The tyranny of religion and the freedom of atheism

Jan 15, 2014 Full story: Examiner.com 177

On occasion, the atheist podcast and radio show " Reasonable Doubts " will feature an interview with a high-profile atheist who was formerly a religious activist.

Read more
Jim

London, UK

#143 Jan 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
My bad. Now I understand your confusion. You're trying to make the same meaning out of 'atheist' to be 'not-theist' and to have said same meaning without any decision making. That's your error. Need examples? The word atheist as defined in dictionaries is always written to mean someone that has made a decision to not believe in a god(s). The word is NEVER usually defined as someone that has no belief established.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...
a·the·ist[áythee ist ]
unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities
..........
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
..........
Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief.
..........
Definition of ATHEISM. 1. archaic: ungodliness, wickedness. 2. a: a disbelief in the existence of deity . b: the doctrine that there is no deity .
..........
a·the·ist (&#257;&#8242;th&# 275;-&#301;st) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. atheist
..........
And than we have a link to how I deciphered those without any belief (called atheists inn this link) and atheists who are because of decision.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...
I will state for the record that a person who has never come to a decision process of accepting or rejecting theism can be called an atheist by the simplicity of the definition. But that is not how most use the word atheist. The below proves it that most believe in the below that an atheist, like a theist, comes to be called and defined such by decision.
Atheist
There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':
1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.
2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.
Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.
LOL another Creationist clown in denial about the definition of Atheism!!

Losers.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#144 Jan 29, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
The Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797:
Art. 11. 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 against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] 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.
This was ratified unanimously by the US Senators present for the vote. Before the vote, the treaty was read aloud in the Senate Chamber in its entirety, and copies had been printed for each Senator to review in advance of the vote. Many of the Senators voting on this were among those we now think of as "founding fathers". John Adams, who was President and who signed the treaty after its ratification was most certainly a founding father. There was no discussion, debate or objection to the language denying that the United States was in any sense founded on christianity.
Nice copy and paste. So let's ask you some questions since you pasted this to see if you understand at all what you pasted.
A. Who was the author of the treaty?
B. Did the writer have a religious affiliation or not?
C. Was this treaty written out slowly with no hurry to be passed by our congress or was this a document hurried through from it's conception to it's signing by congress?
D. Of all the hundreds of treaties that US officials prepared and passed why is this the ONLY treaty that makes any mention of the US not being founded on the Christian religion?
E. Was there or was there not a possible reason why this said declaration of the US not being founded on the Christian religion was in this treaty but not in any other treaty ever passed by congress?
Waiting..........please don't copy and paste answers.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#145 Jan 29, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL another Creationist clown in denial about the definition of Atheism!!
Losers.
...an English clown to boot....lol....

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#146 Jan 29, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
You should look up the term State Religion.. Recognized religion as the state religion does not mean that Denmark governs by said religion in the form of dominion theology. And Denmark has been evolving away from this sort of idealism.. It is a pretty secular in it's government despite having a state religion., and the people have secular attitudes to which is noted in their own constitution:
You can dance about this all you want. You have failed to prove what you stated, that some of the greatest civilizations were secular, meaning without religious influence, meaning no theocracy, no state religion, no churches, no theism of any sort worth mentioning because so few people are religious compared to the many that aren't religious.
You stated without any allowance of a little or some or much religious influence included.... "Actually the greatest civilizations, or most peaceful and successful were and are secular." Secular means "without religion" as to atheism for example, as to a civilization that was built with no beliefs in any gods or goddesses or supreme beings etc. That civilization you defined should have no aspects of religion of any kind to be noted in it. And none exist or have existed as you have described them.
Since humans became herders and farmers and built settlements their superstitious wondering at things they couldn't logically explain led them to create the first forms of religious worship that have continued to this day.
Secular civilizations not based in religion that became the greatest non-religious civilizations to exist as you proclaim, never happened.
By the way, someone doesn't have correct info according to your religious stats of Denmark are according to the recently published..
You can visit this link and read the info yourself. Apparently Denmark officials don't take interest in stats for many things, religion being one of those things.
http://www.bing.com/search...
,,,,,,,,,,

http://europenews.dk/en/node/59650
Muslim Population in Sweden and Denmark Doubled in 14 Years
The Muslim Issue 9 October 2012
By Ingrid Carlqvist & Lars Hedegaard

Despite the fact that Muslims tend to exhibit behavior that clearly distinguishes them from both the European host populations and other immigrant groups, there are no official figures to indicate how many Muslims live in Sweden and Denmark. Danes and Swedes have had to rely on wildly diverging estimates because the authorities refuse to publish statistics on religion or culture.

