Autonemesis

And also so that religion wouldn't mess with their government.

Dr Rick

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."
-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" he is refering to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ

I think I get; it's a primitive form of denial. Whenever Rad is proven wrong, he sort-of "reboots" and posts a "victory dance." It's a way for his ego to deal with both its cognitive dissonace and self-esteem needs.

Notice the self-aggrandizing claims as he compares himself to one of our Founding Fathers who actually would have profoundly disagreed him.

Rick

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Dr Rick ]</p>

Radorth

You call balancing the historical nonsense we see in these forums, coming from the mouths of 10 or more parrots, "supporting" those who are against it?

It's a matter of fairness and truth to me, but you are so determined to make me a Barton supporter in spite of my comments about him, that you can't see that. I also said the Boy Scouts should get absolutely no help from the government, but that was on another thread you may have missed.

Rad

Radorth

Buffman totally, completely and irresponsibly misquoting me:

The more I think about this comment, the more angry I get. It shows what you read into other peoples posts because of your own tendentious world-view. Anyone who read what I said and Buffman's interpretation would have to conclude he either can't read, is incredibly inane, or has no integrity at all.

This is complete *&^%$, the source of your own confusion, and you ought to apologize for it.

Well skeptics, it looks like your vaunted "protector of historical truth" doesn't care a whit about it. Where does that leave you?

Criminy.

Rad

Radorth

Not sure how he raised a "fundy" like J.Q., but yes, John Adams probably would have. OTOH he would never have gratuitously denigrated any Christian personally as you have.

BTW who said "none of the 19th century presidents were Christians"?

I nearly laughed myself silly. Spoken by a true automaton, that was.

Oh my. This site does produce grins, in spite of the gratuitous slander you have to endure. Hopefully it won't self-destruct as a number of other atheist sites have. I hope it doesn't, but that's entirely up to the moderators I suppose.

Rad

Buffman

Radorth

Yes! I certainly do remember all the leads that you gave that led nowhere because they were simply more David Barton revisionist history...and the fact I had to show you where he was in error. Much like the lead you just gave from Barton about Jonathan Dayton. I have already invited you to provide the specific, original, document from which you took the statement you posted concerning Dayton. I even provided you with the location of the majority of Dayton's writings. You have elected to ignore that request like so many others for which you evidently did/do not have any verifiable evidence. That is what has been irritating to me about your posts. You make statements but provide few verifiable sources from which you obtained these opinions. And then when folks merely ask you to back-up your remarks with some solid evidence, you attack them with undisguised sarcasm and self-righteousness. It is an old propaganda technique. One that may work on an audience less skeptical than this one. But it doesn't fly here. Nor do your indignant, injured, party posts. If you don't like the conclusions I have drawn about the content of your posts, then try responding directly to the queries put to you. (It is the Christian thing to do.)

Yes! One of your leads finally did prove to be enlightening...after I, not you, was able to track it to an original source and post it for all to see...including you. I was very pleased to find it. It corrected a faulty belief held by many. However, it certainly didn't mean that Washington was a devout, practicing, Christian rather than a professional politician Deist. Do you not agree?

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Dr Rick

You're probably wrong on this point, as well; Mr. Adams never dealt with intellectual dishonesty posted over the internet, but it's clear from his personal correspondence that he had little tolerance for those that promulgate the lies of Christianity.

Rick

Yellum Notnef

Well I guess all us "skeptics","parrots" and "atheist automatons" will have to find a new website to hang out at since Radorth is kicking this place down to the ground.

Radorth,you are fucking incredible!

Thank you for the entertainment. Bravo! &lt;&lt;blows kisses to Radorth&gt;&gt; Bravo!

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Fenton Mulley ]</p>

Mageth

Radcliffe:

Actually, less than 10% of the population in this country attended any church in 1789. The percentage of church attenders in this country did not rise above 50% until World War II.

Interesting statistics, but I said "the percentage of Americans who would classify themselves as "christians" is without doubt lower today than it was in 1789." I think most of those non-attendees would still have classified themselves as christians.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Radorth

Well Daggah I read Buffman's URL for the Treaty, (where he belatedly told me to find it while making condescending remarks) and it specifically does NOT answer Federer's assertion that the subject phrase was removed in 1806. In fact it totally glosses over the question by simply quoting a new artical 14 which basically says the U.S is neutral on religious matters.

So why was it removed in 1806,(if it was)and why did you fail to make note of that? BTW is someone who doesn't tell the whole story out of ignorance still classified a liar here?

Rad