior to whiles.

Fact: most of the founding fathers believed in the Christian god (or pretended to) or something similar.

Fact: none of this matter. They are a bunch of dead dudes who didn't even represent the people at the time. We can read what they said to gain insight, but we would be stupid to take their personal beliefs as evidence of anything but just that: their own personal beliefs based on the historical biases which permeated their existence.

[nate895]

And the pilgrims were largely racist, sexist, and religious assholes. Good for them.

I'm glad we've gotten over that period of juvenile attitudes. Your superstitious delusions are your own, pathetic business. Don't bother me with your ridiculous beliefs.

Romans 1 18-32:


God's Wrath on Unrighteousness

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

[Shotdown1027]

This argument is silly. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine were all clearly deists or even athiests. John Adams was a spiritual man who often disdained the religions that embodied those spiritual ideas and was distrustful of organized religion.

However, many (maybe even most) of the Founders were Christian. This was not remarkable in anyway, as people here have pointed out, this merely reflected that they were just like almost everyone else in their era. The same goes for Jefferson/Franklin/Paine--who were merely members of a group (deists) who were particularly trendy amongst enlightenment thinkers.

Christianity is not foundational to the ideas of liberty or libertarianism. To say so is to deny that Muslims, Buddhists, Athiests, or Deists can believe in freedom or discover the principles of freedom, something which does not ring true. Christianity, like many other religions, can, though, be interpreted in a way that is very friendly to libertarian (that is certainly how I interpret it)---or very hostile to libertarianism (think Fred Phelps). This is as true of Christianity as it is of Islam.

Christianity existed for 1750+ before the American Revolution, and yet it never resulted in anything like the explosion of liberty known as the American Revolution. Why? Because it was not the essential ingredient. The essential ingredient was the Enlightenment, during which philosophy regarding liberty, freedom, and the minimal government/representative government became extremely popular, while the monarchies of Europe became less and less popular. It is no coincidence that immediately after the Enlightenment--most of the monarchies come crumbling down.

Christianity is not, in and of itself, harmful to the ideas of liberty. Nor is Islam, Buddhism, or Hindu. However, neither was Christianity the most essential characteristic of the American Revolution.

Whether the founding fathers were Christian does not seem to be in dispute to me. Most of them were, though a minority (Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, and others) were not. However, this majority-minority split between religion/semi-religious groups in the Founding Fathers is rather representative of the split in the American public regarding these issues.

[low preference guy]

Christianity existed for 1750+ before the American Revolution, and yet it never resulted in anything like the explosion of liberty known as the American Revolution. Why? Because it was not the essential ingredient. The essential ingredient was the Enlightenment, during which philosophy regarding liberty, freedom, and the minimal government/representative government became extremely popular, while the monarchies of Europe became less and less popular. It is no coincidence that immediately after the Enlightenment--most of the monarchies come crumbling down.


Quote for truth. Great write up.

[haaaylee]

Agnostic wouldn't make sense if atheism wasn't a possibility because the point of agnosticism is that you refuse to either affirm God's existence or deny God's existence, and yet if atheism has been proven false, it would make no sense to leave open that possibility.

Atheists are more than positive they are right, due to lack of proof. You could even say Christians are Atheists in the sense that they do not believe there is no God. Is that not a belief in a non belief?


Haylee..i wondered because you spelled it wrong.

My name is actually spelled "Hailey." I spell it this way for personal humorous reasons.



Also, i'm going to repeat this quote not just because he was a Founding Father but because it really points out how much of a rip-off Christianity is: "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." - Thomas Jefferson

[haaaylee]

This argument is silly. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine were all clearly deists or even athiests. John Adams was a spiritual man who often disdained the religions that embodied those spiritual ideas and was distrustful of organized religion.

However, many (maybe even most) of the Founders were Christian. This was not remarkable in anyway, as people here have pointed out, this merely reflected that they were just like almost everyone else in their era. The same goes for Jefferson/Franklin/Paine--who were merely members of a group (deists) who were particularly trendy amongst enlightenment thinkers.

Christianity is not foundational to the ideas of liberty or libertarianism. To say so is to deny that Muslims, Buddhists, Athiests, or Deists can believe in freedom or discover the principles of freedom, something which does not ring true. Christianity, like many other religions, can, though, be interpreted in a way that is very friendly to libertarian (that is certainly how I interpret it)---or very hostile to libertarianism (think Fred Phelps). This is as true of Christianity as it is of Islam.

Christianity existed for 1750+ before the American Revolution, and yet it never resulted in anything like the explosion of liberty known as the American Revolution. Why? Because it was not the essential ingredient. The essential ingredient was the Enlightenment, during which philosophy regarding liberty, freedom, and the minimal government/representative government became extremely popular, while the monarchies of Europe became less and less popular. It is no coincidence that immediately after the Enlightenment--most of the monarchies come crumbling down.

Christianity is not, in and of itself, harmful to the ideas of liberty. Nor is Islam, Buddhism, or Hindu. However, neither was Christianity the most essential characteristic of the American Revolution.

Whether the founding fathers were Christian does not seem to be in dispute to me. Most of them were, though a minority (Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, and others) were not. However, this majority-minority split between religion/semi-religious groups in the Founding Fathers is rather representative of the split in the American public regarding these issues.



Best non biased response in this thread.

[RedStripe]

Then you are ignorant of the Christian faith. Zeus and YHWH are fundamentally different on so many levels that to deny both on the same philosophical ground is to demonstrate that either you are intellectually lazy concerning the testing of YHWH as an axiom or that you don't know what I am talking about when I write YHWH.

Yea, myths differ in the details but remain the same for my purpose: you believe in yet another deity, for which there is no physical evidence, simply because that is your cultural tradition. Yawn. If you were brought up in ancient Greece you would be worshiping different invented deities.

Of the thousands of supernatural traditions in the history of human beings, you were brought up to believe in a particular variant. Naturally, you believe that your version of the supernatural world is 'correct' based on some ambiguous and unreliable 'holy text', not unlike the other thousands of supernatural belief systems which have the exact same factual basis (none).