In Denmark estimates ranging from 200,000 to 700,000 have been circulated.

Dispatch is now able to reveal the true figures based on our own research: 574,000 Muslims in Sweden and 256,000 in Denmark. The statistical uncertainty is roughly +/- 20,000 in Sweden and +/- 10,000 in Denmark.

This means that Muslims make up 6.05% of Sweden’s population and 4.59% of Denmark’s.
..........
http://erlc.com/article/growth-in-orthodox-ch...
In Denmark, of all places, Christian immigrants have started more than 150 churches, according to a June 11 Washington Post story (Foreign missionaries find fertile ground in Europe). The members of these churches are not just ministering and evangelizing in the local immigrant communities; they are going out and seeking to evangelize everyone, including native-born Danes.

The above Washington Post article was republished in Colorado’s Reporter Herald under the name Missionaries from abroad rock Denmark

- See more at: http://erlc.com/article/growth-in-orthodox-ch...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#147 Jan 29, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct!.. And just reading Jefferson's letter tells you that they intended to create a secular government.. And on the supreme court buildings there are examples of law givers and even the tortoise and the hare.
http://hermonatkinsmacneil.com/wp-content/upl...
http://hermonatkinsmacneil.com/wp-content/upl...
Even Muhammad is displayed on our government buildings:
http://www.wnd.com/images2/muhammadcourt.jpg
And what the Christians like to claim is the ten commandments is actually the bill of rights.. And any mention of Moses only sites what can be regarded as common law in which is not religious dependent.
The same questions I posed for Amused you can answer if you wish too.

A. Who was the author of the treaty?
B. Did the writer have a religious affiliation or not?
C. Was this treaty written out slowly with no hurry to be passed by our congress or was this a document hurried through from it's conception to it's signing by congress?
D. Of all the hundreds of treaties that US officials prepared and passed why is this the ONLY treaty that makes any mention of the US not being founded on the Christian religion?
E. Was there or was there not a possible reason why this said declaration of the US not being founded on the Christian religion was in this treaty but not in any other treaty ever passed by congress?

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#148 Jan 29, 2014
Nice copy and paste. So let's ask you some questions since you pasted this to see if you understand at all what you pasted.
What, did you expect him to make up his own article 11? You're not very bright are you?
A. Who was the author of the treaty?
Our government.. And Thomas Jefferson being one of the founding fathers. Are you suggesting our Government and the founding fathers did not know what they based their government on? You're appealing to ignorance from a position of woeful ignorance. Translation, you want your theocracy and to believe this nation has always had been when in fact the opposite was true..
B. Did the writer have a religious affiliation or not?
Irrelevant..:
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
&#8213; Thomas Jefferson
Next up:
C. Was this treaty written out slowly with no hurry to be passed by our congress or was this a document hurried through from it's conception to it's signing by congress?
No, This is what we call attempted dishonest apologetics. And the treaty was voted unanimously.. Hence there was zero descent.. You act like the founding fathers didn't know what they intended build as a government. That is some serious delusional thinking on your part.
D. Of all the hundreds of treaties that US officials prepared and passed why is this the ONLY treaty that makes any mention of the US not being founded on the Christian religion?
Show me a treaty by the founding fathers stating this country was founded on the Christian Religion. You do realize that many of the founding fathers were not Christians, but rather deists. There is a massive difference between Christianity and deism. Even the part about the creator was under the context of each persons own idea of a "Creator".. Hence it doesn't matter if it's nature, or some personal deity or a number of deities..
E. Was there or was there not a possible reason why this said declaration of the US not being founded on the Christian religion was in this treaty but not in any other treaty ever passed by congress?
Waiting..........please don't copy and paste answers.
One should not need repeat themselves. You act like it is somehow necessary to even mention the subject in every treaty that ever comes up. In the treaty of Tripoli, they were specifically clarifying the foundation of their nation to be secular.. They don't represent Near East law givers on the Supreme court because they thought about creating a "Christian Nation / Theocracy". If that had been the case, you would have had nothing but Mosaic Law to which is nothing short of Sharia law.. No no, they did so because this Nation was intended to have a secular government with common law. equal rights and liberty for all. It's not liberty and justice for "Christians" kiddo, it's Liberty and justice for "ALL".. And everyone knows why that is when they look at what they were escaping from. Persecution of Christian rule, or more specifically religious persecution. They believed a secular government would ensure freedom of religion where one belief doesn't get to dominate, persecute, and control the nation they intended to build..

