Quantcast

Do Atheists attack Christians more than any other religion?

XENON23 2012/04/14 02:32:57
Yes
No
Other
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾ 2012/04/14 02:39:58
    No
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    +11
    Attack meaning Physically by Force I dont think Athiests go around to Christians waiting for them to come out of Church on sunday and beat them up?

    But i have Seen many a Christian Do this
    meaning physically force athiests christians waiting church sunday beat christian

    meaning physically force athiests christians waiting church sunday beat christian
    James the Preacher Picketing American Atheist Convention, Iowa 2011



    This man is standing in a Pagan Wiccan communitty
    While yes he does have Free Speech he is Screaming and insulting the Pagan Community calling us satan worshippers
    WE DO NOT WORSHIP SATAN
    We worship a mother Goddess and Father God
    after 2 hours of them Ranting this is one Residents response

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • BlytheSpirit~bn0 2012/04/14 03:14:16
    Other
    BlytheSpirit~bn0
    +5
    I try not to attack any religion, but I find that Christians tend to attack me for my atheist tendencies. So who can blame me if I fight back.
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... BlytheS... 2012/04/15 02:39:01
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    im Pagan so i get what your saying

    if an Athiest says to me hey I dont believe in Thor / Zeus/ Gaia / Horus
    I say okay
    pagan athiest hey thor zeus gaia horus
    let us always remain Friends and find more in common than our ideas about Religion lets talk about Sports or politics or other important things like Science

    now Same Situation
    except instead of Athiest its a Christian
    Christian: Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your one true Savior?
    Me : no thanks Dont believe in him but peace with you
    Christian Response
    invasion body snatcher
    BLASPHEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you must DIE you Satan Worshipper!!!
  • BlytheS... ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2012/04/15 03:37:59
    BlytheSpirit~bn0
    +2
    lol.....

    I really like the idea behind Namaste. "The divine in me greets and honors the divine in you." If we could live that, the world would be a much nicer place.
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... BlytheS... 2012/04/15 03:44:15 (edited)
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    +3
    Pagans and Buddhists and Athiests Get along just Fine
    why cant the Abraham Religions??
    oh yeah their holy books tell them to kill non believers
    one of Our holy books says
    fine abraham religions yeah holy books kill believers holy books even non believers can still go to the Afterlife
    religions yeah holy books kill believers holy books believers afterlife
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... BlytheS... 2012/04/15 23:31:38
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    +1
    some people Talk thier Religion and some Live the lifestyle of thier religion
    or as a boston saying

    Some people Talk the Talk but do not Walk the Walk
  • Simeon~theratchetliberal 2012/04/14 03:10:15
    Yes
    Simeon~theratchetliberal
    +6
    In the Western world, Christianity is the religion that dominates. Most atheists were probably former Christians who found some fault with their religion that caused them to drop. So of course they're going to have more problems with Christianity than say, Hinduism, which although they don't believe in Hindu gods, has nothing to do with their daily lives. Christianity on the other hand tries to intrude into the lives of everyone (by various factions and people), it causes problems for people of various religions, so of course they're going to have a bigger problem with it then other religions in a country dominated by Christianity.
  • Walt 2012/04/14 03:04:30
    Yes
    Walt
    +4
    There was one SH atheist who went around attacking both Christians, Muslims, and other religious adherents equally, but that's the only one I've ever seen online or off. (He professed to being Conservative.)

    Generally, atheists are liberals and they would never dream of attacking anyone else the way they do Christians.
  • Shawna 2012/04/14 02:59:00
    Other
    Shawna
    +5
    I don't know, but probably yes. It is generally countries where the predominant religion is Christianity where people are free to be atheists and do not risk their lives by speaking out against religion. I do not like religion, but since Christianity is the religion most likely to be practiced in my country it is the religion I am most likely to criticize.
  • Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥ 2012/04/14 02:56:36 (edited)
    No
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    +1
    I suspect most Atheists (with notable exceptions) could care less.
    It's the Secular Humanists are more activist,
  • Hula girl - Friends not Fol... 2012/04/14 02:55:11
    Yes
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +5
    Absolutely. I guess they can't stand those that stand firm in Christ.
  • budgeri... Hula gi... 2012/04/15 01:14:12
    budgerigar42
    +2
    They can't stand those that force their religion onto them.
  • Hula gi... budgeri... 2012/04/15 01:42:40
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +1
    Wrong...they attack regardless. NO One is forcing their religion. This is a Christian Nation if they don't like it....leave and start an athiest one.
  • TheVynne Hula gi... 2012/04/15 07:32:55 (edited)
    TheVynne
    +2
    Actually, it's not a Christian nation. The U.S. was founded on the idea of a nation with a government free from a specific religion influence. That's why there's "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." written in the constitution. In fact a good portion of the founding fathers were Deist who supposedly rejected the Christian God.