Yes, you are the chosen one. You are special. You are a unique little snowflake who is lucky enough to be in tune with the supernatural creator (who just so happened to impart your own cultural tradition with the correct version of beliefs - out of thousands of equally plausible (dumb) beliefs!).

Haha. While a young child's belief in Santa Claus (or it's cultural equivalent) is quite amusing and lovable, an adult's belief in the cultural equivalent (especially having been exposed to the scientific method and critical thinking, presumably) is quite depressing.

[Shotdown1027]

Atheists are more than positive they are right, due to lack of proof. You could even say Christians are Atheists in the sense that they do not believe there is no God. Is that not a belief in a non belief?



My name is actually spelled "Hailey." I spell it this way for personal humorous reasons.



Also, i'm going to repeat this quote not just because he was a Founding Father but because it really points out how much of a rip-off Christianity is: "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." - Thomas Jefferson



Ohk, we get it. Neither you, nor Agorist, like Christianity. Great.

That isn't what this post is about. It's about whether the Founding Fathers were Christian--and whether that is important enough to emphasize in textbooks. Let's stay and subject and try not to do too much to disparage others' religious beliefs.

[haaaylee]

Ohk, we get it. Neither you, nor Agorist, like Christianity. Great.

That isn't what this post is about. It's about whether the Founding Fathers were Christian--and whether that is important enough to emphasize in textbooks. Let's stay and subject and try not to do too much to disparage others' religious beliefs.

Um, i've actually posted a few times, along with "low preference guy," the main point of this thread. I was not the person who went off topic.



And it isn't about not liking Christianity. The last two posts were just in regards to it being highly unoriginal . . .

[RedStripe]

Romans 1 18-32:

Oh yea, the Bible - an incoherent mass of rambling bullshit.

God - and certainly your fairy-tale deity - probably doesn't exist.

There's no good reason to treat the text of some desert nomads as truth, anymore than there is reason to treat Native American myths as truth.

Sorry you've invested so much into something so silly. Must be hard, if not impossible, to realize that.

[RedStripe]

lol don't worry, i'm just satan testing your beliefs! Don't stray from the course my dear cultists - er i mean Christians!

[nate895]

Yea, myths differ in the details but remain the same for my purpose: you believe in yet another deity, for which there is no physical evidence, simply because that is your cultural tradition. Yawn. If you were brought up in ancient Greece you would be worshiping different invented deities.

Of the thousands of supernatural traditions in the history of human beings, you were brought up to believe in a particular variant. Naturally, you believe that your version of the supernatural world is 'correct' based on some ambiguous and unreliable 'holy text', not unlike the other thousands of supernatural belief systems which have the exact same factual basis (none).

Yes, you are the chosen one. You are special. You are a unique little snowflake who is lucky enough to be in tune with the supernatural creator (who just so happened to impart your own cultural tradition with the correct version of beliefs - out of thousands of equally plausible (dumb) beliefs!).

Haha. While a young child's belief in Santa Claus (or it's cultural equivalent) is quite amusing and lovable, an adult's belief in the cultural equivalent (especially having been exposed to the scientific method and critical thinking, presumably) is quite depressing.

Fine then, I challenge you to debate me on it. I don't think you have the guts.

[Shotdown1027]

Um, i've actually posted a few times, along with "low preference guy," the main point of this thread. I was not the person who went off topic.



And it isn't about not liking Christianity. The last two posts were just in regards to it being highly unoriginal . . .

Haaaylee, I see. Sorry. My suggestion would be to do this: Ignore those who want to go off topic.
Frankly, I don't think you, or anyone else, is going to change Nate or Tones' opinion of Christianity--these are deeply held beliefs which are only changed with personal experience, truly introspective learning/reflection, or honest soul searching. I can tell you that as a former conservative Christian, no one could change my mind from the outside. And everytime an athiest said I was stupid for being a conservative Christian--that simply cemented my opinions.
I am now a very progressive Christian--in fact some of my Christian friends take issue with me calling myself one. One could call me a Christian-Deist or Deist-Christian and be fairly accurate, though I'm also an Arianist in many ways.

As I said, I don't want to see this thread devolve into religious attacks, that's both silly and unproductive to our cause. However, the political issue that this thread is focusing on is very serious and should be studied closely, and with a calm and focused intellect. I think my post on page 9 could be agreed to by everyone but maybe Tones, and I think Tones has shown he will not be convinced by any manner of logic or reason. Regardless of how far afield the religious members or non-religious members go with their questions and statements, let's resolve to stay on topic and ignore their useless banter.

[RedStripe]

Fine then, I challenge you to debate me on it. I don't think you have the guts.

Debate on what? The existence of Zeus? Hahaha

[Shotdown1027]

Fine then, I challenge you to debate me on it. I don't think you have the guts.

I hope you guys will do this in a PM or different thread. Don't hijack this one.

[low preference guy]

Haaaylee, I see. Sorry. My suggestion would be to do this: Ignore those who want to go off topic.
Frankly, I don't think you, or anyone else, is going to change Nate or Tones' opinion of Christianity--these are deeply held beliefs which are only changed with personal experience, truly introspective learning/reflection, or honest soul searching. I can tell you that as a former conservative Christian, no one could change my mind from the outside. And everytime an athiest said I was stupid for being a conservative Christian--that simply cemented my opinions.
I am now a very progressive Christian--in fact some of my Christian friends take issue with me calling myself one. One could call me a Christian-Deist or Deist-Christian and be fairly accurate, though I'm also an Arianist in many ways.

As I said, I don't want to see this thread devolve into religious attacks, that's both silly and unproductive to our cause. However, the political issue that this thread is focusing on is very serious and should be studied closely, and with a calm and focused intellect. I think my post on page 9 could be agreed to by everyone but maybe Tones, and I think Tones has shown he will not be convinced by any manner of logic or reason. Regardless of how far afield the religious members or non-religious members go with their questions and statements, let's resolve to stay on topic and ignore their useless banter.

