Why do you care if people believe in God?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Bacon It's perfectly possible and common to believe in God and not be part of an organised religion.

Very good. I keep forgetting that belief is still, by definition, religion. Conceded and agreed on that point.

I also agree with the beginning of that same post about it being a common, but not 100%, case.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio People like you abuse Jefferson's quotes out of context

Really?

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What is it men cannot be made to believe!

-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.

-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

Thomas Jefferson quotes

Face it, my friend: Jefferson was NOT a Christian and wanted organized religion nowhere near government. Have ya SEEN the Jefferson bible?

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio What an astoundingly weak argument. Does it cause you any discomfort to have "In God Wee Trust" on money? Seriously, if most of your fellow Americans DO believe in God as per the Judeo-Christian tradition of the Country, isn't it a tad arrogant of you to demand it be removed for your minority? Does that line mean you have to believe in God? Or are you really that intolerant of others?

My comfort level is irrelevant. But is is apparent that you feel that just because you're in the Majority that your rights be respected over anyone elses. That is not how this country is suppose to work. Your religious beliefs should be irrelevant to the government. We have a Republic and Republics are not suppose to respect one persons rights at the expence of anothers. Even if you think Majority Rules, that is not the case in a Republic. It was designed that way on purpose.

Evolution is a theory, it really is.

Is that the best you can do? Parot something you heard on an apologetics site? Evolution is FACT and theory, the FACTS support the theory, Please go back to school and learn what "Scientific Theory" is.

People believe in I.D., some are laymen, some are scientist, they have a view and wish to express it.

then they need to gather FACTS to support their theory. Until then leave it out of public schools.

What's wrong with that? SERIOUSLY, what's wrong with that other then you reject that line of thought?

Whats wrong with it is there is NO EVIDENCE or FACTS to support I.D. let alone EVIDENCE or FACTS to support its YOUR god who created it. If you can find ANY that hasn't already been debunked a hundred times on this site alone, have at it. I'll consider it.

You are right I would reject some of those views you listed, and would do so at the voting booth and local hearings on the matter. But if the majority wanted it, well that's how the country works.

Nice, as long as it agrees with your views its OK to subject everyone else to your views because you THINK that majority rules, you're wrong, see above on my mention of a Republic.

There is no seperation of church and state in the constitution, try reading it again, here, I'll help you:

I don't need to read it, I know what is says and what the concept of the establishment clause means. It means separation of church/state. It was added to the constitution to prevent what happened in England with state sponsored "Church of England". It is also suppose to prevent our representatives from respecting one religion (their own) over anothers. Sorry it doesn't agree with the Christian majority view. It was designed not to respect ANY religion. Believe it or not it protects you from having Muslim prayer at your football games as well.

Now, again, how does a school teaching something "religious" constitute Congress Passing a Law?

Its not just about passing laws, its about the government respecting one religion over another. PUBLIC schools are funded by Tax payer dollars. And just like you don't want your schools teaching your kids about Islam, Hinuism or any other religion, we don't want christianity taught in the schools either. If you want that sort of thing, go to perochial schools or better yet home school. Again, a majority doesn't rule at the expense of others.

It doesn't, and issues like a school prayer before a football game being banned, something that STILL chaps my hide, is a denial of religious expression a clearly stated right.

Wrong. First off, the prayer was stopped because it was being led by a tax paid government employee of the school, it only represented one religious prayer, not all religions AND the kids rights to pray to themselves was never stopped. Think about this while you soothe your chapped ass. If your child was the only jewish player on a predominately christian team, how would this kid feel having to recite the Lords prayer, when he clearly doesn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah? Should he succumb to it just because the majority is christian? How would this be fair? Should the jewish boy go over to the corner and say a prayer from the Septigant? Feeling excluded? why would any of this chap your ass? The kids can pray all they want in schools as long as it isn't dispruptive and isn't led by teachers on the tax payers dime.

