Thomas Jefferson Atheist Billboard Debacle Applauded by Humanists

• No shit! I just read this whole post and feel like I did homework! I certainly did not pick this up off the liquor store floor to try to learn, I want to be entertained.

• While it won't persuade, you can indeed have a discussion with someone who is willfully taking a contrary pose, or who is irrationally and obstinately opposed. As you allude, the point isn't necessarily persuading the opponent (though rarely that can happen), but persuading the audience.  Of course, by this point, the audience is admittedly likely to be small. Still, a veneer of civility is a useful habit.

• While your style of argument does seem evidence consistent with the claim, the problem of induction means evidence only provides a probabilistic basis for proof. I admit I'm interested in the particulars of your claimed absolute proof that you have coleslaw for brains. Yes, I do know the difference between "proof" and "probability". However, as I noted, outside of pure mathematics, "proof" tends to be done to a non-unary probabilistic standard (EG, in a court of law "to the preponderance of evidence" or "beyond reasonable doubt"), and even within pure mathematics, proof is not always in the sense of a unary probability (EG: Arthur-Merlin proof systems).

• Your response is not a direct rebuttal of my arguments, but rather mere <i>ad hominem</i> derogation of me as a source of argument. (Incidentally, your guess about my age and occupation are incorrect.)  Do you have anything else to add that might be more relevant to the topic?

• You can't have a discussion with, nor ever persuade a troll. As far putting on a good show for the proverbial lurkers, this clown has posted enough nonsense here before I began responding in the manner you find disagreeable so no worries there. 

• "A fifth grade level? Put simply, that seems inappropriate given how the founders themselves discussed the topic. For that matter, given TJ is the most central focus, sticking to English alone rather than also using Latin, Greek, French, and German is already dumbing it down quite a bit; however, I'm rather less a linguist than he. Of course, if you ARE still in elementary school, I'd be more willing to make some accommodation for you, especially in pointing you to explanations of any terms you don't understand or concepts unfamiliar. However, you've little excuse otherwise." You have outed youself as not only a pompas ass, but also as a 22 year old state college liberal arts graduate student teaching assistant desperatly seeking professorial approval.  Here's a hint, OS works much better.

• Insults tend to be conducive neither to discussion nor persuasion. While I appreciate that you're sympathetic to my position, I'd prefer you try to mask them in at least a superficial veneer of civility.

• A fifth grade level? Put simply, that seems inappropriate given how the founders themselves discussed the topic. For that matter, given TJ is the most central focus, sticking to English alone rather than also using Latin, Greek, French, and German is already dumbing it down quite a bit; however, I'm rather less a linguist than he. Of course, if you ARE still in elementary school, I'd be more willing to make some accommodation for you, especially in pointing you to explanations of any terms you don't understand or concepts unfamiliar. However, you've little excuse otherwise. You may not think that "founded on Judeo/Christian principles and values" is too far off base; however, the central values are not so much Judeo-Christian, but more closely associated with the "Enlightenment" philosophical movement -- which, yes, sprang from Christian roots, but which diverged significantly from previous Christian tradition, and from which modern "Secular Humanism" is a further philosophical branch. (Mind you, I disagree pretty thoroughly with that contemporary branch on a lot of issues; don't expect me to defend its tenets, merely its pedigree.) For example, the act of revolution against the Crown itself foremost required a rejection of traditional Christian absolute submission to existing authorities. Matthew 22:21, Romans 13:1-7, and 1 Peter 2:13-14 are the passages Google most readily produces from the cues that spring to mind, but there are probably others that it violates. And, in fact the revolution was condemned from many Tory pulpits (particularly New York) on that basis. Another example is the Federalist Papers, released by several founders in support of adoption of the Constitution they worked as delegates on, which draw on philosophers associated with that movement such as Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Hobbes. The references to religion are few; #2 is the most religious, and by John Jay, arguably one of the most religious of the founders. Contrariwise, there are reports of numerous preachers of the day who expressly opposed the document because of its near complete lack of religiosity (a perfunctory "Year of Our Lord" reference as the only salute, and an express prohibition on any Religious Test -- which state debates recognized might even allow atheists to hold office... and perhaps begrudgingly assented). Rather less readable but even more primary, James Madison's minutes of the convention are available, and the book ("The Papers of James Madison Purchased by Order of Congress") out of copyright and freely downloadable from several places on line. There are several references to the Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic as models, rather fewer to the Kingship of David or the Apostolic Communalist/Lottery methods of governance. You might find rather more readable (though still likely a challenge for most fifth graders) would be John Fea's recent book "Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?" Put simply: it's a partial truth at best, and those who proclaim it loudest most often tend to be lying in almost every particular and inference thereafter.