Been there. If you end the same way as me, you'll have no belief in any religion or supernatural being. I'm quite happy like that.

[Nanerbeet]

Ohk, we get it. Neither you, nor Agorist, like Christianity. Great.

That isn't what this post is about. It's about whether the Founding Fathers were Christian--and whether that is important enough to emphasize in textbooks. Let's stay and subject and try not to do too much to disparage others' religious beliefs.


Sorry, religous beliefs will not be tollerated here or ANYWHERE. Period. Time to find a closet because although we'll tollerate gays, straights, perverts, blacks, whites, men, women, trannies, animals, rocks, young people, old people, knife wielding "innocents" unconstitionally tackled to the ground by cops, tree huggers, pot smokers, humans or space aliens, there is NO ROOM ON THIS PLANET FRIGGEN WIERDOS who call the creative nature of things God and the destructive ones Satan.

[RedStripe]

Sorry, religous beliefs will not be tollerated here or ANYWHERE. Period. Time to find a closet because although we'll tollerate gays, straights, perverts, blacks, whites, men, women, trannies, animals, rocks, young people, old people, knife wielding "innocents" unconstitionally tackled to the ground by cops, tree huggers, pot smokers, humans or space aliens, there is NO ROOM ON THIS PLANET FRIGGEN WIERDOS who call the creative nature of things God and the destructive ones Satan.

Um, people are actually pretty overtly Christian in the USA. I've seen fucking commercials for various churches on cable TV. The idea that Christian beliefs are somehow suppressed in the US is absolutely hilarious.

[Shotdown1027]

Been there. If you end the same way as me, you'll have no belief in any religion or supernatural being. I'm quite happy like that.

I should clarify "low preference guy"--I'm as far from an athiest as one could be. I have not moved "towards" athiesm in any way, just further away from mainstream Christianity and closer to older schools of thought (like that of Christian Deists and Arius).

[low preference guy]

I should clarify "low preference guy"--I'm as far from an athiest as one could be. I have not moved "towards" athiesm in any way, just further away from mainstream Christianity and closer to older schools of thought (like that of Christian Deists and Arius).

Didn't mean to offend you. I just said what my journey was like. And in my book, moving from an interventionist God to deism is moving closer to atheism. Note that deism didn't last very long. Its advocates over time converted quickly to atheism (which doesn't mean you will!).

[nate895]

Debate on what? The existence of Zeus? Hahaha

The existence of YHWH

[Shotdown1027]

Didn't mean to offend you. I just said what my journey was like. End in my book, moving from an interventionist God to deism is moving closer to atheism. Note that deism didn't last very long. Its advocates over time converted quickly to atheism (which doesn't mean you will!).

Oh I take no offense, no worries. You'd have to try much harder than that =P.

I would say that deism often IS a stepping stone to athiesm from those who are uncomfortable with the leap. In my case that simply is not the case. Rather, my deism comes from my experience that God simply does not intervene in the affairs of humans in any material way. However, if anything, I believe in a God that is even more personal that the God of mainstream Christianity. I believe God to be intensely personal. A good example of this would be to say that I believe in miracles and one could even say I believe God performs them. I believe God granted us with the spark of intelligence through creation, and that it is a miracle that we can literally bring people back from the dead, repair broken bones, educate the mentally handicapped, help premature babies to survive, etc. These are all miracles, performed by our hands and made possible through the spark of abstract thought.
I mean, if one thinks about our ancestors only 300 years back--they would think we are Gods. We can control electricity, create fire with the flick of our fingers, fly 10,000 feet in the air, travel 75 miles per hour on the ground, etc--all of this is incredible--we appear to be Gods, and in fact emulate God closely (more closely as time goes on). In the end, it all really comes down to my belief in a God that created (through the Big Bang Theory) and in an afterlife. In order to get my reasons why I believe in God's creation of earth, you'd need to PM me, it's a tad too much to explain here--and i'm quite sure everyone doesn't want to hear why. Suffice it to say, though, this intensely personal God is pretty far from athiesm.

[nate895]

I hope you guys will do this in a PM or different thread. Don't hijack this one.

We would do the debate on a different thread, and he should respond via PM. I was simply publicly challenging him so as to show how his claims are worthless if he doesn't have the intellectual cajones to actually put his money where his mouth is if he refuses.

[Shotdown1027]

Um, people are actually pretty overtly Christian in the USA. I've seen fucking commercials for various churches on cable TV. The idea that Christian beliefs are somehow suppressed in the US is absolutely hilarious.

You are quite right there, Redstripe. American Christians are NOT oppressed, and I say that as someone who considers himself a Christian.

[RedStripe]

The existence of YHWH

Um, PM me even though I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be debating the existence of - the tooth fairy?

[low preference guy]

A good example of this would be to say that I believe in miracles and one could even say I believe God performs them.

You believe in miracles? What would you say to this argument:

The concept of miracles only have validity if it's assumed that nature have some laws which always obeys. A miracle is an exception to such law. But if there was an exception, the supposed law was no law at all. Therefore miracles don't exist.

[Shotdown1027]

I would say that miracles are ill (or wrongly) defined in that argument. Miracles do not break natural law at all, rather they work in cooperation with the natural law.

For example: It is a miracle that a premature baby of 3 months can be made to live. Our ancestors only 30 years ago would've thought this was amazing--100 years back it would've been considered witchcraft or a miracle of some sort. To me at least, there is nothing supernatural about miracles--rather, miracles are just the amazing things we, as humans, are able to do with the intelligence we received from God.

[low preference guy]

I would say that miracles are ill (or wrongly) defined in that argument. Miracles do not break natural law at all, rather they work in cooperation with the natural law.

For example: It is a miracle that a premature baby of 3 months can be made to live. Our ancestors only 30 years ago would've thought this was amazing--100 years back it would've been considered witchcraft or a miracle of some sort. To me at least, there is nothing supernatural about miracles--rather, miracles are just the amazing things we, as humans, are able to do with the intelligence we received from God.