    The fact you think it is a Christian nation just proves that there is too much religion endorsed by the government, of which, is pushed on all of us. (Which, I personally, see it in the denial of the right for homosexuals to get married, "In God We Trust" on our money, "Under God" in our pledge: both of which were added many years after paper money was used and the pledge written). That certainly seems like an invasion of religion into our government to me. While its true no one can be "forced" into believing anything, we do have to live under government law. We live here too.

    There's no reason to be hostile about it. O_o
  • Hula gi... TheVynne 2012/04/15 08:09:41
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    Ah...an idiot that doesn't know our history. Love you people that are so clueless.

    No deary, we are a Christian Nation founded on Christian Principles with a tollerance of other religions or lack there of. Sorry...too much proof otherwise.

    I love how you clueless Athiest try to deny historical data.
  • TheVynne Hula gi... 2012/04/15 15:05:56
    TheVynne
    +2
    Instead of insulting me, how about you tell HOW it's founded on Christian principles? Because there's just as much proof that it ISN'T founded on Christianity, as I've said they were DIESTS.

    You've brought nothing but insults. Back it up.
  • Hula gi... TheVynne 2012/04/15 20:00:40
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +1
    Please dear your revisionist history is glaring. Please name all the Diests founding fathers.
  • TheVynne Hula gi... 2012/04/15 21:32:38 (edited)
    TheVynne
    +2
    John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton,Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington were all thought to be Deists. John Jay was the only Christian of them (he was an Orthodox Christian I believe).

    If you want I can post quotes written by them that lead us to believe this (I just didn't want to bore you if you didn't really care, which I'm not sure you really do; I doubt any proof I put up will convince you of anything. A pattern I'm noticing. No offense of course, you won't convince me of anything either.)

    You keep saying that, but you still haven't put up anything to answer my question. XD

    And this too: 1796 Treaty with Tripoli

    1796 Treaty with Tripoli
  • Hula gi... TheVynne 2012/04/15 22:34:03
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    Yep, that's why I get frustrated with you lack of intelligence people.

    Just in the people alone you quoted you are dumber than a box of rocks and clueless to our founders.

    Here I'll bore you but at least someone that isn't also researching they might learn.

    There were 250 founding fathers. Of the 56 Signers of the Declaration alone 27 were Theologians.

    If Thomas Jefferson was a Deist as you state which he was not and even stated so while he was alive, (and a Deist believed in God by the way), If Jefferson was such a deist why would he be a founder of the Virginia Bible Society?
    Why would Jefferson start holding church in the new Capital long before Congress even met there and continued holding it there even after Congress was there. He even had the marine corps band play for the services which by the way he never missed. He even sat in his same place, oh so did Ben Franklin.

    Jefferson even wrote the pamphlet called the Morals and Life of Christ so the Missionaries could witness to the Native Americans. No it was not called the Jefferson Bible...that was generations of revisionists later that spun that lie and still try to spin to day. Best do more research.

    The very first American Bible was printed by Congress for the use in the schools. Best do your home work.

    Fact: The ...

    &


























































































    Yep, that's why I get frustrated with you lack of intelligence people.

    Just in the people alone you quoted you are dumber than a box of rocks and clueless to our founders.

    Here I'll bore you but at least someone that isn't also researching they might learn.

    There were 250 founding fathers. Of the 56 Signers of the Declaration alone 27 were Theologians.

    If Thomas Jefferson was a Deist as you state which he was not and even stated so while he was alive, (and a Deist believed in God by the way), If Jefferson was such a deist why would he be a founder of the Virginia Bible Society?
    Why would Jefferson start holding church in the new Capital long before Congress even met there and continued holding it there even after Congress was there. He even had the marine corps band play for the services which by the way he never missed. He even sat in his same place, oh so did Ben Franklin.

    Jefferson even wrote the pamphlet called the Morals and Life of Christ so the Missionaries could witness to the Native Americans. No it was not called the Jefferson Bible...that was generations of revisionists later that spun that lie and still try to spin to day. Best do more research.

    The very first American Bible was printed by Congress for the use in the schools. Best do your home work.

    Fact: The number one reference material used in our founding documents...which was referenced by far more than any other....the Holy Bible. The number two reference material was a book of sermons. That's just the fact.