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#149 Jan 29, 2014
And now you have Christian nuts trying to turn this country into exactly what the founding fathers had escaped from. In fact it's worse because these nuts want a total theocracy ruled completely by dominion theology.. These people are psychotic..., and if it were Atheists trying to turn this nation into an Atheist state, I would have the same problem with it. Keep it secular as was intended.. Once you start ripping up that constitution, this country will collapse into a 3rd world nation. Anyone that can read history knows the path we are heading down will collapse this country, and likely drive it to civil war. And if the moderates lose, I hope you like your Christian version of Afghanistan, Darfur, or Sudan.. And even the Christian sects will start warring each other for power and control. Hence, don't be stupid..

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#150 Jan 29, 2014
You stated without any allowance of a little or some or much religious influence included.... "Actually the greatest civilizations, or most peaceful and successful were and are secular." Secular means "without religion" as to atheism for example, as to a civilization that was built with no beliefs in any gods or goddesses or supreme beings etc.
No it's not Atheism.. Neutrality. Common law is secular only to the point of neutrality.. Or as neutral as possible. And we are only talking about Secular governance, not the eradication of religion. Civilizations that are more secular in the governance are not trying to create a society without religion. Your right to practice religion is not banned, you are just not allowed to use public funding or government for the purpose of your religion. Hence you would be upset if I used public funds (your money) to teach Atheism in the public school system right? This being equal to me making you pay for it.. Thus if you can't understand why this also applies to atheism as it does you, I must say you are clueless giving the very same government protects you as it does other religious and non-religious beliefs.. These are private matters ... So if you want to build a private church and preach the Gospel, you are free do that. You want a private school to teach your religions, that is find to! I don't go to your church and try to prevent that now do I? Of course not!. It doesn't however belong in the public school system, and publicly funded institutions should never be religious brain washing / indoctrination centers.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#151 Jan 29, 2014
your being controlled by a book from the bronze age thou. so your not that free
Carchar king wrote:
I am christian. I am free to choose my faith, my favourite food, where i want to go, when i want to use my laptop, whether to work or stay lazy, sleep whenever i want.
I am free.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#152 Jan 30, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice copy and paste. So let's ask you some questions since you pasted this to see if you understand at all what you pasted.
A. Who was the author of the treaty?
B. Did the writer have a religious affiliation or not?
C. Was this treaty written out slowly with no hurry to be passed by our congress or was this a document hurried through from it's conception to it's signing by congress?
D. Of all the hundreds of treaties that US officials prepared and passed why is this the ONLY treaty that makes any mention of the US not being founded on the Christian religion?
E. Was there or was there not a possible reason why this said declaration of the US not being founded on the Christian religion was in this treaty but not in any other treaty ever passed by congress?
Waiting..........please don't copy and paste answers.
Since you seem incapable of any original research (Google is your friend)

A. On the American side, David Humphreys, who was appointed "Commissioner Pleinpotentiary" was given authority to negotiate the treatey. He did so with assistance from Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General to the Barbary States and several underlings.
B. Barlow was some flavor of christian. He was a chaplain to a Massachusetts regiment during the Revolutionary War. He was also a Mason, and I believe Masons are required to be theists.Humphreys' own religious convictions are not a significant part of his biography, although his father held a parsonage for 54 years, so he had some familiarity with christianity. He was a senior aide to Washington, so he also had a front row seat to the formation of the United States such that he would know whether or not christian principals were foremost on the founders' minds. How is it relevant? Would the Paris Peace Accords ending the Vietnam war have been different if Henry Kissinger was a born again christian? Or a Hindu?
C. The treaty was drafted in 1794, ratified in 1797, almost three years later. Seems to me like enough time to consider its contents. As I noted in my earlier post, the ratifying Senators had the entire document read to them as well as being provided with written copies in advance of the vote. So, probably more care than the more contemporary Congress devoted to passing the Patriot Act.
D. Probably because it was the only time the issue of the religious roots of the U.S., or the lack thereof, was relevant. Since this point was addressed relatively early in our history, there was no need to revisit the question.
E. Again, it was relevant in the discussions with the theocratic islamist Barbary States, but not so relevant in trade treaties, peace treaties with non-religious states, agreements over boundaries, etc. When you bought your house, your religious affiliation was not mentioned in the deed, because no one cared. Same with trade treaties. If the question being discussed is trade tariffs, no one cares about the religious or secular roots of the countries signing.