I guess we use different words for that concept. I call that an achievement, not a miracle.

[Nanerbeet]

Yea, myths differ in the details but remain the same for my purpose: you believe in yet another deity, for which there is no physical evidence, simply because that is your cultural tradition. Yawn. If you were brought up in ancient Greece you would be worshiping different invented deities.


Science explains that we are the product of billions of years of refinement through evolution-- the continuous process of adapting to the environment. If you were to believe science and evolution, how then could you so easily dismiss the appearence of superstition as not having a basis in reality? Surely an organism that developed a sense and a need to believe in something which did not exist would have fallen to the evolutionary superior, would it not? Yet religion wins. Every time.

[nate895]

Science explains that we are the product of billions of years of refinement through evolution-- the continuous process of adapting to the environment. If you were to believe science and evolution, how then could you so easily dismiss the appearence of superstition as not having a basis in reality? Surely an organism that developed a sense and a need to believe in something which did not exist would have fallen to the evolutionary superior, would it not? Yet religion wins. Every time.

Actually, the evolution of false beliefs proves a bigger problem to the evolutionist because it really validates the "evolutionary argument against naturalism" pioneered by Alvin Plantinga. Most evolutionists would say religion provides various levels of survival value. However, this goes to show that evolution has produced in the past (and continues to produce) false beliefs about reality, so there is no reason to think that we have it right about reality since we are the products of the same evolutionary system in that view.

Edit: Of course, evolutionists will rebuff that "science" proves they are right. However, how do they know science is even a valid way to gain truth about reality when so many of our ancestors were tricked into believing a false method? How do we know we have arrived that right one?

[haaaylee]

Science explains that we are the product of billions of years of refinement through evolution-- the continuous process of adapting to the environment. If you were to believe science and evolution, how then could you so easily dismiss the appearence of superstition as not having a basis in reality? Surely an organism that developed a sense and a need to believe in something which did not exist would have fallen to the evolutionary superior, would it not? Yet religion wins. Every time.



This is not proof Religion "wins."


Superstition, unlike science and evolution, can not be seen. Or proved. How is that winning?

[Theocrat]

I'm amazed at how ignorant some of you are about our nation's Christian heritage. There is so much evidence to show that, you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not see it. Let me help you out by recommending a DVD series which unequivocally proves that America was founded on Christian principles, with documentation and all:

http://shop.wallbuilders.com/common/images/products/main/AHSDVDlg.jpg (http://shop.wallbuilders.com/index/page/product/product_id/166/product_name/The+American+Heritage+Series+%2810+DVD+Boxed+Set%2 9)

If you're not convinced after watching that, then you truly are deceived, which is evidenced that you have been indoctrinated by secular humanistic philosophy in education. They definitely don't want people to know the truth about God's influence into our early American republic because then the people won't worship the State over God.

[low preference guy]

Evolution doesn't apply to beliefs. Your beliefs are not determined by the matter that composes your body. Whether you believe a particular statement is true or not is not predetermined by the atoms in your brain.

Evolution states, informally, that physical traits that are helpful to survive in a particular environment are likely to appear in future generations, as long as those traits are helpful to survive. Again, it says nothing about which concepts your mind will have or which ideas you'll believe to be true or false.

[nate895]

Evolution doesn't apply to beliefs. Your beliefs are not determined by the matter that composes your body. Whether you belief a particular statement is true or not is not predetermined by the atoms in your brain.

Then what would they be determined by in a materialistic universe? You would have to posit an immaterial mind, which, for RedStripe, would be the equivalent of the "fairies" he was talking about, since there is no physical evidence for it. While I agree with you that the immaterial mind exists, no atheist ever could consistently believe in an immaterial mind without taking away his major objections to religious belief.



Evolution states, informally, that physical traits that are helpful to survive in a particular environment are likely to appear in future generations, as long as those traits are helpful to survive. Again, it says nothing about which concepts your mind will have or which ideas you'll believe to be true or false.

Why wouldn't it govern mental traits as well (even an immaterial mind)? Those have just as much, if not more, to do with survival than physical traits. We are not the physically strongest animal, and yet we have attained dominance using our minds, according to the evolutionist.

[Nanerbeet]

Evolution states, informally, that physical traits that are helpful to survive in a particular environment are likely to appear in future generations, as long as those traits are helpful to survive. Again, it says nothing about which concepts your mind will have or which ideas you'll believe to be true or false.



So abstract concepts have no value in the evolutionary paradigm? Thats utter bullshit right there. Humans excel at surviving-- some will even argue (when its convenient) that we've beat evolution-- because our brains enable us to understand abstract concepts.

[low preference guy]

Then what would they be determined by in a materialistic universe? You would have to posit an immaterial mind, which, for RedStripe, would be the equivalent of the "fairies" he was talking about, since there is no physical evidence for it. While I agree with you that the immaterial mind exists, no atheist ever could consistently believe in an immaterial mind without taking away his major objections to religious belief.



Why wouldn't it govern mental traits as well (even an immaterial mind)? Those have just as much, if not more, to do with survival than physical traits. We are not the physically strongest animal, and yet we have attained dominance using our minds, according to the evolutionist.

Dude. What the heck. You're just being difficult. OK. Let me answer first "Why wouldn't it govern mental traits as well". It does so indirectly. Evolution does affect the brain, which affects what the mind can perceive. If you hurt certain parts of your brain, for example, you might lose your short term memory.

About the materialistic universe, neither I or RedStripe deny that the mind is immaterial. I believe the mind is immaterial. I believe in an immaterial mind. For instance, my own mind. How does that prove the existence of "God"?

[low preference guy]

So abstract concepts have no value in the evolutionary paradigm? Thats utter bullshit right there. Humans excel at surviving-- some will even argue (when its convenient) that we've beat evolution-- because our brains enable us to understand abstract concepts.

