--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
Blow it out your ass.
As for your quote from Jefferson himself, it doesn't actually disprove what I put in any way. You will please note that in neither the description nor the picture itself I ever called Jefferson an atheist. This is because I didn't think he was. He was definitely not a fan of Christianity though, which is what the quote was meant to show. I assume you already know about Jefferson's version of the bible?
Finally, "Blow it out your ass."
Really? Not being funny Pete but you never really take part in a debate anyway, you mainly just rehearse your own beliefs and arguments. Increasingly you have become more insulting in the way you write these messages, if I receive one more insult I will ban you from commenting on my pictures.
However you show absolutely no regard for any of the arguments I give you, in fact you continue arguing your point long after your point has become completely absurd.
If you actually had a debate rather than simply rehearsed your own opinions I might consider you worth talking to.
As it is I have politely replied to every comment you have made, I admit that I could have been more respectful in dealing with your views, but frankly I'm tired of dealing with your admittedly well worded, but repetitive arguments.
All arguments that deal with something without an absolute end will eventually reach the absurd, your definition of it is merely when you're tired of my rebuttals.
Where exactly do you put the difference between a rehearsed recitation of opinions and an argument? Because when someone calls an argument a rehearsal of opinions, they either mean nothing the person responds with actually pertains to the previous point (which I have not done in my arguments with you, be assured) or they honestly don't believe someone can possibly disagree with them (which I think you're too smart to fall into).
Then after I claim that the Vatican is one of the richest institutions on earth you come out with this "you don't have any citations to prove this claim. Yes the Church has a lot of many and value, but most of the gold and treasure as i have observed in is painting and arts and relics which can't really be sold. Furthermore, most of that money in my findings, is given to the Church's missions of evangelization and helping the needy."
Five minutes looking this up will show you that what I say is pretty much an accepted fact by the financial communities. Instead you prefer to simply try to ignore or rubbish my claims rather than confront them directly. This is where it becomes rehearsing your own opinions rather than debate. Instead of taking the point on board and trying to show how it does not apply you instead attempt to act like it isn't true.
So yes I'm bored of having to rehash every single point at least three times simply because you don't wan't to accept it.
Calling the Vatican a rich institution implies that the Vatican and most of it's functions are profit oriented, which they/it are not.
I don;t accept it because unlike you I don;t think your arguments are absolute.
The implication is made more clear when read in context. He is understood to be talking about one denomination or faith or religion or sect (or whatever you care to call it) taking control of all religion. He saw the benefit of a "marketplace of ideas' even in the religious realm - a democracy within religion if you will.
Personally, I could care less if you blast religion or Christianity. Truth is, Jefferson was not a Christian by the standards of our day or really even by the standards of his day.
For more information see: etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/…
When you have used your belief of god to bludgeon people into obedience you can't then turn around and "you know what, actually guys this doesn't make sense"
Terrible, but true.
Of course, I just hope that there will even *be* future generations in the first place, given the apparent determination of a good portion of humanity to destroy any chance of that.
Personally I don't think there will be any debate on the subject of religion in the future
And yes, a good many religious people would prefer to take us back to the dark ages.
I'm guess I'm kind of a pessimist when it comes to religion: I think it will be something we'll always have to contend with. It would be ideal if we could persuade everyone to leave it behind altogether, but faith gives too many people something convenient to cling to, and prevents them from having to deal with the fact that we can't have absolute certainty about the world around us, by giving them something to place beyond the 'perimeter of ignorance'; I think that perimeter will always be there, and I view the human story as the constant attempt to push it ever further back. I imagine people in the future laughing about silly beliefs in Jesus and Allah, and the 'goddess' and 'spirits', but then seriously returning to their own superstitions of choice as if they're fundamentally different, just as people do today with the religions of our past.
Those beliefs are harder to cling to when the evidence that they do not fit is staring you in the face, and when people stop telling their children that they MUST believe you will find less people believing. Its inevitable
European countries (unfortunately) offer exceedingly diminutive sample sizes to use in examples: The entire *country* of Norway, for example, has only two million more people than my home *county*, Orange County, California. Combine that with neighboring Los Angeles County, and you get more than double Norway's entire population.
Also, evidence shows that religious people actually tend to cling *harder* to their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary, below a certain threshold. The key is to get as many people as possible to cross that threshold, in the face of the comfort of tradition, faith-based spirituality, etc. and the appeals to authority those systems often entail, but I am cynical as to the feasibility of that apparently Sisyphean task.
The one hope I hold out for is that secular philosophy can fulfill these emotional needs in future generations. To 'offer them the universe' as Tyson put it. Humanism could be extended in a much deeper way, as religions do, by getting involved in local communities, participating in more charities, perhaps opening explicitly Humanistic schools, creating centers for folks to gather periodically for bonding, holidays, popular science lectures and philosophy discussions (in place of sermons), host more youth sports leagues and summer camps, get involved in social work (shelters for women and children, the homeless, the mentally ill), and maybe even small clinics and hospitals; but even so, all of this requires a much wider spread of Humanist identity and ideals. The Humanist position is the key (I believe) not *just* science and atheism.
There was an article recently saying that on average younger people have no problem with gay marriage, and older people are dead set against it.
The only reason that humanism hasn't become the social ideal before now is because people who were more certain of themselves could state things and not get contradicted often enough to harm their credibility. That is no longer the case. I admit that there will always be at least some religious people, but I think atheism will become the more generally accepted view, or at least I hope so.
I could be wrong of course, so my next course of action is to convince them that the immortality treatment that I think will be coming soon is "against gods will". It'll get rid of them eventually at least.
To quote Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence,
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
Too bad congress took that part out. Jefferson didn't really like slavery that much. He was one of those founders who owned slaves, but opposed slavery. Kinda like Patrick Henry, who provides a rather good explanation for that,
I cannot but wish well to a people whose System imitates the Example of him whose Life was perfect. And believe me, I shall honour the Quakers for their noble Effort to abolish Slavery. It is equally calculated to promote moral & political Good.
Would any one believe that I am Master of Slaves of my own purchase! I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. . . .
I believe a time will come when the opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable Evil. Every thing we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our day, if not, let us transmit to our descendants together with our Slaves, a pity for their unhappy Lot, & an abhorrence for Slavery. If we cannot reduce this wished for Reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity, & it is the furthest advance we can make toward Justice.
A lot of them would have been considered perfectly normal at the time, this of course is not a valid excuse, but should always be taken into account.
I really don't know much about Jefferson's beliefs on black people, so I couldn't comment on this particular subject.