nogods4me

IIRC Jefferson lectured a good bit on science...

here you go Dave, if you think the founding fathers were YECs

http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall96/science.htm

Amaleq13

If so, please do so in the correct forum (ie CSS). I can only take so much willful ignorance.

Thanks in advance,


Doug aka Amaleq13, BC&H

Calilasseia

Once again we see the creationist/fundamentalist aetiology in action.

Everything that persons of this ilk think or believe is refracted first through the distorting prism of biblical "inerrancy", to the point where any contrary evidence from any field of human endeavour is not so much filtered out as expunged altogether. Thus, dates for assorted fossils are automatically discounted regardless of the soundness of the underlying science that led to those dates, simply and solely because the existence of those dates (and as a corollary, the existence of the sound science underpinning them) fails to conform to doctrine. Evidence for the existence of our hominid ancestors is likewise summarily dismissed along with evidence of our kinship with the great apes, because to accept that evidence would call into question the idea - for which no evidence has ever been offered save that of the sophistry and elisions of apologia - that humans are somehow a separate entity. Continuing in this vein, great swathes of evidence that the history of this planet never once included a global flood at the time specified (with due vagueness) by genesis, along with the compelling reasons from geology, physics and the biology of aquatic taxa that have arisen from extensive and diligent study, find themselves subject to the "inerrancy censor" that would have us believe that said evidence and said objections, despite being founded upon reasoning that has time and again demonstrated practical utility value in other areas of human endeavour, counts for nothing alongside an old text written by people for whom those areas of human endeavour were beyond their wildest imaginings. The "inerrancy censor" that the fundamentalist wishes to embed in human minds at as early an age as possible accepts no reasoned argument, accepts no observation that cannot be distorted to fit its preconceptions, accepts no contrary discourse and indeed actively propagandises away reason, evidence and legitimate discourse as being somehow the product of 'evil'. For the committed, those persons for whom that distorting prism constitutes their reality, we whose minds are receptive to the wonders of this world, who are receptive to knowledge, are not fellow human beings, merely enemies to be crushed. For such persons, only those possessing the same distorting prism in their minds possess any worth; only those within the narrow pale are deserving of human treatment. Time and again, history has shown us what happens when such persons, given the largesse of power and no real restraint imposed from outside upon the ruthless exercising of that power, are capable of doing to those beyond that narrow pale, those who are considered 'ungodly' according to the narrow and in many cases fulminatingly repugnant interpretation of old text, an interpretation that has demonstrably led in past times with chilling inevitability to the self-appointed 'chosen ones' unleashing a cruel providence upon those who dare to be different.

Thus the valiant struggles for a better world and a saner, more reasoned approach to the business of living alongside each other, resulting in the gifts of the Enlightenment, are seen through this refracting and distorting prism not as we see them, namely as treasures to be preserved, for whose bounty we are to be grateful, but as the product of 'sin', just as knowledge itself is viewed. The history of entire nations is rewritten to fit an agenda, the people who made so much possible vilified, their efforts and labours derided with the vitriol more reasoned people reserve for the most blatantly criminal of atrocities. The manner in which the deaths of nearly one and a half million people can be tossed to one side, as though such a toll of human suffering were somehow trivial and incidental, in order to preserve by entirely specious legerdemain the notion that failure to conform to the doctrinal diktat of that refracting prism alone provides a sufficient explanation for the present-day status of an entire nation, speaks eloquently of the nature of the underlying 'thinking'. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the lessons of history teach us something different - namely that when conformity to doctrine is exalted above all else, the human cost is terrible. It was conformity to doctrine that my forebears were opposing sixty years ago in a life or death struggle to prevent a new Dark Age, and with singularly bitter irony, it was in the name of the same god that is claimed to be the inspiration for the distorting prism of inerrancy that many of those forebears of mine gave blood, sweat, toil and tears in order to ensure that future generations would enjoy peace and prosperity. Yet we see above that those forebears of mine, who along with their fellows from across the water, endured much, witnessed things that no man should be called upon to witness, and engaged in common purpose with those comrades in arms from distant places so that we may be free of the need to take up arms, counts for nothing in the mind of the distorting prism, unless it serves whatever notions that prism deems to be the sole notions worthy of existing in the minds of men. We see in addition that the diligent labours to found a new nation, over which men of great intellect strove to do right by future generations, once more is subject to revisionism in pursuit of a doctrine, whereby the words of wisdom those great intellects bestowed upon us as the signposts of their deliberations become simply more raw material for the elision factories erected by adherents of a fixed world-view, to be bowdlerised out of all recognition lest anyone dare think for themselves on the matter, and dare to arrive at conclusions contrary to those 'approved' by the "inerrancy censor". It is indeed a most troubling development, is it not, that there are among us individuals who regard a 3,000 year old book not merely as the last word on science and history, to the exclusion of all subsequent intellectual endeavour, but regard that book as justification for thought policing?

spamandham

If this nonsense were true, why did they not found a theocracy?

Paul2

... I'm not sure what history book you read that in, but ask any 7 year old and he'll tell you that the first settlers were escaping fundamentalist religious persecution.

Our founding fathers realized that the freedom to worship how they chose was an unalienable right. They understood that by creating a state ran church, they would end up doing exactly what they were fleeing from.

You've heard this old adage before: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Vicious Love

Right, and Muslims are atheists, which is why they hate freedom. Good thing you beat them in Vietnam, huh? Say, did you know that the Commonwealth of Australia is the first planned Utopian society? Founded on prescient visions of neo-Marxism, if I recall correctly.

I'd advise you cut the bullshit, dave. America has never been big on military spending, and there's nothing stopping Luxembourg from sending a legion or two of cyborgs across the land bridge to wipe your pathetic civilization off the map for the crime of revisionism. It's happened before.

Diogenes the Cynic

You mean fundies like Thomas Jefferson who rejected the the divinity of Jesus and Biblical miracles? The guy who wrote his own version of the Gospels with the miracles removed? Google "Jefferson Bible."

Your claim is nonsense in just about every respect. The US was founded by Enlightement intellectuals (they were technically deists but they were the closest thing their era had to free thinkers and they were highly skeptical of Biblical literalism), and they designed the Constitution explicitly to exclude religious presumptions from the governing of the country.

Your statement about "non-fundy influence" makes no sense considering that a.) there never WAS any Christian fundy influence on the Constitution and b.) Christian fundies currently run the White House while Christians in general dominate -- and always have dominated -- virtually every government position from the President of the US to the local dogcatcher. Infidels have no political power whatever.

Paul2

Adding to Diogenes,

Dave, can you please specify a point in America's history where Christians had MORE influence than now? Be specific and cite examples. Thanks.

Vicious Love

Four seconds of Googling, dave, including typing the search string but excluding the second-and-a-bit of waiting for the results.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qnoframe.htm

More specifically,

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/...washington.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/.../jefferson.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/lincoln.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/...1.htm#FRANKLIN
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm

And that's just from skimming the list in a semi-conscious state. I probably missed a few (shouldn't John Hancock be on that list? I think he said some quotable stuff).

You are a <forbidden word>, dave, a <edit> of the most shameless and abominable order, and you disgrace every principle on which your nation was founded with your <edit>, and your obscene vision of a pseudo-Iranian American theocracy. I suppose that constitutes a personal attack, but it is an eminently factual one.

The sky is blue, the density of water under 1 atmosphere of pressure at some temperature or other is around 1.0, and you are a <edit>. Objective fact.

Paul2

Well to be fair, he could be delusional.