Evolution is not in a competition with us. We didn't beat it, it didn't beat us. Evolution is just a physical change in the characteristics of organisms over time. That's all there is to it. It says nothing about concepts.

"So abstract concepts have no value in the evolutionary paradigm? "

Evolution doesn't say anything at all about abstract concepts directly, it only refers to physical traits.

[RedStripe]

Science explains that we are the product of billions of years of refinement through evolution-- the continuous process of adapting to the environment. If you were to believe science and evolution, how then could you so easily dismiss the appearence of superstition as not having a basis in reality?

Ok so the belief in unicorns, werewolves, fairies, gods, magicians, witches, etc. have some basis in reality - the fact that human beings have powerful imaginations (which have been an asset in many ways) and strong social/cultural institutions.
Religion is like the appendix; perhaps a vestige of evolutionary history, but a hassle in this new environment of modernity.



Surely an organism that developed a sense and a need to believe in something which did not exist would have fallen to the evolutionary superior, would it not? Yet religion wins. Every time.

Except the fat that there is NO EVIDENCE that religion even existed during the long period of human evolution during which the ability to hold such a conviction was established. You fail.

[RedStripe]

I'm amazed at how ignorant some of you are about our nation's Christian heritage. There is so much evidence to show that, you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not see it. Let me help you out by recommending a DVD series which unequivocally proves that America was founded on Christian principles, with documentation and all:

http://shop.wallbuilders.com/common/images/products/main/AHSDVDlg.jpg (http://shop.wallbuilders.com/index/page/product/product_id/166/product_name/The+American+Heritage+Series+%2810+DVD+Boxed+Set%2 9)

If you're not convinced after watching that, then you truly are deceived, which is evidenced that you have been indoctrinated by secular humanistic philosophy in education. They definitely don't want people to know the truth about God's influence into our early American republic because then the people won't worship the State over God.

Is slavery a Christian principle? Hahahahaha

[nate895]

Dude. What the heck. You're just being difficult. OK. Let me ask first "Why wouldn't it govern mental traits as well". It does so indirectly. Evolution does affect the brain, which affects what the mind can perceive. If you hurt certain parts of your brain, for example, you might lose your short term memory.

So you admit it affects the mind. Why wouldn't it affect are beliefs as well? As far as me being difficult, I live to be difficult for the non-believer, so get used to it.


About the materialistic universe, neither I or RedStripe deny that the mind is immaterial. I believe the mind is immaterial. I believe in an immaterial mind. For instance, my own mind. How does that prove the existence of "God"?

If you believe there exists something that isn't material, then you aren't a materialist. Materialism posits that all that exists is material. As far as the immaterial mind existing proving the existence of God, it proves insofar as saying that the universe isn't entirely material, therefore meaning that physical evidence isn't required to prove something exists. That would mean that the supernaturalist could, axiomatically, say that there exists a God over nature and He is revealed in the Holy Bible, and the atheist could make no objection to this axiom without attempting to prove that it is a self-refuting (i.e., contradictory) idea because the atheist himself would axiomatically assume something that he has no evidence for either, and really doesn't make sense in an atheistic universe.

[RedStripe]

Wow - guess what? Tribal societies believe in a bunch of bullshit no rational people actually believe is true! Why don't we? Because there is no basis in evidence for it. Same goes with superstitions of a particular middle-eastern tribe.

Sure, there may be some sort of evolutionary advantage to small groups sharing similar beliefs, having a common grounding for their moral system, or simply exploring the outgrowth of natural human desire to examine causation (and develop theories which explain phenomenon).

[nate895]

Religion is like the appendix; perhaps a vestige of evolutionary history, but a hassle in this new environment of modernity.

You are clearly ignorant of the fact that the appendix has been demonstrated to have use, and that there exists no such thing as a vestigal organ. All the ones they taught you about in school have been demonstrated to have purposes in the body.

[nate895]

Wow - guess what? Tribal societies believe in a bunch of bullshit no rational people actually believe is true! Why don't we? Because there is no basis in evidence for it. Same goes with superstitions of a particular middle-eastern tribe.

Sure, there may be some sort of evolutionary advantage to small groups sharing similar beliefs, having a common grounding for their moral system, or simply exploring the outgrowth of natural human desire to examine causation (and develop theories which explain phenomenon).

How do you know that you're the rational one and they aren't?

[RedStripe]

You are clearly ignorant of the fact that the appendix has been demonstrated to have use, and that there exists no such thing as a vestigal organ. All the ones they taught you about in school have been demonstrated to have purposes in the body.

why do humans have body hair on only certain parts of the body

cause god says so? lmao

[RedStripe]

How do you know that you're the rational one and they aren't?

yea i suppose it's pretty rational to believe the earth is the back of a massive turtle resting on the top of a gigantic sea, mostly due to the divine intervention of some goddess or some shit

sorry but i base my reality on the senses i was born with, and i stopped believing in shit simply because older people said so when i was 12

[low preference guy]

If you believe there exists something that isn't material, then you aren't a materialist. Materialism posits that all that exists is material. As far as the immaterial mind existing proving the existence of God, it proves insofar as saying that the universe isn't entirely material, therefore meaning that physical evidence isn't required to prove something exists. That would mean that the supernaturalist could, axiomatically, say that there exists a God over nature and He is revealed in the Holy Bible, and the atheist could make no objection to this axiom without attempting to prove that it is a self-refuting (i.e., contradictory) idea because the atheist himself would axiomatically assume something that he has no evidence for either, and really doesn't make sense in an atheistic universe.


therefore meaning that physical evidence isn't required to prove something exists.

Sure, there is no physical evidence of the existence of my mind, but I perceive my mind. Perception is required to know that something exists. I wouldn't use the word "prove" here, because it isn't a process of many steps, it's an immediate grasp.



That would mean that the supernaturalist could, axiomatically, say that there exists a God over nature and He is revealed in the Holy Bible, and the atheist could make no objection to this axiom without attempting to prove that it is a self-refuting (i.e., contradictory) idea because the atheist himself would axiomatically assume something that he has no evidence for either, and really doesn't make sense in an atheistic universe.