It really didn't take me long to find the information needed to answer your somewhat foolish questions. You really ought to learn to think for yourself, instead of reflexively responding as you were indoctrinated to respond. The first step in that process is learning how to gather information.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#153 Jan 31, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
What, did you expect him to make up his own article 11? You're not very bright are you?
<quoted text>
Our government.. And Thomas Jefferson being one of the founding fathers. Are you suggesting our Government and the founding fathers did not know what they based their government on? You're appealing to ignorance from a position of woeful ignorance. Translation, you want your theocracy and to believe this nation has always had been when in fact the opposite was true..
I expected him to understand that because something has been included in a bill or treaty etc that congress passed, that doesn't mean everything was agreed to be 100% accurate as both you and he wish it to seem happens.
The fact that you both and others wish to believe that all the signers of this treaty agreed upon it's full contents to a 100% degree only reveals you're mentally challenged when it comes to not knowing that not everything written into bills, treaties, etc passed by congress are believed to be true or are always agreed to be true by all those signers. You two seem to be without the knowledge or understanding from present events that bills and such are passed in congress with one or more disagreeing on one or more parts but they sign the bill any way because it needs to be passed into law for one or more important reasons.
Many historians have noted the clause for this not being a country founded on Christianity in that particular treaty and the fact that this is the only document EVER passed by congress to make that statement, gives credence for why it was written into that treaty no matter if it was true or false to those signing that treaty in congress. It was written that way to pacify the Barbary pirates fear that the US as seen as a Christian nation would decide to attack them under religious pretenses in war for them having pirated US ships passing through in that area.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#154 Jan 31, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not Atheism.. Neutrality. Common law is secular only to the point of neutrality.. Or as neutral as possible. And we are only talking about Secular governance, not the eradication of religion. Civilizations that are more secular in the governance are not trying to create a society without religion. Your right to practice religion is not banned, you are just not allowed to use public funding or government for the purpose of your religion. Hence you would be upset if I used public funds (your money) to teach Atheism in the public school system right? This being equal to me making you pay for it.. Thus if you can't understand why this also applies to atheism as it does you, I must say you are clueless giving the very same government protects you as it does other religious and non-religious beliefs.. These are private matters ... So if you want to build a private church and preach the Gospel, you are free do that. You want a private school to teach your religions, that is find to! I don't go to your church and try to prevent that now do I? Of course not!. It doesn't however belong in the public school system, and publicly funded institutions should never be religious brain washing / indoctrination centers.
Talk about fricking clueless diatribe....lol. You're now saying some of the greatest civilizations weren't only secular, but they were neutral in not having any religious beliefs? Are you insane? No such civilization ever existed! No such civilization exists now! And what civilizations are and what their becoming is totally different from your original statement.
A civilization led by whom ever, king, dictator, judges etc, they historically have either A. allowed theism as part of their culture or B. they have did their best to eradicate any theism so none existed. But not a single civilization exists or existed where it was so neutral of religion that everyone neither admitted or denied the existence of a supreme being. Fricking talk about clueless statements.....