• LOL! Those big words hurt your head, don't they? But seriously, don't insult the 5th graders, <a href="http://www.iamlost.com/features/slomo/">Slo Mo</a>. 

• ".. it is also impossible to prove whether or not you have cleverly disguised coleslaw instead of a brain .." - That is false - I do have cleverly diguised coleslaw for a brain and I can prove it. As regards "liars" - I already said that I give the athiests the benefit of the doubt that they were not lying. And besides, we are talking proof here not probability - you do know the difference?

• blah ... blah ... blah .... - enough!  Can we bring this conversation down to a 5th grade level? If Christians want to say that the USA was founded on Judeo/Christian principles and values - I don't think that is too far off base. Show me where it says that the good ol' USA was founded on Humanistic pricipals.

• "Denounce all religion and belief in God"? That's moving the goalposts rather far from what's needed for the stated objective; a "revised view" can be achieved by showing that the founding fathers had a more freethinking perspective. Mere tendency to marginal revision at each successive attempt at persuasion suffices for substantive progressive change toward nearer agreement. It doesn't require finding one magical quote to instantly convince a fundamentalist that atheism was endorsed by the founders. There are any number of collections readily turned up via Google. Of course, some include bogus quotes like the billboard's, due to repeating fabricated or misattributed quotes without checking for contemporary sources; and the quotes are usually excerpted for maximum impact rather than exacting context. (Christians also provide such excerpted and fabricated lists in the other direction.) That said, there is more than enough legitimate and accurately contextual substance to give those who speak of America being founded as a Christian nation extensive anomalies to try explaining. Thomas Paine's "Age Of Reason" shouldn't be hard to turn up. Yes, he believes in God, but that's about the sum total of his agreement with the religious views of the contemporary segment of the country that harps on their (equivocation-based) claimed "Christian Nation" character of the United States. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Madison also have more than a few things to say on topics related to religion and philosophical inquiry.  Of course, there were others more conventional - John Jay springs to mind most readily.

• There's no need to lie to trigger cognitive dissonance; all that's required is a surprise. And there are relatively few people who have read all the writings and speeches of all the many "founding fathers". While there are a few bogus quotes in circulation, there are any number of perfectly legitimate quotes from the founding fathers tending to trigger the sort of cognitive dissonance in question. For example, from TJ's August 15, 1820 letter to John Adams: "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us indeed that `God is a spirit,' but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter."

• The definition you're using doesn't make the key distinction I had in mind: between a probabilistic inference 1>p>0 standard, and absolute standard of p=1. To the latter standard of "proof", it is also impossible to prove whether or not you have cleverly disguised coleslaw instead of a brain; in so far as anything may be proven to the former sense, it is possible to give a proof showing God more probably does not exist. "Liars" usually has connotations of willful intent to mislead that does not seem to be the case here. This isn't the first billboard the organization has put up, and the others used legitimate quotes. I can't see going higher that "ignorant fool".

• Yes, God is Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Sovereign and Immutable.- and I am pretty sure that he is not a Democrat.

• It seems the secular humanist worldview is such that only that which can be derived through scientific reasoning is known to exist. God does not exist and therefore knowledge and our existence must be answered in natural terms as opposed to the supernatural. Theist's view the world historically as attributed to God's existing. This God is also Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Sovereign and Immutable. Therein lies the rub between the two views. God's word being used as the measuring stick in one and man using his intellect as his own measuring stick. In my own experience my intellect hasn't proven a real great guide...Lol!!