No. This is what's going on:

Nate: I perceive there is a God.. bla bla bla.
Me: I don't perceive whatever it is that you are describing. For me, the word "God" doesn't refer to anything in nature. I haven't perceived anything like what you are describing. I also haven't deduced that such thing exists. Could you show me a deduction to conclude the existence of "God"?

[nate895]

yea i suppose it's pretty rational to believe the earth is the back of a massive turtle resting on the top of a gigantic sea, mostly due to the divine intervention of some goddess or some shit

sorry but i base my reality on the senses i was born with, and i stopped believing in shit simply because older people said so when i was 12

You're just engaging in gamesmanship here, while I am trying to have a legitimate philosophical discussion. You are attempting to demand physical proof for all truth claims, and yet you can't even produce physical proof that you need physical proof for all truth claims, and you probably affirm the existence of the immaterial mind, which you have no physical proof exists. I am challenging your assumptions on these and demanding that you either give a rational account based on your own worldview and demonstrate its own internal consistency. Don't respond to this, we can discuss in greater depth in the debate.

[nate895]

Sure, there is no physical evidence of the existence of my mind, but I perceive my mind. Perception is required to know that something exists. I wouldn't use the word "prove" here, because it isn't a process of many steps, it's an immediate grasp.




No. This is what's going on:

Nate: I perceive there is a God.. bla bla bla.
Me: I don't perceive whatever it is that you are perceiving. For me, the word "God" doesn't refer to anything in nature. I haven't perceived anything like what you are describing. I also haven't deduced that such thing exists. Could you show me a deduction to conclude the existence of "God"?

I don't perceive your mind, but you know full well it exists. Is it not then possible that I perceive the existence of God that I know (knowledge implies that it actually is) exists, and yet you do not because you have darkened your own heart?

[low preference guy]

I don't perceive your mind, but you know full well it exists. Is it not then possible that I perceive the existence of God that I know (knowledge implies that it actually is) exists, and yet you do not because you have darkened your own heart?

I don't know what "darkening my heart" has to do with knowing something. You haven't proved the existence of God, you are just saying you can't disprove its existence. That's not a proof. I choose to believe only in what I can perceive or have some evidence pointing to such conclusion. Example, the existence of other people's mind is something I conclude because I perceive that they are humans, and I am a human and I have a mind, so a have some evidence that they likely have minds.

About a "God". Why should I believe that? I cannot disprove the existence of invisible flying french fries in my roof, and I don't believe in that.

[nate895]

I don't know what "darkening my heart" has to do with knowing something. You haven't proved the existence of God, you are just saying you can't disprove its existence. That's not a proof. I choose to believe only in what I can perceive or have some evidence pointing to such conclusion. Example, the existence of other people's mind is something I conclude because I perceive that they are humans, and I am a human and I have a mind, so a have some evidence that they likely have minds.

About a "God". Why should I believe that? I cannot disprove the existence of invisible flying french fries in my roof, and I don't believe in that.

I am not trying to say that you can't disprove God, and therefore he exists, I am attempting to use the method of indirect proof to show that your belief that God doesn't exist is contradictory if assumed, and if the idea of God not existing leads to a contradiction, it can be posited that God does exist.

How can you prove, via only physical evidence, that they are, in point of fact, humans? How do you know that you aren't the only thinker in the entire world and everyone else is just an automaton? Furthermore, you chose that your perception would be the basis of your beliefs, why should I accept that idea?

[Nanerbeet]

Except the fat that there is NO EVIDENCE that religion even existed during the long period of human evolution during which the ability to hold such a conviction was established. You fail.



We have no evidence that the Earth is round yet we know it is. We can't prove or disprove round, its an abstract concept.


So is God.


Round is just a word that we've learned to associate with an abstract concept. Once we understand the concept of round, we can then set out to observe things that are round.


Same thing with God. Let me explain.


Over thousands of years of human history and throughout many cultures, men have observed which cultural traits lead to prosperity, which ones lead to failure, and catagorized them accordingly. Good and evil (sounds alot like God and Devil, doesn't it?)

And it could be said, simply, that the source which compels men to do good is God, and the source which compels men to do evil, is Satan. It really is that simple. This is essence of religion. Neither God nor Satan are invisible people who live in the clouds or an underground cave using strings attached to their finger tips to control you like marionettes. Its just how we analogize when teaching to children, which in my opinion is a mistake, because clearly the young mind imprints the analogies as literal, impairing it.

"Man is the natural enemy of God."


This is self explanitory and backs up my point-- without knowledge of good and evil, man cannot persue the works of good-- he will fail because there is no device to guide him-- his only option is to revert to natural state of chaos, known as "moral relativity," which is doomed to failure even if well intentioned.

[Nanerbeet]

Originally Posted by Shotdown1027 I would say that miracles are ill (or wrongly) defined in that argument. Miracles do not break natural law at all, rather they work in cooperation with the natural law.

For example: It is a miracle that a premature baby of 3 months can be made to live. Our ancestors only 30 years ago would've thought this was amazing--100 years back it would've been considered witchcraft or a miracle of some sort. To me at least, there is nothing supernatural about miracles--rather, miracles are just the amazing things we, as humans, are able to do with the intelligence we received from God.


I guess we use different words for that concept. I call that an achievement, not a miracle.


I would think Ted Kennedy's death was a miracle. No???

[Baptist]

Only 2 of the founders were Atheists. Some were deist, MOST were Christians. I mean am i the only one on this forum that knows how deeply these men and Americans of the day were Christian?

I don't consider them Christian because Jesus is the only way to get to Heaven. Catholics, Mormons and any other group who teaches a false Jesus or that works get you to Heaven is not Christian. Therefore, most Americans during our founding were not Christian. I do believe that our nation was founded on many Biblical values, but I do not believe that most were Christian.