    Our very form of government and why we have separation of powers comes right out of the Bible. Check Exodus 18 around verses 21 and see why we have government over our towns & Cities, States and Federal Government and a President and not a King. That dear comes right from Moses.

    Our first Seal Had Moses on it.

    Moses is all over Washington and opps, buildings Jefferson designed.
    Why did a deist do that?


    Sweetheart then you go and use a sentence out of the Treaty of Tripoli totally out of context. Only clueless idiots that don't know this countries history and listen to the revisionist garbage do that so that was a dead give away clue how lame your knowledge is.


    Here is is all laid out for you in context and if you need the references I'll make sure they are numbered and then provide the references for you if you need them too so you can do the work yourself to check. I've been doing this so long....I know you'll shoot back with some I don't believe you garbage and hey that's your fault you want to remain stupid but don't slam the founders.

    Oh by the way...Washington was praying all the time for this country. You should read about this Godly man....he sure wasn't a Deist.

    -----------------------------...
    The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document. The following is an excerpt from David Barton's book Original Intent:

    To determine whether the "Founding Fathers" were generally atheists, agnostics, and deists, one must first define those terms. An "atheist" is one who professes to believe that there is no God; 1 an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible; 2 and a "deist" is one who believes in an impersonal God who is no longer involved with mankind. (In other words, a "deist" embraces the "clockmaker theory" 3 that there was a God who made the universe and wound it up like a clock; however, it now runs of its own volition; the clockmaker is gone and therefore does not respond to man.) Today the terms "atheist," "agnostic," and "deist" have been used together so often that their meanings have almost become synonymous. In fact, many dictionaries list these words as synonym. 4

    Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious. 5 One of the quotes they set forth is the following:

    The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. GEORGE WASHINGTON

    The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington's supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source. That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. 6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, 7 thus constituting America's first official war as an established independent nation.

    Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen 8 in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada 9). In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. 10 (Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships 11 to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates" – a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.)

    The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" 12 with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. 13 However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, 14 a "gift" frigate to Algiers, 15 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, 16 etc. 17). The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. 18 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:

    As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. 19

    This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

    Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

    Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

    This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 20 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 21 and by John Adams as "rational." 22 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:

    The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it. 23

    Daniel Webster (My relative by the way) similarly explained that American Christianity was:

    Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land! 24

    Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:

    The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 25

    Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:

    The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 26

    Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.

    Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton's official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America.

    For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:

    Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims'] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful. 27

    Eaton later complained that after Jefferson had approved his plan for military action, he sent him the obsolete warship "Hero." Eaton reported the impression of America made upon the Tunis Muslims when they saw the old warship and its few cannons:

    [T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians. 28

    In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:

    He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation." 29

    When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him:

    It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well." 30

    And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:

    April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking! 31

    May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy's forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don't he come and take it? 32

    Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:

    The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli 33

    The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people.
    -----------------------------...


    Here since you are probably one that also doesn't have an attention span I have historically correct videos for you. Oh, and the speaker has the largest collection of original documents in any private collection and studies this for a living and testifies for the historical verification at the supreme Court so he's an expert in this area.


    (more)
  • TheVynne Hula gi... 2012/04/15 23:29:36 (edited)
    TheVynne
    +1
    First, the constant name calling and attacking (ironic) is really unnecessary and honestly, doesn't bode well to put you in a good light as a Christian (from an Atheist point of view). I get being passionate about a discussion, but being rude from the get-go? -_-

    Second, I used the seven "key" founding fathers because they are the most well known. Despite what people think, I don't think anyone has the time to spend on explaining all of them (or at least I didn't think so) Or at least I don't.

    Now, as I've said, there is proof for them to be Deists as well. There are too many interpretations to choose just the "Christian" one; despite your opinion.

    No, Deist don't believe in the Christian God, because the Christian God has shown himself to supposedly interfere in all sorts of human affairs in the bible. It's completely contradictory to believe in the Christian God, but deny the actions of it in it's text (as a text based religion).

    Okay, quotes: http://freethought.mbdojo.com...

    "The claim that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian can only be made by someone who has never read his original writings. Christians may think that just because he mentions "god", that makes him a Christian just like them. Jefferson absolutely believed in a god-- but not the god of orthodox Christianity. He w...

























































































































































    First, the constant name calling and attacking (ironic) is really unnecessary and honestly, doesn't bode well to put you in a good light as a Christian (from an Atheist point of view). I get being passionate about a discussion, but being rude from the get-go? -_-

    Second, I used the seven "key" founding fathers because they are the most well known. Despite what people think, I don't think anyone has the time to spend on explaining all of them (or at least I didn't think so) Or at least I don't.