• If I was locked in a room for life with the kind of Evangelical Christian you typically find on the internet, and the kind of anti-religious Atheist you typically find on the internet, and was given a gun with one bullet in it... I'D SHOOT MYSELF rather than spend decades stuck with one, the other, or both.

• Okay ... so your last comment on this issue is to make a disparaging personal remark that makes fun of sick people. Classy debate tactic there phillycheesesteak.

• No. Figure it out. If you try and still can't manage it, perhaps seek professional help. There are some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_institutions_providing_Special_Education_facilities">fine institutions out there who specialize in teaching people like you</a>.  Best wishes.

• Apparently that is your final statement on this issue - let me paraphrase: You (junior) have not cited your sources in rebuttal to the arguments without sources which I (phillycheesesteak) have offered. Is that it?

• <i>And anywhere you cite that conservatives or the founding fathers "reviled religion" - one can be sure that there true meaning was to revile the EXCESSES of organized religion.</i> Your faith that that is true, without actually bothering to look (or you looked but ignored like you've exhibited here) is not wise. Try looking at the letters between Jefferson and Adams. Beyond that, I'm not your research intern. Do some work. Trolling isn't work.

• "Many of the founders were deists, not Christians," No shit sherlock - that is what I have been saying all along. "so when they spoke of "God", it wasn't your god." Right! - but it was GOD!! "Many, like Adams and Jefferson, didn't care for religion but thought it was a necessary evil to keep the masses inline." Another fabricated falsehood - where did the white daddies say that? " Thomas Paine, on the other hand, reviled religion .." Thomas Paine was a great rabble rouser - but he was hardly a founding father. And anywhere you cite that conservatives or the founding fathers "reviled religion" - one can be sure that there true meaning was to revile the EXCESSES of organized religion.

• <i>"I challenge athiests to come up with quotes by the founding fathers which denounce all religion and belief in God."</i> Why? Many of the founders were deists, not Christians, so when they spoke of "God", it wasn't your god. Many, like Adams and Jefferson, didn't care for religion but thought it was a necessary evil to keep the masses inline. Thomas Paine, on the other hand, reviled religion and did a nice job criticizing religion and discounting claims of the Christian bible in his 'Age of Reason'. You can pick up a copy at your local bookstore, library, Amazon, what have you. 

• Giving the athiests the benefit of the doubt, the point of the billboard was to: Quote anti-religious views expressed by those conservatives consider traditional authority figures, from American history, in order to trigger cognitive dissonance, which may lead to further research on their part and a revised view. Okay, where are those anti-religious quotes by the founding fathers? There are quotes which warn against religious excess and establishmentarianism - but I challenge athiests to come up with quotes by the founding fathers which denounce all religion and belief in God.

• Either you're an idiot or a troll. Either way, I pity you.

• I consider people who <i>knowingly</i> put up false information to be liars. They were mistaken, and admitted as much. You, on the other hand, are a liar. You ask questions but don't actually care to hear the answers. When answers are provided, you ignore them. I believe in the land of the intertubes there's another name for that, <a href="http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/internet_troll_4.jpg">troll</a>

•   /pruv/ Show S Prove:   to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim.Again, believers do not feel the need for proof - faith is what it is about.I consider people who put up false information on billboards to be liars.

• abb3W said: ".. quoting anti-religious views expressed by those conservatives consider traditional authority figures from American history triggers cognitive dissonance, which may lead to further research on their part and a revised view." I get it now - it's okay to LIE about what the founding fathers said about Christianity - THAT is the point of the billboard - got it.

• Depends what sense of the word "prove" you have in mind. While you may consider putting up billboards stupid, others may consider it participation in the marketplace of ideas by open and frank expression -- which may well be stupid, but at least a traditionally venerated sort of American stupidity if so. 