[libertarian4321]

This nation was founded during the enlightenment. A time when men were finally starting to use their brains rather than look for answers to everything in an ancient book.

However, the Christian Church still had extraordinary power- 1776 wasn't all that far removed from the time that any dissent from church doctrine could get a person killed or tortured.

So people generally proclaimed their "faith" publicly even if they thought religion was bull shit. That's why you have contradictions between the public statements of many of the founding fathers (usually professing "faith") and what they wrote in private letters and diaries.

Hell, even today, it's almost impossible to attain public office without at least pretending to be Christian- so you can understand the way people felt 200+ years ago.

So yes, most of the founding fathers officially professed faith, but many privately thought it was bull shit (these were generally intelligent men in a time when intelligent people were beginning to question the BS fed to them by the church).

However, we have learned a lot since 1776. To state that we should follow primitive Christian dogma today because the founding fathers publicly proclaimed their faith seems a bit absurd.

Lets keep the Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or whatever) fantasy where it belongs, in the church, and out of schools. We need to be a nation of science and reason, and avoid the trap that nations like Iran and Afghanistan fall into- putting emphasis on religious hocus pocus over reason....

[Shotdown1027]

I guess we use different words for that concept. I call that an achievement, not a miracle.

Yes, but your ancestors would've called it a miracle. You have missed my point, I see, because you're too busy trying to prove me wrong--when we essentially agree. I am saying that miracles are not supernatural. Rather, they are the incredible, improbable things that we are able to accomplish through nature (or by bending nature to our will)--which in our time seem fantastical. In 20 years, it will all seem commonplace, so the miracle is only relative to our time. This is certainly not C.S. Lewis' understanding of miracles, but it ought to be quite satisfactory to athiests like yourself.

As for the rest, I think Nate--despite being mostly wrong in the "Founders" argument, has you on the "belief" argument. If you believe in the mind then you are admitting that some things cannot, currently, be proven and yet still exist.

My biggest question to you athiests would concern the Big Bang Theory. It is a theory in which all matter is created out of an explosion/expansion of energy. I personally think the Big Bang Theory is 100% right, cosmic microwave background analysis has shown the universe IS expanding. However--nothing in the the Big Bang Theory contradicts my understanding of God. The Big Bang Theory starts off with a large allotment of collected energy--with no way to explain where this energy came from. Scientists, when pressed, answer simply that "it always was". This is a curious answer for a scientist to issue--since the idea is that nothing could have simply ALWAYS been. Furthermore, even if the energy HAD been created at some point, what would it have been created by? If we go back far enough, something had to come from nothing. That implies an acting outside force. That, or you believe that matter was pre-existent to the universe--which is just as "silly" and "illogical" as believing in a force outside the universe that was pre-existent (like, say, God).

[Baptist]

yea i suppose it's pretty rational to believe the earth is the back of a massive turtle resting on the top of a gigantic sea, mostly due to the divine intervention of some goddess or some shit

sorry but i base my reality on the senses i was born with, and i stopped believing in shit simply because older people said so when i was 12

Please. You're spewing the garbage that is taught to every kid in this country who attends public school and watches TV. Us who believe in God are the rational ones who think for ourselves.

[V4Vendetta]

In Thomas Paine's Common Sense he wrote in his paragraph on religion, "that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness." The keyword is our. He wrote the word "our", which either includes him as to being in the christian group or he was calling America a Christian nation. Do I believe he was a radical Christian, No, but this quote is truth of his own words.

[driege]

As a native Texan I can tell you I agree with everything they passed. The founding fathers were devout Christians!

Oh and We are not a Democracy

Do you agree with removing Jefferson? You can't really be a lover of liberty if you do.

[Pete_00]

No Civilization survived materialism/atheism. The fact that its 2010 and we have transistors and fiber-optic cables will not make us different.

You militant-atheists think you are "free thinkers" but you are nothing but products of a deliberate and coordinated campaign. You are "pop", the MTV, Viacom, MGM, Disney, etc...you are not the cool and rebelious "Neo-fighting-the-Matrix" you think you are. You are products of a campaign made by people with an agenda...an evil agenda.

As for the usual lame insults about the intelligence of beleivers and the same old BS about "science and reason" (that you "free thinkers" learned from the media)...people like Newton, Von Braun or Ron Paul were/are beleivers. Militant-atheists love their "My IQ > Your IQ" and "science" arguments.

But its OK, be drones of the media while we continue to be the true free thinkers...and we know what our Bible says and we know, by looking at the World around us and the Dark forces that are at work, that its the only book that stands the test of time. And dont forget, in the End, if we are right we will be rewarded and the rest wont, if we are wrong we have nothing to lose :D

[RedStripe]

No Civilization survived materialism/atheism. The fact that its 2010 and we have transistors and fiber-optic cables will not make us different.

You militant-atheists think you are "free thinkers" but you are nothing but products of a deliberate and coordinated campaign. You are "pop", the MTV, Viacom, MGM, Disney, etc...you are not the cool and rebelious "Neo-fighting-the-Matrix" you think you are. You are products of a campaign made by people with an agenda...an evil agenda.

As for the usual lame insults about the intelligence of beleivers and the same old BS about "science and reason" (that you "free thinkers" learned from the media)...people like Newton, Von Braun or Ron Paul were/are beleivers. Militant-atheists love their "My IQ > Your IQ" and "science" arguments.

But its OK, be drones of the media while we continue to be the true free thinkers...and we know what our Bible says and we know, by looking at the World around us and the Dark forces that are at work, that its the only book that stands the test of time. And dont forget, in the End, if we are right we will be rewarded and the rest wont, if we are wrong we have nothing to lose :D

I guess devout muslims are also the "true free thinkers" too because they aren't atheists.

BTW I'm not an atheist i believe in Zeus, so don't hate me.

[Pete_00]

Oh yea, the Bible - an incoherent mass of rambling bullshit.

God - and certainly your fairy-tale deity - probably doesn't exist.

There's no good reason to treat the text of some desert nomads as truth, anymore than there is reason to treat Native American myths as truth.