And please spare me the Thomas Jefferson speech and anything about the idiots on the SC, they also passed the Kelo decision allowing the state to take your property and give it to some rich guy to develop for higher taxes. The SC ain't perfect.

OK, I won't. I didn't need the TJ speech anyway. I don't know what the SC is or the Kelo decision is so I won't comment on that either.




[quote]I love this Tolerance line, look there are some ass hats on the Christian Side that take that whole "Gay" thing a bit too far, I will not deny that, but then are people like you that are no different just on the other end. Personally I think Fred Phelps wants nothing more then to be a gay slut but he's too scared of his own desires. Seriously I do believe that. [quote] How is anything I said in anyway related to "ass hats" like Phelps? What did this have to do with the quoted text you are arguing about? STRAWMAN

I'm not going to retract that, you atheist demand that America reject public acknowledgment of religious beliefs and traditions because YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THEM! YOUR demands are that society change to meet your needs, no different then what is currently the case.

Another strawman. We don't "demand" that America reject Public acknowledement of religious beliefs. Not in the least. Again, show me any evidence of this, or retract your statement. If you don't do either, there is no point in debating someone who can't back up their arguements.

Quote by: ItsDarts What actions are you refering too? Why should we teach I.D. in schools and not teach Alchemy?

Strawman, and pointless.

what part of this is a strawman? Its also not pointless. The point being, there is as much evidence for Alchemy as there is for I.D. or astrology.

Quote by: ItsDarts You don't think that your morals and codes aren't nothing more than opinion of anncient times? Oh thats right, you think an invisable friend in the sky some how talks to people, and thats not a fairytail.

Now you show your bigotry and hate, your intolerance of others beliefs. Way to go, prove my point.

I don't have to be tolerant of beliefs I can't respect. No more than I have to be tolerant of the belief in unicorns. However, I do respect your right to believe what ever you want as long as those beliefs aren't applied to or by my government. If you want to believe in Unicorns, thats fine with me, don't expect me to be tolerant when the government puts In Unicorns we trust on our money. This isn't bigotry or hate for you, just plain ole disrespect for your religions story that has no evidence to support it. I disrespect astrology with equal vigor.

You have your beliefs, you demand that the majority accept those beliefs based on what YOU think is RIGHT. Well you missed my point, you want US to accept your beliefs, and be forced to live by what YOU think is right. Do you not see the irony of your position yet?

You're mischaracterizing me, another fallacy. I LACK belief in your god. I don't "demand" the majority accept my lack of belief. That is the farthest thing from the truth. It isn't only atheists who demand that we keep religion out of government, the constitution calls for it too. There are plenty of moderate christians, jews and Muslims who also agree that religion should not be in the government.

Your beliefs would effect me and other religious minded people, how is that different then the current situation, it's not except that you are the minority and cannot handle it, like a spoiled child you scream, like a spoiled child you stomp your feet and demand we do what YOU want us to do, you throw a tantrum until America is molded in your image.

Strawman, again I lack belief and no one is trying to take your your beliefs or that of other religious people. And again, you're mischaracterizing atheist in general. Just listen to your intolerance in the above statements. Because we're a minority we're supposed to just accept religion in our government? Should it be only your religious views that our government accept?

No different then religious minded people expressing their view of how society should be. You just pretend that you have moral high ground because you reject God.

Strawman and false accusation.

[saltinespike]

Well. This happens to be a debate forum. And... (checks sub-forum) Oh! We're in Philosophy and Religion. That's why people care. this is the place to talk about it. If we simply let it go, this whole sub-forum would be eliminated.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Nice Bishop, but no it's not, only people like you that trash the Constitution and want to set up a "North America Europe" believe that crap. Why don't you folks just move on over there instead of trying to ruin what we have here?

Your venom and negative attitude toward those that advocat the seperation of church and state makes me nervous that many people that believe like you do are currently hold high positions in government, and makes the free expression of religion, science, and philosophy a rather tenuous treasure that may be soon lost.

[bishop]

Quote by: shunyadragon Your venom and negative attitude toward those that advocat the seperation of church and state makes me nervous that many people that believe like you do are currently hold high positions in government, and makes the free expression of religion, science, and philosophy a rather tenuous treasure that may be soon lost.

the bushes are pretty good examples of such people in high positions.. daddy bush once said:

Quote by: daddy bush I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic

and baby bush once claimed to be sent to lead our country and start wars because god told him so...

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: shunyadragon Your venom and negative attitude toward those that advocat the seperation of church and state makes me nervous that many people that believe like you do are currently hold high positions in government, and makes the free expression of religion, science, and philosophy a rather tenuous treasure that may be soon lost.

What venom and negativity?

He believes in a EU style "pure Secular State". Why not move there instead of trying to ruin what has been a very good system that allowed ya know, religious expression that little line in the first amendment...

I thought this place was for heated debate... or is it just heated trashing of "baby bush" You want negativity and venom, just look to the mods. Unless that is you agree with them, I suppose it's mature and thoughtful debate and discuss then.

[Keith Hamburger]

How should I take this, there are so many points to be made ...

First, keeping the government out of religious debates and discussions allows those to be free. If the government passes a law on religious grounds, that takes away the options for those that don't believe in that religion. If the government fails to pass a law, however, the option for those who believe is still available. Your choices take away freedom, the choices of those who believe allows us to keep freedom.

Hardly an issue of us forcing our beliefs on you.

Second, forced morality is no morality. Forced charity is no charity. If a person is forced to be virtuous through law, or incentivised to be virtuous through law, they lose some of the chance to show their true virue. If the government forces me to be moral, I have not demonstrated that I am a truly moral person. If the government forces (through welfare, etc.) or incentivizes (through tax laws, etc.) me to be charitable, how am I showing the true virtue of charity.

Without the option to be immoral, none of us can truly show ourselves to be moral.

Third, even the founder of your own religion seemed to be against such laws. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ led through teaching and example. There is no advocacy in using the force of law to make people moral to be found. Jesus showed the way and ASK people to follow, there were no demands at all.

I could probably find more, but this should do for now.

Keith

[Mr.Vicchio]

Kieth, your post is so full of the hypocrisies that was the POINT of this thread.


If someone believes in God, and bands together with others that believe in God to pass rules and laws you don't like that. You believe that they are forcing their "morals" on you.

Conversely you are all for a "religion free" government with no influence from religion, which would have a standard code that many people find immoral, thus forcing that on others. You can't see the irony there? Can you not see that you want to force what you believe on others?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio People like you abuse Jefferson's quotes out of context and ignore the daily routine of business in American Government from 1776-1945.

Would it really hurt you to learn even a little bit of history? Sheesh. That was no "abuse" of quotes by Jefferson. The Founders were men of the Enlightenment who distrusted state religion as much as they distrusted central government. Jefferson was a close to an atheist as a public figure could be in those days.

And V, the phrase "In God We Trust" was added to our paper currency in 1957. It is just another example of Christian fanatics who want to undue the fine work that Jefferson and the other Founders worked so hard to achieve.

To answer your question, I could care less if people believe in God or not. I only with that those who do would grant me the same courtesy.

[gw120]

They force their religion on you when they fly planes into your buildings. They force their religion on you when they make laws to stop people from what their religion says is wrong. They for their religion on you when they make your children read Bibles instead of science text books.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Kieth, your post is so full of the hypocrisies that was the POINT of this thread. If someone believes in God, and bands together with others that believe in God to pass rules and laws you don't like that. You believe that they are forcing their "morals" on you. Conversely you are all for a "religion free" government with no influence from religion, which would have a standard code that many people find immoral, thus forcing that on others. You can't see the irony there? Can you not see that you want to force what you believe on others?

This response makes me question your logic (and, as has been discussed in other threads, possibly your intelligence).

How can me allowing people to make choices in how to live their lives be forcing what I believe on them?

How can refusing to use the force of government to make people act like I want them to be the same as using the force of government?

The standard code I want is the one that allows people to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for those decisions. How can that be forcing an immoral standard on others?

In regards to religious rules, I wish the government to be AMORAL. That is in no way IMMORAL.

Keith

[Mr.Vicchio]

See keith, that's where you FAIL at this.

You want to allow people to do whatever. To you that's right and moral.

To some, that's a recipe for an immoral corrupt society, thus you are FORCING your view on people, you are FORCING society to abandon that which it set as "How things should be" and take down those rules laws and codes of conduct.

Don't you get it? I understand you point, you think it's wrong ot have rules morals and standards and just let people do what ever...

You can question my logic and intelligence all you want, when you are so blind that you cannot see the simple point I have made... one has to question your abilities more then mine.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio What venom and negativity? He believes in a EU style "pure Secular State". Why not move there instead of trying to ruin what has been a very good system that allowed ya know, religious expression that little line in the first amendment... I thought this place was for heated debate... or is it just heated trashing of "baby bush" You want negativity and venom, just look to the mods. Unless that is you agree with them, I suppose it's mature and thoughtful debate and discuss then.

The intensity of debate is not the issue.

Trolling and slinging Red Herrings about like a manure spreader, does not contribute to a constructive debate.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio See keith, that's where you FAIL at this. You want to allow people to do whatever. To you that's right and moral. To some, that's a recipe for an immoral corrupt society, thus you are FORCING your view on people, you are FORCING society to abandon that which it set as "How things should be" and take down those rules laws and codes of conduct.

That is complete and total gibberish. By not enforcing our views on others we are forcing others to adopt our views. That is lunacy writ large.

All that is required in a free society is that one does not initiate force or commit fraud. Beyond that one should be free to live as he or she sees fit, which includes being free of pestering or coercion by religious zealots.

You are the one who doesn't get it V.

[Jack]

which would have a standard code that many people find immoral, thus forcing that on others.

What standard code would that be? Do you find freedom of and from religion to be immoral?

If someone believes in God, and bands together with others that believe in God to pass rules and laws you don't like that. You believe that they are forcing their "morals" on you.

Yes, I guess you do.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio See keith, that's where you FAIL at this. You want to allow people to do whatever. To you that's right and moral. To some, that's a recipe for an immoral corrupt society, thus you are FORCING your view on people, you are FORCING society to abandon that which it set as "How things should be" and take down those rules laws and codes of conduct. Don't you get it? I understand you point, you think it's wrong ot have rules morals and standards and just let people do what ever... You can question my logic and intelligence all you want, when you are so blind that you cannot see the simple point I have made... one has to question your abilities more then mine.

No, you obviously don't understand my point.

If you force people to be "right and moral" how can anyone really tell who actually IS right and moral?

If you're doing the same thing as everyone else because the law tells them to do so, you are no better than them.

And, if you read the writings of and about the founder of your religion, you are actually worse than them because you're FORCING them to do as you say and not leading by education and example.

Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus say we must FORCE all of the non-believers to behave as "we say". Nowhere does it say to FORCE all of the non-believers to support "our programs". Such force itself is anathema to your own religious foundations.

Just because I'm not FORCING others to behave as I say they should, now you say I'm imposing my beliefs on you? How does my resistance to such control of others make you behave in any particular manner?

Now I'm not only questioning your logic and intelligence, I'm also questioning your sanity.

Keith

[Mr.Vicchio]

See, that's where you and I differ.

Society must have something to hold it together, you are so non-judgmental IMHO you're dangerous. And the people like you are dangerous.

[Jack]

Society must have something to hold it together, you are so non-judgmental IMHO you're dangerous. And the people like you are dangerous.

To whom? Not to me. I have no desire to live in a theocracy. Society doesn't need religion as a unifying force. It's a weakness of our nation that so many are turning to religion to try to hold us together. Religion doesn't unify. In the end it always divides. The saved and the unsaved. Those judged sinful and those judged forgiven. The more religions, the more fractured society becomes.

Why can't our country center itself around better concepts, like freedom, charity and peace? Or are those too wimpy?