    Now, as I've said, there is proof for them to be Deists as well. There are too many interpretations to choose just the "Christian" one; despite your opinion.

    No, Deist don't believe in the Christian God, because the Christian God has shown himself to supposedly interfere in all sorts of human affairs in the bible. It's completely contradictory to believe in the Christian God, but deny the actions of it in it's text (as a text based religion).

    Okay, quotes: http://freethought.mbdojo.com...

    "The claim that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian can only be made by someone who has never read his original writings. Christians may think that just because he mentions "god", that makes him a Christian just like them. Jefferson absolutely believed in a god-- but not the god of orthodox Christianity. He was a Deist (Nature's God), not a Christian (the trinitarian God of Abraham and Isaac).

    Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the Trinity, and he said so:

    "The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." -- Letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822

    "It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into ["consubstantialists and like-substantialists"]. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the quakers, live without an order of priests, moralise for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition." -- Jefferson's Letter to John Adams, August 22, 1813

    (John Adams' reply to this letter shows that he did not believe in the Trinity either): "The human understanding is a revelation from its maker, which can never be disputed or doubted. There can be no scepticism, Pyrrhonism, or incredulity or infidelity here. No prophecies, no miracles are necessary to prove this celestical communication. This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one. We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfilment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, that is, nature's God, that two and two are equal to four." --Adam's Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 14 September 1813

    Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, and he said so:

    "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors." -- Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823

    Jefferson was a rationalist. He believed that Jesus was a pure and ethical teacher of morals. To that end, Jefferson took a razor to the New Testament and removed passages he thought to have been inserted by the authors of the gospels (whom he called the "commentators"), and he pasted what remained together as "The Jefferson Bible". With his razor blade, he removed every verse dealing with the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, claims of Jesus' divinity and other puerile superstition, thus leaving us with a very much shorter book. In 1904, the Jefferson Bible was printed by order of Congress, and for many years was presented to all newly elected members of that body.

    "No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances towards rational Christianity. When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, raised to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since His day, and get back to the pure and simple doctrines He inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily His disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from His lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr. Drake, has been a common one. The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce its Founder an imposter. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel." -- Jefferson's Letter to Timothy Pickering, 21 Feb 1821

    "The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
    1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
    2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
    3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

    These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin:
    1. That there are three Gods.
    2. That good works, or love of our neighbor, are nothing.
    3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in the faith.
    4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
    5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.

    Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say these are the false shepherds fortold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mohomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian." --Jefferson's letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26 1822 "

    "Jefferson considered himself a deist; he also considered himself a follower of Jesus. This is not a contradiction, in Jefferson's view, because he believed Jesus to be merely human, not divine, and believed the precepts Jesus taught to be deistical. Much of traditional Christianity, Jefferson claimed, was error and corruption added by later followers of Jesus.

    Jefferson was a strong supporter of the separation of church and state, believing that both government and religion would be strengthened by keeping each free of the corrupting influence of the other."
    From: Peter Roberts, "Thomas Jefferson" page in "God and Country" section of "Science Resources on the Net" website (http://www.geocities.com/pet... viewed 23 November 2005):

    Benjamin Franklin:

    "I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."
    - letter to his father, 1738

    ". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
    .

    "I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
    - "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", 1728
    .

    "I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." - Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
    .

    "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."
    .

    "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -in Poor Richard's Almanac
    .

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -in Poor Richard's Almanac
    .

    "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
    .

    "I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."
    .

    "In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it."

    "It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)


    James Madison:

    "It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."
    James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty", edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238 .

    "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
    .

    "Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - Ibid, 1785
    .

    "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." -letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
    .

    "Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."
    .

    "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches
    .


    John Adams


    "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" -letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
    .

    "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
    -letter to Thomas Jefferson
    .

    "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."
    - letter to John Taylor
    .

    "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."
    .

    "The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
    .

    "Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?" -letter to Thomas Jefferson
    .

    "God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."
    .

    "Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?"

    ". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
    .

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


    George Washington:


    The father of this country was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues. He was a Freemason.

    Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... 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]

    Paul F. Boller states in is anthology on Washington: "There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence." [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15]
    .
    .
    "Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
    - letter to Edward Newenham, 1792
    .
    s

    "Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself." -Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800

    You will have to send me a reference that tells you that the bible was the "main" text referred to our founding documents (of which, I'm only really using the Constitution, again, I've got life to get to XD). I would think that if the bible were really a "main" reference from Christians, they would involve more Christian laws and punishments beyond the one's that are common sense for a society to live in. I've never heard that...ever. If it had I would have expected more text that points people to revere the God in some way or at least one mention Christianity. "In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once."

    As for the Battle of Tripoli; The two mistakes you listed were that George Washington never said/saw it (which I never claimed he did) and that they don't believe Adams would ever say anything against it being a Christian nation (which, as I listed above, he did). Either way, it was signed and published. That doesn't make it any less of an important document.


    "Daniel Webster (My relative by the way)" - Congrats? O_o

    No videos, sorry :)
    (It's late here and I have to get to work, so despite your name calling - Have a nice day!)

    .
    (more)
  • Hula gi... TheVynne 2012/04/16 01:15:58
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    Even Christ got made at the money takers in the Temple. You are in this country and you are clueless about it.

    You don't know the founders and those that you quote are oppion sites not that of the original documents from the founders themselves.

    Sweetheart...you are dead wrong on this and it's just because you are so clueless.

    Be your Godless self but don't you dare slam this nation nor our Founders that got down on their knees and prayed for your freedom.



    Best find out why our founders took three days in prayer before finishing the Constitution.

    Best read the Declaration.....God is mentioned 8 times more than money.


    founders praying
  • TheVynne Hula gi... 2012/04/16 06:06:55 (edited)
    TheVynne
    +1
    Hardly. I gave you the founders and I obviously don't have the originals, do you honestly think David Bartin's book isn't also an opinion? He's a person and he has a bias, just like a site. There are just as many sites for your opinion as there is mine.

    Again, more and more insults.

    I NEVER slammed my nation, calling a nation that is supposed to be free from an official religion what it is; isn't slamming. Don't paint me out to be unpatriotic because you want to claim the country under your religion and have the "move and make their own country".

    Smh, Deist believe in a God, just not necessarily the same God.

    I said the Constitution, but yes, it is in the declaration (refer to above sentence).

    The evidence rolls both ways no matter how you put it and I'm sure there's even more evidence that puts it in a whole other way.

    I think we're done here, I'm tired of the insults and I'm sure you're tired of the constant stream of rude. We're not going to agree. So again, despite, have a good night.
    But it's clear
  • Hula gi... TheVynne 2012/04/16 07:35:30
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    No David Barton's book isn't an opinion. David is a historian that actually not only owns many orignial documents pre 1812 on this country but he references everything right back to the founders and every document used. If something is said like a quote from a founder yet there is no documentation to substanciate it then it is stated so.

    Davids whole company are historians, researchers on the founding documents and this countries early history. They do tours several times in Washington.

    There are two text book standards that are used in this country. One is the Texas Standard and the other is the California Standard. You obviously are using the California standard books as your knowledge is so blantant revisionist.

    The Texas Standard have been working hard to correct the revisionist history and David has served on that Board as the Historian with copies of those documents so that the text books get corrected.

    I see you didn't watch the videos....as all the founding references are right there if you bothered to go to the National Archives in Washington and look them up. You can even go on line to the national archives and get much of the information.

    Deary I've been puttin up with you lack of knowledge people for years and it just seems more and more dumb people are coming out ...









    No David Barton's book isn't an opinion. David is a historian that actually not only owns many orignial documents pre 1812 on this country but he references everything right back to the founders and every document used. If something is said like a quote from a founder yet there is no documentation to substanciate it then it is stated so.

    Davids whole company are historians, researchers on the founding documents and this countries early history. They do tours several times in Washington.

    There are two text book standards that are used in this country. One is the Texas Standard and the other is the California Standard. You obviously are using the California standard books as your knowledge is so blantant revisionist.

    The Texas Standard have been working hard to correct the revisionist history and David has served on that Board as the Historian with copies of those documents so that the text books get corrected.

    I see you didn't watch the videos....as all the founding references are right there if you bothered to go to the National Archives in Washington and look them up. You can even go on line to the national archives and get much of the information.

    Deary I've been puttin up with you lack of knowledge people for years and it just seems more and more dumb people are coming out of the woodwork.


    You can't change historical fact......but you can have Revisionists try to change our history. That started by a man and wife Progressive Team in the late 1930's and it went full boogy from there.

    My Mom used the Bible in School. I still went to school when we got to pray and our public high school petioned the school board to have prayer before school and we had over 500 kids come in the mornings.