Sorry you've invested so much into something so silly. Must be hard, if not impossible, to realize that.

There isnt one thing there that comes from your own brain :D Not one...

So i guess you have no moral high ground. You have the intertainment industry, the media and half-baked intellectualoids and i have my "incoherent mass of rambling bullshit." (that you never studied seriously).

[Pete_00]

I guess devout muslims are also the "true free thinkers" too because they aren't atheists.

BTW I'm not an atheist i believe in Zeus, so don't hate me.

I admire the devout Muslims. They are the only large group of people fighting back against the consumerism, materialism, cultural filth, moral filth, international bankers, zionism, media moguls, internationalism, dependence on television, Western Imperialism, mono-culturalism (aka anglo-american cultural imperialism), and other nation destroying plots, while your beloved worship of "IQ" and "Science" made us (the West) the victims of this plots.

The Eastern Orthodox church seems to be awakening too and i suspect thats one of the reasons Russia is being surrounded by anti-missile shields and bullyed all the time.

[RedStripe]

There isnt one thing there that comes from your own brain :D Not one...

So i guess you have no moral high ground. You have the intertainment industry, the media and half-baked intellectualoids and i have my "incoherent mass of rambling bullshit." (that you never studied seriously).

lol yea, I'm the one whose beliefs are so mindlessly influenced by others, while you're the one who takes an ancient religious and cultural tradition literally. Hmmmm

Actually I was a Christian for a long time. Ron Paul's campaign made me realize that I needed to think for myself, and that I shouldn't believe things unless I actually had a good reason for doing so (and not just because I wanted it to be true). That's when I realized that the only reason I believed in God was because other people, using a book full of rambling bullshit, said so. That's when I decided I wasn't going to be a blind follower anymore, and if there is a God who thinks that's wrong he can go fuck himself.

[RedStripe]

I admire the devout Muslims. They are the only large group of people fighting back against the consumerism, materialism, cultural filth, moral filth, international bankers, zionism, media moguls, internationalism, Western Imperialism, mono-culturalism (aka anglo-american cultural imperialism) and other nation destroying plots that your beloved worship of "IQ" and "Science" gave us.

Haha, there are plenty of people who understand science as a great tool for understanding reality who are fighting against the same trends and much more, such as the social oppression of homosexuals/women, etc which is certainly lacking especially within the devout Muslim communities.

[BlackTerrel]

Who cares if the founders were Christian or not? Does it change your or anyone's views on things today in 2010?

[Ninja Homer]

Yes, but your ancestors would've called it a miracle. You have missed my point, I see, because you're too busy trying to prove me wrong--when we essentially agree. I am saying that miracles are not supernatural. Rather, they are the incredible, improbable things that we are able to accomplish through nature (or by bending nature to our will)--which in our time seem fantastical. In 20 years, it will all seem commonplace, so the miracle is only relative to our time. This is certainly not C.S. Lewis' understanding of miracles, but it ought to be quite satisfactory to athiests like yourself.

"There are two ways to live your life - one is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is a miracle." - Albert Einstein

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke


My biggest question to you athiests would concern the Big Bang Theory. It is a theory in which all matter is created out of an explosion/expansion of energy. I personally think the Big Bang Theory is 100% right, cosmic microwave background analysis has shown the universe IS expanding. However--nothing in the the Big Bang Theory contradicts my understanding of God. The Big Bang Theory starts off with a large allotment of collected energy--with no way to explain where this energy came from. Scientists, when pressed, answer simply that "it always was". This is a curious answer for a scientist to issue--since the idea is that nothing could have simply ALWAYS been. Furthermore, even if the energy HAD been created at some point, what would it have been created by? If we go back far enough, something had to come from nothing. That implies an acting outside force. That, or you believe that matter was pre-existent to the universe--which is just as "silly" and "illogical" as believing in a force outside the universe that was pre-existent (like, say, God).

Thank you! I'm not an atheist, but I'm also not a big believer in Christian dogma. However, I'd also like to here an atheist answer to this one.

Not only is the universe expanding, it's rate of expansion is accelerating. If energy can never be created or destroyed, then where did this energy come from and where is it still coming from that's causing the universe to expand?

Personally, I believe in God, but I also believe in evolution and most other accepted scientific theories. The reason for my religious beliefs is a result of personal experiences and feelings, not because it was taught to me or because I read it in a book. I have no desire to argue with somebody about it one way or the other, because the effort would be futile... I'm not going to change your mind because of my own experiences and feelings, you're just going to have to rely on your own experiences and come to your own beliefs.

Obviously, the existence of a god can not be proven through logic. This argument has been going on for thousands of years... why even try to convince somebody that there's a god through logic when it's going to take a personal experience to change their minds?

One more Einstein quote:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

[John Taylor]

http://www.twincities.com/ci_14668076?nclick_check=1

I agree with it in its entirety. While government shouldn't be in the education business, if they are, they should teach the truth.

[Vessol]

I admire the devout Muslims. They are the only large group of people fighting back against the consumerism, materialism, cultural filth, moral filth, international bankers, zionism, media moguls, internationalism, dependence on television, Western Imperialism, mono-culturalism (aka anglo-american cultural imperialism), and other nation destroying plots, while your beloved worship of "IQ" and "Science" made us (the West) the victims of this plots.


Yeah, by hacking off heads and creating theocracies. There is nothing admirable about a bunch of rich sheiks being pissed because they are losing their power to a bunch of corrupt dictatorial corporations in the West and thus using religion to strengthen their own dictatorships. You sound like you'd fit in just right in Saudi Arabia.

A theocracy is just as bad, if not worse then a facist/communistic regime because the state not only has totalitarian power, but also has the force of religion behind them.

You don't fight tyranny by being sympathetic to other forms of tyranny.

I hate radicals of all faiths. Whether they be Christian, Islamic, Atheist, or even Buddhist(yes, there are quite a number of radical Buddhists in Southeast Asian nations).