Creation vs. Evolution

[deco_martini]

Here! Here! As well it wasn't all that long ago parents were blessed with the privilege of having their son/daughter chosen to throw in that volcano.....and hayyyy it rained the next day, so it musta worked right? thats old school science baby...LOL

Old school religion, they were giving them to the volcano god. The volcano had to have been a god because they had no other explanation for its power.

 

[Thalassamania]

Funny, my friend- I pray for the same thing for you!

You're right, Thal- my apologies. I have the utmost respect for you as well. In my haste to get to bed, I omitted underlining the pertinent part of the definition- lack of information. I would encourage you to actually take a look at what the FF's believed, as I have, rather than making such a broad & sweeping statement.

Even if we both concede that Jefferson & Franklin were deists- something that I am not convinced of, they are only 2 of the original 57 signers. I think that I have pointed out enough statements by a few others to substantiate that they were not deists & atheists as you claimed. It's revisionist history at it's finest & I am surprised that you fell for it without actually even looking at the evidence. If those quotes are not sufficient for you, I'll willingly do some more on line research tonight to establish provide you (& others) with more proof to the contrary. Again, it did not take all that long to find the quotes that I did- many of which openly proclaim the name of Jesus Christ & espouse Christianity. I have to wonder how many people have made that same statement without ever reading a word that these men wrote.

I hardly have a lack of information on the subject. You can look for quotes, and I can look for quotes, and I assure you that when all is said and done I will be able to find far more telling ones and far more numerically than you will ... do we really have to waste the time?

You will find a number of quotes for the lesser lights, but by and large that's because they had far less to say. What we have of their writings is in the more formal speech of the day, and is misinterpreted , misunderstood or wishfully misquoted. Let me give you an example, in point of fact an ancestor of mine: Ethan Allen.

He started the revolution six years early and had 100 pounds on his head back in 1770. When he and his men took Fort Ticonderoga by banging on the door and waking the British garrison, Ethan Allen demanded that the British surrender, "In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress."

I have to chuckle whenever I see this quote used to demonstrate his Christian piety. You see Ethan Allen was, shall we say, a free thinker, a confirmed Deist or atheist, and his demand for surrender was formal speech of the day delivered with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

I'm amazed at how little many Christians read, or at least how shallow their reading is. Ethan Allen wrote a book entitled, "Reason, the Only Oracle of Man; or a Compendious System of Natural Religion by Col. Ethan Allen, to which he added Critical Remarks on the on the Truth and Harmony of the Four Gospels with observations on the instructions given by Jesus Christ and the Doctrines of Christianity. " I've seen this title (oft misquoted and misspelled) used as evidence of Ethan Allen's religiosity.

Now that's a longish title I'll grant you, but the very next line on the cover, says, "by a Free Thinker." and in the preface his states:"In the circle of my acquaintance, (which has not been small,) I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism make me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not, for I have never read their writings; mine will therefore determine the matter."

Later, in the same volume, he says, "In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue." and I could not agree more with my progenitor.

Ethan Allen was well known for confronting the local clergy with contradictions from the bible. My family, has remarked that from a rather young age, I've followed in his footsteps. We used to have family dinners a couple of times a week, often with company. I was about ten and a friend of my Dad's (who was a local preacher) was there. He got to choose the topic and it was something about heaven. I asked him were heaven was, and he responded with some smoke and mirrors theobabble. To which I responded, "Habeas corpus." He looked blank and I repeated myself, "Habeas corpus." finally I reminded him that Mary arose to heaven , "in the flesh" and that you should be able to give me coordinates for any object in the universe. So if you want to know where heaven is, "Habeas corpus!"

My Dad smoothed it all over by putting on his best Vermont accent and saying, "Apples don't fall to far from the trees, eh?" And went on to recite some anecdotes of when Ethan Allen had carried on in a similar fashion.

The founders were not all atheists, though some might be regarded as little more than atheists by self-righteous religious moralizers today. Most of the authors were deists. Some were Christians, but few held anything like the beliefs common with conservative evangelicals in America today. Though the Christian Right would dearly love to lay claim to the founders as their religious brethren, that does great violence to the truth and would likely be found repulsive by even the most devoted believers amongst the founders.

Some of the founders were devout Christians, in my mind this actually makes the case of contemporary secularists. The more devout Christians that you can find amongst the founders the more glaring the absence of overt religious and Christian language is. If they had all been been atheists, the non-religious language would be expected and unremarkable. Yet because some were religious and were steeped in Christian education, the absence of Christian language and references can only be seen as both deliberate and purposeful.

As far a Jefferson was concerned, and let's remember that whilst he may have only been one of 57 signers, all signers were not created equal, he was also the author: Jefferson considered himself a deist; he also considered himself a follower of Jesus. This is not a contradiction, in Jefferson's view, because he believed Jesus to be merely human, not divine, and believed the precepts Jesus taught to be deistical. Much of traditional Christianity, Jefferson claimed, was error and corruption added by later followers of Jesus. Jefferson was a strong supporter of the separation of church and state, believing that both government and religion would be strengthened by keeping each free of the corrupting influence of the other.