• <i>"So the point of the billboard is to accuse Christians of all sorts of bad things - do I have that right?"</i> You're not really trying that hard, are you? Try looking at abb3w, for instance. As for the rest of your confusion, I don't know how much simpler I can be for you.  Faith is useless. You wouldn't use it to decide when it's safe to cross the street, know if your tie is straight, your shoes are tied, etc. It's useless as a means of knowledge, yet you'll use it to decide whether there's a god? You won't use it to cross the street but you'll use it to dictate your life by following what this deity supposedly wants you to do? That's just silly, but you do what makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.  Understand now, or should I use smaller words? Would pictures help?

• "The point of the billboard has been explained already. Please read the other comments." So the point of the billboard is to accuse Christians of all sorts of bad things - do I have that right?  Because that is all I see in the comments. "I don't depend on faith to get me across the street - I look both ways.""EXACTLY." ?????????? - WTF are you saying? - that makes no sense.  The rest of your posted comment is gibberish as well.

• The point of the billboard has been explained already. Please read the other comments. <i>"I don't depend on faith to get me across the street - I look both ways."</i> EXACTLY.  <i>"Faith works just fine for me and other believers."</i> Except for virtually everything other than believing in a god. Btw, heroin works just fine for lots of people, too. So what? I honestly don't care whether you use god belief, heroin, alcohol, or whatever else as long as your usage doesn't infringe upon others. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to isolate the affect of usage to just oneself.

• "Non-believers have no need to prove there is no god." Then what is the point of the billboard? "Believers are the ones making a claim, a claim that there's a god." On the contrary, believers do not make such a claim - they simply believe.  They may state reasons for their belief, but they are not likely to make such a claim because we know that it cannot be proven. "So far, none of you have presented any evidence for one's existence nor even a reasoned argument for accepting your claim, therefore one must either be a non-believer or believe, despite a rational warrant, on faith." Yup - it's about faith - you got that part right. "Since faith can't even reliably get you across the street safely," I don't depend on faith to get me across the street - I look both ways. ".. faith is hardly suitable for accepting such a whopper of a claim such as the existence of a deity. " Faith works just fine for me and other believers. God bless all athiests.

• Non-believers have no need to prove there is no god. Believers are the ones making a claim, a claim that there's a god. So far, none of you have presented any evidence for one's existence nor even a reasoned argument for accepting your claim, therefore one must either be a non-believer or believe, despite a rational warrant, on faith. Since faith can't even reliably get you across the street safely, faith is hardly suitable for accepting such a whopper of a claim such as the existence of a deity.

• I don't care what Thomas Jefferson believed or didn't believe. I don't care what athiests believe or don't believe.  Not withstanding, non-believers have no way to prove that there is no God. I care what I believe. I don't support putting up billboards promoting either position - that is just stupid. May God bless all athiests.

• Merely calling him a Deist both understates and overstates the similarity of his beliefs to contemporary Christianity (and for that matter, mainstream contemporary deism). His private letters point to him being a deist, yes, but also disestablishmentarian, unitarian who rejected the divinity of Jesus, rationalist, and anti-immaterialist -- and yet, also a providentialist and a disciple of what he thought of as the core message of Jesus.  The point of showing how he was "close to" is to try to show how misleading the frequent fundamentalist portrayal is, and that Jefferson's degree of Christianity more undermines than justifies their characterization as to what sort of religiosity is traditional in American politics. In so far as conservatives seem to tend more responsive to appeals to authority (eg: the work of Altemeyer, Haidt, and others), quoting anti-religious views expressed by those conservatives consider traditional authority figures from American history triggers cognitive dissonance, which may lead to further research on their part and a revised view. Contrariwise, using an unsubstantiated quote like this seems likely to make it more probable that such apparent worldview defying quote anomalies will be dismissed as "oh, that was probably just made up".

• Actually, I did allude to it - "considerable work with a razor to trim out the chaff".