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#155 Jan 31, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
And now you have Christian nuts trying to turn this country into exactly what the founding fathers had escaped from. In fact it's worse because these nuts want a total theocracy ruled completely by dominion theology.. These people are psychotic..., and if it were Atheists trying to turn this nation into an Atheist state, I would have the same problem with it. Keep it secular as was intended.. Once you start ripping up that constitution, this country will collapse into a 3rd world nation. Anyone that can read history knows the path we are heading down will collapse this country, and likely drive it to civil war. And if the moderates lose, I hope you like your Christian version of Afghanistan, Darfur, or Sudan.. And even the Christian sects will start warring each other for power and control. Hence, don't be stupid..
I totally agree you have extremists always wanting to have the extreme even with religion, even as you have the extremists always wanting to have the extreme even with atheism. But the left in this matter wish to eradicate religion all together. The founding fathers were mostly deists that used the Bible as the base of their reasoning. They went into congress and other political meetings with an opening prayer and a closing prayer. They wished a secular government not influenced by religion as the English government was based upon religion. But at the same time they saw nothing wrong with a bit of theism in government here and there as long as it stayed low key and wasn't taken to be a governing religion.
For the past 60 years we have had a few people get really nasty and defiant with how the founding fathers saw things concerning theism and politics and education. They have managed to eradicated slowly any signs the founding fathers had given allowance to in politics and education. They have well been eradicating some past nationally celebrated holidays based in Christian beliefs.
So understandably the religious are taking up arms and want back what the founding fathers and later politicians gave allowance to which kept our nation to a secular government. I understand that.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#156 Jan 31, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you seem incapable of any original research (Google is your friend)
A. On the American side, David Humphreys, who was appointed "Commissioner Pleinpotentiary" was given authority to negotiate the treatey. He did so with assistance from Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General to the Barbary States and several underlings.
B. Barlow was some flavor of christian. He was a chaplain to a Massachusetts regiment during the Revolutionary War. He was also a Mason, and I believe Masons are required to be theists.Humphreys' own religious convictions are not a significant part of his biography, although his father held a parsonage for 54 years, so he had some familiarity with christianity. He was a senior aide to Washington, so he also had a front row seat to the formation of the United States such that he would know whether or not christian principals were foremost on the founders' minds. How is it relevant? Would the Paris Peace Accords ending the Vietnam war have been different if Henry Kissinger was a born again christian? Or a Hindu?
C. The treaty was drafted in 1794, ratified in 1797, almost three years later. Seems to me like enough time to consider its contents. As I noted in my earlier post, the ratifying Senators had the entire document read to them as well as being provided with written copies in advance of the vote. So, probably more care than the more contemporary Congress devoted to passing the Patriot Act.
D. Probably because it was the only time the issue of the religious roots of the U.S., or the lack thereof, was relevant. Since this point was addressed relatively early in our history, there was no need to revisit the question.
E. Again, it was relevant in the discussions with the theocratic islamist Barbary States, but not so relevant in trade treaties, peace treaties with non-religious states, agreements over boundaries, etc. When you bought your house, your religious affiliation was not mentioned in the deed, because no one cared. Same with trade treaties. If the question being discussed is trade tariffs, no one cares about the religious or secular roots of the countries signing.
It really didn't take me long to find the information needed to answer your somewhat foolish questions. You really ought to learn to think for yourself, instead of reflexively responding as you were indoctrinated to respond. The first step in that process is learning how to gather information.
I have links for this treaty pro and con. I know of it. I knew that when you pasted it to imply that every signer of that treaty believed every word of it, I knew what you were doing out of bias and prejudice and, from lack of understanding the reason(s) that document was worded as it was about this nation not being a Christian nation.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#157 Jan 31, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I have links for this treaty pro and con. I know of it. I knew that when you pasted it to imply that every signer of that treaty believed every word of it, I knew what you were doing out of bias and prejudice and, from lack of understanding the reason(s) that document was worded as it was about this nation not being a Christian nation.
OK, so now John Adams, the US Consul General and the entire US Senate are all liars. That's your story, and you are sticking to it? Not too desperate, are you? I can smell the flop sweat all the way from here.

The Senate part is probably correct, if the current members of that august body are any gauge. But John Adams? Really?
Amused

Lowell, MA

#158 Jan 31, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I have links for this treaty pro and con. I know of it. I knew that when you pasted it to imply that every signer of that treaty believed every word of it, I knew what you were doing out of bias and prejudice and, from lack of understanding the reason(s) that document was worded as it was about this nation not being a Christian nation.
If you had links to the treaty, as you say, you knew the answers to your questions A and C and need not have wasted everyone's time asking who drafted the treaty and how long between drafting and ratification. You also would not have made an azz of yourself prattling on about whether the treaty was done in haste, since you would have known that it took 3 years from drafting to ratification. From the information you supposedly already had about the identity of the drafters, doing a bit of research about them would have provided answers about their religious affiliations.

Do you often go around asking people questions you already have answers to, does having your assertions contradicted by actual facts lead you into a fit of fact derangement syndrome?
Anonymous

San Antonio, TX

#159 Jan 31, 2014
As an agnostic I Would say you're both hell bent on telling each other what to do.... may you all be blessed and pull your rhetorical heads out of your hypothetical asses! Amen . Btw atheists are the worst... baby killers!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#160 Jan 31, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so now John Adams, the US Consul General and the entire US Senate are all liars. That's your story, and you are sticking to it? Not too desperate, are you? I can smell the flop sweat all the way from here.
The Senate part is probably correct, if the current members of that august body are any gauge. But John Adams? Really?
How many bills would you like me to give you links to so you can see where those signing it claimed they disagreed with one or more parts but signed it because it was an important piece of legislation that needed to be passed even if they disagreed with one or more parts? Should we go over the Obama law health care bill? How about the recent debt ceiling bill? Care to discuss how many signers didn't like one or more parts but signed it any way?
The ToT needed to be written and signed as soon as possible so that the pirates confiscating US ships would hopefully quit with the treaty in their hands.
So yeah Adams was proud of the treaty and he made sure people knew. It was his responsibility to sooth the US citizens beating on his presidency door demanding he do something for who's goods were being stolen by the pirates and creating a financial loss for them.
By the way, did you know the TOT floundered with no value because the ruler of Tripoli received late payments from the US so he let his pirates attack US ships again? Did you know we declared war on Tripoli and attacked them from sea? Did you know when the ruler called for peace a new treaty was signed? Do you know what wasn't in that new treaty? The statement you love and cherish. It claimed instead the US had no government established church/religion.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#161 Jan 31, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had links to the treaty, as you say, you knew the answers to your questions A and C and need not have wasted everyone's time asking who drafted the treaty and how long between drafting and ratification. You also would not have made an azz of yourself prattling on about whether the treaty was done in haste, since you would have known that it took 3 years from drafting to ratification. From the information you supposedly already had about the identity of the drafters, doing a bit of research about them would have provided answers about their religious affiliations.
Do you often go around asking people questions you already have answers to, does having your assertions contradicted by actual facts lead you into a fit of fact derangement syndrome?
I ask questions you didn't answer to see what you didn't know which you proved you didn't know. An educated person pasting this reference from that treaty... "As the government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion..." would have included both pro and con information so they wouldn't appear prejudiced and or biased in the info they were providing. As you didn't do.
If that statement was so well believed by the signers, one would logically conclude in so many other various documents needing to have such a similar statement concerning an explanation of church and state the same statement would be in those documents also from the constitution to the bill of rights etc, etc.
But it was a statement made a single solitary time for a specific reason no matter who believed or disbelieved it. Can you understand that? Not tough really.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#162 Jan 31, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I expected him to understand that because something has been included in a bill or treaty etc that congress passed, that doesn't mean everything was agreed to be 100% accurate as both you and he wish it to seem happens.
The fact that you both and others wish to believe that all the signers of this treaty agreed upon it's full contents to a 100% degree only reveals you're mentally challenged when it comes to not knowing that not everything written into bills, treaties, etc passed by congress are believed to be true or are always agreed to be true by all those signers..
If you don't think it was accurate, show us where in the constitution it mentions "Christianity", or God for that matter.. It doesn't... What is a constitution that has no mention of such and builds a wall between church and state? It's secular stupid!.. Your arguments are nothing more than pleading appeals to ignorance.. There was no "Christian Nation". And I will take Thomas Jefferson's word over yours... Yeah, an actual founding father, not you..
would have included both pro and con information so they wouldn't appear prejudiced and or biased in the info they were providing. As you didn't do.
Just reading Thomas Jefferson's own letter on separation of church and state was more than enough... You're an idiot, and no the founding fathers who made this country did not have to do shit in providing a pro / con argument.. They knew what kind of government they wanted to build regardless if you believe it biased or not. Your argument is like pleading they were prejudice if they had said this nation wasn't founded on Islam, or Greek Mythology. And do tell us why the founding fathers who were largely deists would claim Christianity as the foundation of their government? Are you stupid or trolling with woeful ignorance?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 27 min ChristineM 17,997
News The Consequences of Atheism 33 min Thinking 1,128
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 44 min Thinking 14,508
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Mr_SKY 6,454
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Rosa_Winkel 236,911
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 9 hr Freebird USA 9,256
News Confessions of a black atheist 14 hr Cordwainer Trout 20
More from around the web