As far as Franklin was concerned: Franklin, believed in a providential God, strongly doubted the divinity of Jesus, but he approved of his moral teachings. Franklin believed that all religion tends to promote morality, hence he was tolerant of a wide variety of religious beliefs, and donated money to all denominations which asked for contributions. He wrote: ""If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England. To account for this we should remember, that the doctrine of toleration was not then known, or had not prevailed in the world. Persecution was therefore not so much the fault of the sect as of the times. It was not in those days deemed wrong in itself. The general opinion was only, that those who are in error ought not to persecute the truth: But the possessors of truth were in the right to persecute error, in order to destroy it. Thus every sect believing itself possessed of all truth, and that every tenet differing from theirs was error, conceived that when the power was in their hands, persecution was a duty required of them by that God whom they supposed to be offended with heresy. By degrees more moderate and more modest sentiments have taken place in the Christian world; and among Protestants particularly all disclaim persecution, none vindicate it, and few practise it. We should then cease to reproach each other with what was done by our ancestors, but judge of the present character of sects or churches by their present conduct only."

Then there's George Washington, who maintained an association with the Episcopal church throughout his life, even serving as a vestryman from 1763 to 1782, it is generally acknowledged by most historians who have studied Washington that he was more of a deist or theist in his views than he was an orthodox Episcopalian. In this light, it is noteworthy that he avoided taking communion, and that, when he was on his deathbed, he requested neither prayers on his behalf, nor the presence of a minister.

Need I go on?

Note: Jefferson, Franklin and Washington data is cribbed from on the web site: God & Country Religious Views of the Founding Fathers, Presidents, and Vice Presidents

 

[nereas]

You only need to read the U.S. Declaration of Independence itself, to find out what the signers believed. Remember, they all signed. There are no atheists in a foxhole on a battlefield, nor in the trenches at the front. To be an atheist essentially requires a soft life of complete comfort, with no needs or fears to call for divine help with. Very rich people are like this. Their money normally protects them, until they lose it all.

Even so, in American politics, religion ends with the Declaration, due to the powerful rights granted in the First Amendment. Religious fundamentalists conveniently tend to forget this.

In science class, at school or college, the focus of science study is to explain (with ideas) HOW everything happened, or is believed to have happened.

In church or Sunday school, the focus is upon self improvement, from a basis of ethical rules, given by some enlighted personage or prophet.

The two have very little in common, until some misguided soul tries either (1) to legislate religious values in spite of the First Amendment or (2) to teach ethics in a science class.

And as East is East, and West is West, that would then create problems.

 

[shoredivr]

There are no atheists in a foxhole on a battlefield, nor in the trenches at the front.

You obviously did not know my father, who served in WW1, in the trenches, 1914-1918, plus WW2. Not religious at all.

To be an atheist essentially requires a soft life of complete comfort, with no needs or fears to call for divine help with.

Hmm, my father came from a working class Scottish family transplanted to England, the choice for him at 16 was go down the coal mines or go off to war. (He lied about his age when he enlisted).
He'd have laughed at your statement, religion played no part in his family.

On my mother's side, again, working class. She taught Sunday school in Scotland for a few years but stopped doing this when WW2 made belief in any deity impossible for her. The only thing she retained was "do unto others as you'd have others do unto you".

Or take my business partner's dad. Working class, bombed out of his house in WW2, lived hand to mouth during and right after the war as a DP (displaced person), came over here to Canada and was able to get a blue collar job. He's an atheist, completely and utterly.

Her mother spent time in a labour camp in the Former Soviet Union. Came from a dirt poor Romanian background. Literally dirt poor: a dirt floor two room house. Father left to come to Canada, never sent for his wife and two daughters. Her mother couldn't pay to get her into school (run by the church) so she stopped going to school when she was 8. If you ask her she says she doesn't know what happens when you die, but there was no help for her family from the church since she was being raised by a single mother.

Arguably a very small sample, but tell any of them they'd had a soft life of comfort with no needs and fears and they'd laugh you out the door.

 

[deco_martini]

There are no atheists in a foxhole on a battlefield, nor in the trenches at the front.

Maybe you never heard of Pat Tillman? Pro football player. Joined the service after 911? Killed by friendly fire in afghanistan? Athiest? He is high profile, but I hope you realize how insulting it is to repeat that untruth to the proud and brave faithless service members who have died for our country.

To be an atheist essentially requires a soft life of complete comfort, with no needs or fears to call for divine help with.

There are islands in the pacific where people leave meager lives and have no religion whatsoever. Not every tribe in the world made up a religion to believe in. There is probably a higher correlation between atheism and wealth since poorer people use religion as a source of hope for a better life. Poor people also buy lottery tickets in larger numbers than wealthier people. The point however is, you are simply wrong.

 

[Thalassamania]

You only need to read the U.S. Declaration of Independence itself, to find out what the signers believed. Remember, they all signed. There are no atheists in a foxhole on a battlefield, nor in the trenches at the front. To be an atheist essentially requires a soft life of complete comfort, with no needs or fears to call for divine help with. Very rich people are like this. Their money normally protects them, until they lose it all.

All you need to disprove a sweeping statement like that is a single clear example. How could you post such tripe with a battle hardened hero of the American Revolution, Ethan Allen staring you in the face? Evidently you have not understood, either the Declaration of Independence or the thread.

 

[Soggy]

There are no atheists in a foxhole on a battlefield, nor in the trenches at the front. To be an atheist essentially requires a soft life of complete comfort, with no needs or fears to call for divine help with.

Your theory does not match observed behavior, thus is invalidated.

 

[Marvel]

Thal, you are backpeddling from your original statement.

You need some history lessons, most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, Agnostics or Atheists.

(underlining mine)

 

[Thalassamania]

Thal, you are backpeddling from your original statement.

(underlining mine)

No, I still stand by it. Do we need to go down the list, 57 signers, plus the other founders like Washington, plus the war heroes like Allan and folks like Tom Paine, all that's required for "most" is a simple majority and I know that I can do better than that. Now if all I need is most of the brainpower, with just Jefferson and Franklin I've got it hands down.

 

[Sordello]