Comments on: (Almost) Nothing is Impossible http://atheists.org/blog/2008/12/16/almost-nothing-is-impossible A Blog of Atheist Thought Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:30:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: tony miller http://atheists.org/blog/2008/12/16/almost-nothing-is-impossible/comment-page-1#comment-92477 tony miller Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-92477 Excellent.<br /> <br /> It's always better to be accurate than speculative. Excellent.

It’s always better to be accurate than speculative.

]]> By: dfledermaus http://atheists.org/blog/2008/12/16/almost-nothing-is-impossible/comment-page-1#comment-92480 dfledermaus Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-92480 Good. Information should be evaluated on its own merits and not judged only by its source. Good. Information should be evaluated on its own merits and not judged only by its source.

]]> By: Anonymous http://atheists.org/blog/2008/12/16/almost-nothing-is-impossible/comment-page-1#comment-92503 Anonymous Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-92503 Of course phreedm is right about that, but who cares? Do you know that our forefathers had their hands in the history books in their own time? They decided what to say about themselves and what not to say about themselves in public education. This is exactly why history is a speculative subject matter, there are no reliable sources for history and that's human nature. Everybody has their own agenda and thereby everybody will broadcast only what they wish others to know while leaving out the other details. Religions, of course, get away with murder and pedophilia when it comes to doing this sort of thing, perhaps Pheedm would like to go there huh? Of course phreedm is right about that, but who cares? Do you know that our forefathers had their hands in the history books in their own time? They decided what to say about themselves and what not to say about themselves in public education. This is exactly why history is a speculative subject matter, there are no reliable sources for history and that’s human nature. Everybody has their own agenda and thereby everybody will broadcast only what they wish others to know while leaving out the other details. Religions, of course, get away with murder and pedophilia when it comes to doing this sort of thing, perhaps Pheedm would like to go there huh?

]]> By: Anonymous http://atheists.org/blog/2008/12/16/almost-nothing-is-impossible/comment-page-1#comment-92510 Anonymous Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-92510 [When] the bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. An amendment was proposed, (to insert) the word "Jesus Christ,"... The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination. -- Thomas Jefferson [When] the bill for establishing religious freedom… was finally passed,… a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. An amendment was proposed, (to insert) the word “Jesus Christ,”… The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination. — Thomas Jefferson

]]> By: pixel http://atheists.org/blog/2008/12/16/almost-nothing-is-impossible/comment-page-1#comment-92512 pixel Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-92512 David,<br /> I'm glad we atheists admit when we are wrong about something and do what we can to correct our mistakes, instead of sticking to dogma even if our opinions are proven wrong!<br /> <br /> I'm sure "he-who-shall-not-be-named" will be disappointed that you actually fixed this. I'm sure he would like to believe that this mistake was a deliberate attempt to re-write history to our benefit.<br /> <br /> AARRGGHH!! I HATE seeing HWSNBN mentioned right in the post! David,
I’m glad we atheists admit when we are wrong about something and do what we can to correct our mistakes, instead of sticking to dogma even if our opinions are proven wrong!

I’m sure “he-who-shall-not-be-named” will be disappointed that you actually fixed this. I’m sure he would like to believe that this mistake was a deliberate attempt to re-write history to our benefit.

AARRGGHH!! I HATE seeing HWSNBN mentioned right in the post!

]]> By: phreedm http://atheists.org/blog/2008/12/16/almost-nothing-is-impossible/comment-page-1#comment-92522 phreedm Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-92522 Nice edit job Dave...it should still be a concern that you're not posting the entire paragraph, but instead editing it to fit your needs...<br /> <br /> I'll make a prediction...the replacement quote won't last either. It doesn't fit the bill at all proclaiming the "myth"...instead it validates the claim that it was governments responsibility to get involved, not to just sit on the sidelines and observe from afar...but to protect all religions (even if they weren't part of "our religion). <br /> <br /> By the way...thanks for the credit. Contrary to what some may think, it's historical accuracy that's critical...<br /> <br /> <blockquote>The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom <br /> <br /> Thomas Jefferson, 1786 <br /> <br /> Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free...</blockquote><br /> <br /> http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html<br /> <br /> Wow...imagine that. Jefferson was a "creationist"<br /> <br /> <br /> Nice edit job Dave…it should still be a concern that you’re not posting the entire paragraph, but instead editing it to fit your needs…

I’ll make a prediction…the replacement quote won’t last either. It doesn’t fit the bill at all proclaiming the “myth”…instead it validates the claim that it was governments responsibility to get involved, not to just sit on the sidelines and observe from afar…but to protect all religions (even if they weren’t part of “our religion).

By the way…thanks for the credit. Contrary to what some may think, it’s historical accuracy that’s critical…

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom

Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free…

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

Wow…imagine that. Jefferson was a “creationist”

]]> By: NotSoFast http://atheists.org/blog/2008/12/16/almost-nothing-is-impossible/comment-page-1#comment-92524 NotSoFast Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-92524 Don't Breedm is still at it, of course.<br /> <br /> Jefferson was a politician, lobbying other politicians for support for his statute for religious liberty. And he got it: a law that protected everybody's right to believe or not as they saw fit.<br /> <br /> And before Darwin, Deism was a respectable philosophical position, even for scientists.<br /> <br /> <br /> Don’t Breedm is still at it, of course.