    What you athiests don't understand is that without those Godly Principles this country never would have had the freedoms even for you to speak your mind becasue our founders knew those rights came from God not man.

    I'm sorry you want to bury your head in the sand but stop being stupid and call our founders names and insulting them.
    (more)
  • TheVynne Hula gi... 2012/04/16 16:45:40 (edited)
    TheVynne
    Evidence is open to interpretation as well (as I pulled evidence too and took it a different way). We used Texas standard (guess that efforts not going so well). You praying in school doesn't mean it should be there. The bible is the last place to find tolerance (hands cut off, cities destroyed, people were property, yatta yatta.). Man made God (you probably knew I'd say that one ;) ). Not being a Christian isn't an insult (Christian tolerance, huh).

    But okay. Enjoy it. :)
  • Hula gi... TheVynne 2012/04/16 19:38:24
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +1
    Historical documentation from the founders isn't intrepretation it's fact.

    If you don't know historical facts then learn them from the founders. Right now all you know is revisionist history.
  • Hula gi... TheVynne 2012/04/16 07:37:11
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +1
    By the way.....God isn't a religion.
  • TheVynne Hula gi... 2012/04/16 16:46:34
    TheVynne
    Agreed, never said it was. O_o
  • TheVynne 2012/04/14 02:54:26
    Other
    TheVynne
    +4
    It depends on the area an Atheist lives in and the attributes of the religion itself. If that makes sense? For example: I live in an area that is predominantly Christian, so when it comes to talking about religion, I usually talk about Christianity (I don't attack anyone or anything, I usually don't bring up a religious conversation, but I will certainly bring up my point in reply). I think it's like this in most of the U.S.. But an Atheist in Egypt would argue against Islam.

    It's also about the religion itself. Some religions are particularly intrusive in non-believer's lives (Christianity and Islam are the biggest examples), especially if they have a goal in converting people and/or push ideals into government. Other religions, such as Taoism, don't bother people outside of the religion or doesn't have a higher power.

    It also has a lot to do with the individuals themselves. The only thing that connects Atheist as a group is that we are a minority in a lack of belief, we don't share any ideals or goals specifically. So, there are a lot of very different people who use the label, some with personal vendettas against a specific religion.

    From what I've seen, at least. :)
  • Demonic Rat Hunter 2012/04/14 02:42:30
    Yes
    Demonic Rat Hunter
    +5
    Can you imagine them going to the ME protesting and telling the muslims what to do and where to go. islam radicals islam radicals muslim radicals
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... Demonic... 2012/04/14 02:47:29
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    +7
    if those guys holding the signs are True islam

    Then this is true Christians
    westboro meme westboro westboro westboro westboro
  • XENON23 ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2012/04/14 02:57:51
    XENON23
    +2
    This is one little church. The Islamic fanatics are a lot bigger groups.
  • Alvin XENON23 2012/04/14 03:20:30
    Alvin
    +4
    fanatics are fanatics, regardless of philosophy or size.
  • D.C. Wi... ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2012/04/14 03:20:06
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... D.C. Wi... 2012/04/14 03:21:29
  • D.C. Wi... ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2012/04/14 03:24:44
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... D.C. Wi... 2012/04/14 03:26:56 (edited)
  • D.C. Wi... Demonic... 2012/04/14 03:16:08
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾ 2012/04/14 02:39:58
    No
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    +11
    Attack meaning Physically by Force I dont think Athiests go around to Christians waiting for them to come out of Church on sunday and beat them up?

    But i have Seen many a Christian Do this
    meaning physically force athiests christians waiting church sunday beat christian

    meaning physically force athiests christians waiting church sunday beat christian
    James the Preacher Picketing American Atheist Convention, Iowa 2011



    This man is standing in a Pagan Wiccan communitty
    While yes he does have Free Speech he is Screaming and insulting the Pagan Community calling us satan worshippers
    WE DO NOT WORSHIP SATAN
    We worship a mother Goddess and Father God
    after 2 hours of them Ranting this is one Residents response
  • sjalan ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2012/04/14 04:39:35
    sjalan
    +4
    Those members of Christendom really showed how hateful they really are. So very sad that they would Attack the people they would supposedly try to have "repent and be saved". The very evil that they preach against they fall so short of as the express their "pride before the fall"
  • DavidK sjalan 2012/04/14 04:49:17
  • sjalan DavidK 2012/04/14 04:56:13
    sjalan
    +3
    For a person who has a college degree you certainly don't have a very good grasp of the English language.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/07/31 23:46:19

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals