Atheist Quotes

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't either. Maybe you should tell that to the evangelical Christian base the Republican party caters to.

As far as the Dark Ages are concerned, you're argument is ludicrous. What brought Europe out of the Dark Ages was a revival of classical Greek and Roman cultural ideals, not Christianity. You may know this period by its common name, the Renaissance. During the Dark Ages, the Christian Church challenged and snuffed everything that went against orthodoxy. This included stamping-out (or trying to) scientific breakthroughs, the most notable of which was Galileo's discovery of heliocentricity.

Maybe this will "enlighten" you a bit...

"This article is about the term "Dark age(s)" as a characterization of the (Early) Middle Ages in Europe. For the period itself, see Middle Ages and Early Middle Ages. For other uses of the phrase, see Dark Ages (disambiguation).

Petrarch, who conceived the idea of a European "Dark Age". From Cycle of Famous Men and Women, Andrea di Bartolo di Bargillac, c.1450In historiography the phrase the Dark Ages (or Dark Age) is most commonly known in relation to the European Early Middle Ages (from about A.D. 476 to about 1000).

This concept of a "Dark Age" was created by Italian humanists and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Later historians expanded the term to include not only the lack of Latin literature, but a lack of contemporary written history and material cultural achievements in general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope. The rise of archaeology and other specialities in the 20th century has shed much light on the period and offered a more nuanced understanding of its positive developments. Other terms of periodization have come to the fore: Late Antiquity, the Early Middle Ages and the Great Migrations, depending on which aspects of culture are being emphasized. Most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors would simply assume that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and use this assumption to prove itself.

In Britain and the United States, the phrase "Dark Ages" has occasionally been used by professionals, with severe qualification, as a term of periodization. This usage is intended as non-judgmental and simply means the relative lack of written record, "silent" as much as "dark."

 

[CharlestonChad]

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CAN BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

Do you have anything at all to back this outlandish and caps locked statement?

 

[jillian]

Do you have anything at all to back this outlandish and caps locked statement?

Of course not. Or else how could he possibly explain this statement by Jefferson:

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/index.htm

 

[5stringJeff]

Of course not. Or else how could he possibly explain this statement by Jefferson:



http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/index.htm

First, Jefferson was one of the Founders, not all of the Founders.

Second, it's well documented that Jefferson was a Diest who cut out the parts of the Gospels that he didn't like, leaving all of Jesus' moral teachings and virtually nothing else. Using Jefferson as a representative example of the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers is like using Michael Newdow as a representative example of all atheists.

 

[jillian]

First, Jefferson was one of the Founders, not all of the Founders.

Second, it's well documented that Jefferson was a Diest who cut out the parts of the Gospels that he didn't like, leaving all of Jesus' moral teachings and virtually nothing else. Using Jefferson as a representative example of the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers is like using Michael Newdow as a representative example of all atheists.

That's a fair observation. But Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine shared his beliefs. So in considering what was intended in advancing the separation of church and state, one must consider the source.

 

[Gunny]

Of course not. Or else how could he possibly explain this statement by Jefferson:



http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/index.htm

How come it is, when quoting Founding Father(s), y'all lefties only quote the three or four who are anti-religious?

To take it a step further .... who gives a rat's ass WHAT Thomas Jefferson has to say? He, and his secular cohorts are entitled to their opinions, but that's all they are. Just a few more opinions.

The law itself is clear in regards to not allowing the establishment of a theocracy. That religion is not allowed in government at all is the fanciful thinking of wannabe intellectual lefties.

 

[Dr Grump]

That religion is not allowed in government at all is the fanciful thinking...

Most who do not believe do not mind people of religion being in politics, long as they don't try and foist their religion onto others via statutes. Nothing wrong with that is there?

 

[CharlestonChad]

That religion is not allowed in government at all is the fanciful thinking of wannabe intellectual lefties.

Is not judging a person for their intellect narcissistic itself?

 

[manu1959]

Is not judging a person for their intellect narcissistic itself?

nope....it is elitist.....you have no clue what narcissistic means do ya....

 

[Abbey Normal]

Unless you believe, you will not understand.
-St. Augustine

 

[Gunny]

Most who do not believe do not mind people of religion being in politics, long as they don't try and foist their religion onto others via statutes. Nothing wrong with that is there?

I have absolutely no problem with that. The assumption that all Christians are "for" a theocracy by default is nothing more than propaganda.

I happen to be against a theocratic government. At the same time, removing all religious symbols from anything government when most have historical value is misrepresenting, misinterpreting and misusing the law.

I don't want whacko anti-religious freaks running my government anymore than I want religous freaks running it.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I have absolutely no problem with that. The assumption that all Christians are "for" a theocracy by default is nothing more than propaganda.

I happen to be against a theocratic government. At the same time, removing all religious symbols from anything government when most have historical value is misrepresenting, misinterpreting and misusing the law.

I don't want whacko anti-religious freaks running my government anymore than I want religous freaks running it.

Dang, Gunny. You can sure turn a phrase.

 

[Gunny]

Is not judging a person for their intellect narcissistic itself?

Is it? IMO people who are extremely intelligent are not very modest about it. I am not judging the intellect .... jus the inability of most self-professed intellectuals to turn their data into deed. The more intelligent, the less in touch with reality.

 

[Gunny]

nope....it is elitist.....you have no clue what narcissistic means do ya....

So shoot me. IMO, people with common sense and a logical train of thought are FAR better at dealing with reality and keeping things within the context intended.

 

[LOki]

How come it is, when quoting Founding Father(s), y'all lefties only quote the three or four who are anti-religious?

How come it is, when asserting the founding fathers had no intention of forming a secular government; a government not founded morally, or in principle upon religion; theocrats never quote a founding father to support their assertion, and then characterize and accuse those who do quote founding fathers in opposition to the theocratic position as being "y'all lefties"?

To take it a step further .... who gives a rat's ass WHAT Thomas Jefferson has to say? He, and his secular cohorts are entitled to their opinions, but that's all they are. Just a few more opinions.

Yet the opinions of Thomas Jefferson and his secular cohorts remain opinions of Founding Fathers to this country, unlike those opinions of contemporary yahoos asserting the Christian nation created by Christians, for Christians argument.

The law itself is clear in regards to not allowing the establishment of a theocracy.

The law is clear in regards to not establishing a religion via the function of government.

That religion is not allowed in government at all is the fanciful thinking of wannabe intellectual lefties.

A religion in a government is that government establishing that religion.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The founders of this nation were strongly in dislike of including any religion into government practices. I guess they thought that religion was too destructive a force to be mixed with governments.

I challenged this statement.

This devolved into the typical "how many anti religious quotes from founding fathers can we produce to prove that they didnt instill a govt that would include any religion in govt practices"

which unfortunately for them, proves nothing. ONLY ONE example of where they DID INCLUDE religion in govt practices makes their claim completely null and void.

They can come up with a million and one "out of context" Jeffersonian quotes that make it appear Jefferson wanted a strictly atheistic govt, but all I have to do is come up with one, and it entirely negates their (false) assertation.

The assertation that the founding fathers didnt want religious involvement in government is easier to prove false than proving that the world isnt flat.

MOST of these same founding fathers who "SUPPOSEDLY" wanted to religious influence on government, then went back to their respective states and voted in favor, and in fact implemented STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS.

 

[LOki]

I challenged this statement.

This devolved into the typical "how many anti religious quotes from founding fathers can we produce to prove that they didnt instill a govt that would include any religion in govt practices"

which unfortunately for them, proves nothing.

It may prove nothing, but it illustrates intent.

ONLY ONE example of where they DID INCLUDE religion in govt practices makes their claim completely null and void.

I challenge this statement on it's logical grounds.

They can come up with a million and one "out of context" Jeffersonian quotes that make it appear Jefferson wanted a strictly atheistic govt, but all I have to do is come up with one, and it entirely negates their (false) assertation.

Out of context like, "...Jefferson wanted a strictly atheistic govt,..."?

Which, out of context or not, is not true; nor is it the position of those asserting a constitutional separation of the state from religion.

The assertation that the founding fathers didnt want religious involvement in government is easier to prove false than proving that the world isnt flat.

"The assertation that the founding fathers didnt want religious involvement in government is easier to prove false than proving that the world is flat."

Fixed.

MOST of these same founding fathers who "SUPPOSEDLY" wanted to religious influence on government, then went back to their respective states and voted in favor, and in fact implemented STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS.

I'm interested. Demonstrate. Particularly how "MOST" of them "...voted in favor, and in fact implemented, STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS" in their respective states. You'll note that Jefferson certainly didn't.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

It may prove nothing, but it illustrates intent.
I challenge this statement on it's logical grounds.

Out of context like, "...Jefferson wanted a strictly atheistic govt,..."?

Which, out of context or not, is not true; nor is it the position of those asserting a constitutional separation of the state from religion.

"The assertation that the founding fathers didnt want religious involvement in government is easier to prove false than proving that the world is flat."

Fixed.

I'm interested. Demonstrate. Particularly how "MOST" of them "...voted in favor, and in fact implemented, STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS" in their respective states. You'll note that Jefferson certainly didn't.

Do your own homework. Fact is most States, colonies or commonwealths, however you wish to refer to them, had Legally instituted State sponsored religions. Jefferson was opposed to them, but to make the statement that the founding fathers didnt want religion in govt is easily proven false. In fact, the first amendment is all the proof one really needs. But we have much more proof than just that.

Interestingly enough, while the modern liberal/anti God persons like to use the first amendment as supposed proof that the signers of the Constitution didnt want govt influenced by religion, just the exact opposite is true.

The "Bill of rights" was put into the Constitution for one reason, and one reason only. The signers of the Constitution feared an overly powerful and dominating Central (Federal) government, and they wanted GUARANTEES THAT WOULD OCCUR. Hence, those areas they KNEW the central government would take legal control, were the ones they addressed in the Bill of Rights. And, the ones they listed first, were the ones that they were concerned about the most. The reason they didnt want the Feds getting into establishing a State sponsored religion on the Federal level, was because that would preclude them from being able to do it within their own individual states. The fact that they addressed that issue first in the COTUS is proof that they were MOST concerned about that issue being left for them to go institute and control in their own states.

What most people also dont realize is that the FFathers also didnt consider themselves Americans first. They addressed themselves according to which state they resided in. For example, President Washington considered himself a Virginian. They were extremely, EXTREMELY big on STATES having power and authority except where it was absolutely necessary for the Feds to have the power.

 

[LOki]

Do your own homework.

Support your assertions.

This would be a nice one to start with:

Fact is most States, colonies or commonwealths, however you wish to refer to them, had Legally instituted State sponsored religions. Jefferson was opposed to them, but to make the statement that the founding fathers didnt want religion in govt is easily proven false.

Then prove it--with evidence rather than your wishful assertions unsupported by evidence.

While you catch up on your homework there, realize that there is a distict difference between the status of governemnt established religion prior to the revolution (colony) and after the Declaration Of Independence--most particularly after ratification of the Constitution (state).

Of course, while under English rule, the colonies had "legally instituted state sponsored religions"; you see, once a colony broke with England, the governmental establishment of England's religion was also broken. Post independence, the infrastructure of the crown remained behind, and certainly many of the states retianed the custom of taxation forthe benefit of the established church. What you'll have to demonstrate is that after the respective 13 original state joined the United States, "MOST" (your words) went and established state religions.

Regardless of how you calculate "MOST" in your hopelful search for state established religions (and whetever loose definition for "state established religion"you use), you'll note that having achieved independence after the revolution; after the first 13 states committed themselves to the union in 1788; "MOST" became 1 rather quickly (by 1790), and then none (in 1833), by the time Connecticut's church membership requirement was abolished.

In fact, the first amendment is all the proof one really needs.

Really? How so? (FYI, placing "in fact" before an assertion does not make that assertion a "fact.")

But we have much more proof than just that.

Produce this "proof."

Interestingly enough, while the modern liberal/anti God persons like to use the first amendment as supposed proof that the signers of the Constitution didnt want govt influenced by religion, just the exact opposite is true.

Indeed? But I suppose you'll not offer evidence to support this fanciful assertion either.

Since I actually do my homework, in direct rebuttal to this bullshit notion of yours, I offer you the actual author of the First Amendment:

"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."

How about them apples?

The "Bill of rights" was put into the Constitution for one reason, and one reason only. The signers of the Constitution feared an overly powerful and dominating Central (Federal) government, and they wanted GUARANTEES THAT WOULD OCCUR. Hence, those areas they KNEW the central government would take legal control, were the ones they addressed in the Bill of Rights. And, the ones they listed first, were the ones that they were concerned about the most. The reason they didnt want the Feds getting into establishing a State sponsored religion on the Federal level, was because that would preclude them from being able to do it within their own individual states.

A nice rationalization wrapped in a tin-foil hat. All assertion, no evidence. I think I'll refer to Founding Fathers, rather than you:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

AND

". . . 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."

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Not one word about saving government religion for the states there. Not one, but plenty to the contrary.

The point of protecting U.S. citizens from a state religion at the federal level is exactly the same as the point of protecting citizens from a state religion on the state level--to preserve the right of indivduals to practice their religion. State religions without exception supress other religions by force, and that is precisely one of the very crimes against humanity that the U.S. Revolution was a struggle against.

The fact that they addressed that issue first in the COTUS is proof that they were MOST concerned about that issue being left for them to go institute and control in their own states.

Your "fact" is not true. The Bill Of Rights was drafted and ratified last--after the Constitution was ratified (go ahead and look it up, little Miss DoYourHomework)--and if we are to believe your assertion of "what comes first was what was of greatest concern", then government powers were primary.

What most people also dont realize is that the FFathers also didnt consider themselves Americans first. They addressed themselves according to which state they resided in. For example, President Washington considered himself a Virginian. They were extremely, EXTREMELY big on STATES having power and authority except where it was absolutely necessary for the Feds to have the power.

What you are ignoring is that our Founding Fathers considered themselves human beings first; they made rights of human being prime over powers, thus the coercive power of governemnt should be held as close to the individual as possible, but not against him in defiance of human rights--establishing state religions is antithetical to the notions that each of us have a right to our own religion and conscience, the founding fathers knew this, and constitutionally separated the government from religion.