Jefferson was a politician, lobbying other politicians for support for his statute for religious liberty. And he got it: a law that protected everybody’s right to believe or not as they saw fit.

And before Darwin, Deism was a respectable philosophical position, even for scientists.

]]> By: Anonymous http://atheists.org/blog/2008/12/16/almost-nothing-is-impossible/comment-page-1#comment-92527 Anonymous Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-92527 Well, Phreeedum, I'll do you one further. Thomas Jefferson believed that dinosaurs and mankind coexisted at the same time because it was impossible for any "creature" to go extinct, nature simply wouldn't allow that to happen. Henceforth, he had the retarded "watch out for mastadons" theory that he told to Lewis and Clark. That, and the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and didn't even have a problem with it, he didn't even try to get rid of slavery even though he wrote "it is self evident that all men (what, no women?) are created equal".<br /> <br /> But of course, Thomas Jefferson did have this to say about Christianity and religion in general:<br /> <br /> "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."<br /> <br /> And as for his self-described beliefs:<br /> <br /> "I am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greek and Roman leave to us." Well, Phreeedum, I’ll do you one further. Thomas Jefferson believed that dinosaurs and mankind coexisted at the same time because it was impossible for any “creature” to go extinct, nature simply wouldn’t allow that to happen. Henceforth, he had the retarded “watch out for mastadons” theory that he told to Lewis and Clark. That, and the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and didn’t even have a problem with it, he didn’t even try to get rid of slavery even though he wrote “it is self evident that all men (what, no women?) are created equal”.

But of course, Thomas Jefferson did have this to say about Christianity and religion in general:

“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”

And as for his self-described beliefs:

“I am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greek and Roman leave to us.”

]]> By: dsilverman http://atheists.org/blog/2008/12/16/almost-nothing-is-impossible/comment-page-1#comment-92533 dsilverman Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-92533 When dealing with Founding Father quotes, one must not be dogmatic. As Quantum mentioned, they said some right things, and some wrong things, so finding something they said and taking it as unchanging cannon is not consistent with logic.<br /> <br /> What IS important is this:<br /> 1) We have undeniable proof that this country was not based in Christianity, or made for Christians. This is important because Christians want extra rights, and use "This is a Christian Nation" as a foundation to defend that quest. We must counter that idea to defend ourselves, and this is where FF quotes come into play.<br /> 2) That being said, the Christians could very well amend the constitution to MAKE this country a Christian Nation, because the FFs built that into the Constitution. We came very close to that, and still are. This is why we need to fight. When dealing with Founding Father quotes, one must not be dogmatic. As Quantum mentioned, they said some right things, and some wrong things, so finding something they said and taking it as unchanging cannon is not consistent with logic.

What IS important is this:
1) We have undeniable proof that this country was not based in Christianity, or made for Christians. This is important because Christians want extra rights, and use “This is a Christian Nation” as a foundation to defend that quest. We must counter that idea to defend ourselves, and this is where FF quotes come into play.
2) That being said, the Christians could very well amend the constitution to MAKE this country a Christian Nation, because the FFs built that into the Constitution. We came very close to that, and still are. This is why we need to fight.

]]> By: jcc http://atheists.org/blog/2008/12/16/almost-nothing-is-impossible/comment-page-1#comment-92544 jcc Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-92544 <blockquote>...taking it as unchanging cannon is not consistent...</blockquote>I never thought of it that way, but I guess cannon's (that are usually made of steel) are about as unlikely to change as <i>canons</i>. :)<blockquote>We have undeniable proof that this country was not based in Christianity</blockquote>Oh boy. And I thought Silverman couldn't possibly top his colossally ignorant assertion that "very few ... churches ... do anything at all for their community." So Dave, are you now attempting to revise history to claim that Madison was <i>not</i> the "chief architect" of the Constitution, or that he didn't borrow <b>heavily</b> from the Presbyterian form of church government to base its foundations, concepts and ideals on? Oh, but you're right; that fact couldn't possibly be construed as it (the Constitution) being "based in Christianity."<blockquote>Christians want extra rights</blockquote>Oh, yeah, right... Well, on second thought, I suppose if homosexuals can lobby for, and be granted "extra rights" then, yeah, why can't Chrisitans?<br />

…taking it as unchanging cannon is not consistent…

I never thought of it that way, but I guess cannon’s (that are usually made of steel) are about as unlikely to change as canons. :)

We have undeniable proof that this country was not based in Christianity

Oh boy. And I thought Silverman couldn’t possibly top his colossally ignorant assertion that “very few … churches … do anything at all for their community.” So Dave, are you now attempting to revise history to claim that Madison was not the “chief architect” of the Constitution, or that he didn’t borrow heavily from the Presbyterian form of church government to base its foundations, concepts and ideals on? Oh, but you’re right; that fact couldn’t possibly be construed as it (the Constitution) being “based in Christianity.”

Christians want extra rights

Oh, yeah, right… Well, on second thought, I suppose if homosexuals can lobby for, and be granted “extra rights” then, yeah, why can’t Chrisitans?

]]>