• ...and that was for the extra 10 lashes? =)

• • Please note that the Declaration was written prior to the formation of the US and has no bearing on the constitution. • Please note that the use of "creator" in the Declaration was for two primary reasons: 1) To challenge the king's authority without challenging divine right directly so that they would not alienate other monarchies, specifically France 2) To get the religious on board with revolt (remember, revolt was sentiment of less than a third of colonists) • Please note that Lord Xenu requires you to submit to Him. • Please note that Ahuru Mazda requires you to submit to Him. • Please note that Adi Parashakti requires you to submit to Her. • Please note that Gaea requires you to submit to Her. • Please note that there is no current credible evidence or rational reason to warrant accepting the claim that any deities exist. • Please note that if you if faith is insufficient means to accomplish even the mundane task of safely crossing the street, than how can you rely on it for the belief in a deity and the subsequent ramifications of that belief on your life?

• Here is a portion of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Jefferson, please notice the reference to the Creator:    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.    The Lord God Jesus requires you to submit to Him and repent of your past sins, then a new life in Him offers eternal life and many blessings. It is a moment by moment process. Man's ego and love of self makes this move toward the Creator difficult. God is all around you, see Him in the breath you take, in the beautiful brain that can create thoughts, the perfect free will you have to choose or reject Him. He does not want you to come to Him without desire to know Him, that is the beauty and gift of free will.

• To the Point, Philly. From what I've seen from many (not all) Christians, especially the Christian right, is that religious freedom, to them, means foisting their view of religion on others. They whine about Ten Commandments (incidently, they are part of Islamic tradition) displays being removed from public buildings then turn around and rant about a mosque (and Islamic education center) being built by law-abiding non-radical U. S. citizens in the neighborhood of the WTC. Spare me.

• No one? Many make such a claim, and I wanted to respond to any confusion over junior's comment. Just like you, I don't find comments must be limited to literally what's in the article but also to other commenters. The "godless ones" are responding to the canards of the US being founded as a Christian nation, based on the Christian bible, and that the founders all were Christians. You know, comments like <a href="http://www.nj.com/cumberland/voices/index.ssf/2011/11/religion_and_politics_have_alw.html">this</a> which appeared just yesterday. These false ideas are not just limited to the Bible Belt. 

• No one is saying that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian - do you read that anywhere in this article or comments? The godless ones are trying to say that he was "close to" or "nearly" an athiest.  I don't know what they are trying to say, except to muddy up the water. No one said he he was a Christian - he was a Diest - he believed in God, period. God bless the athiests.

• I beg to differ. The most common response by Christians when another Christian does something bad is to say that person wasn't a real Christian. Hell, a lot of protestants say Catholics aren't real Christians. So no, Christianity is not in the habit of accepting blame. It's more for assigning it, not accepting it. ;)

• Why has no one yet mentioned Jefferson's bible? You know, the rather tiny version of the Christian bible, made tiny after he removed all the supernatural crap?  Yes, he appears to have believed in a supreme creator, but that's a looooong way from saying he was a Christian. I'm pretty sure you have to actually accept that supernatural crap about Jesus to be a Christian, no? That's one of the membership requirements. I think the idea for the billboard was great, but they should follow up with <i>actual</i> quotes from Jefferson and other founding fathers. The whole 'founding as a Christian nation" canard needs to be called out for what it is. 

• From the Monicello website:  "Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being .."

• "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion?" Athiests can believe whatever they want - I really don't care.  But it does no good to their cause to mischaracterize quotes of TJ or anyone else. It is plain to see that TJ was speaking against establishmentarianism in this quote.  He believed that there should not be a state sponsored religion - and that people should not be coerced to follow any religion..  He was in no way questioning if there is a God or not. Thomas Jefferson was a Diest - he believed in God, but not necessarily any particular religion.

• So, abb3w, can you now give us your definition of a blowhard?  Sheesh!

• did IT*

• Actually, abb3w, I did precisely FOR the resulting horsewhipping. Hurts so good...

• Sigh. Lamentably, yes, this is stupid. The billboard quote was very likely fabricated by John Eleazer Remsburg around the end of the 19th century, and goes clearly past Jefferson's actual stance. True, Jefferson's writings suggest he was far more heterodox than orthodox in his religion, found lots of fault with institutional religion, was strongly rationalist, rejected the divinity of Jesus, and was (perhaps weirdest from the modern view) purely materialist in his providentialist deism. As the other examples show, he had more than a few things to say against the religious institutions of his day, regarding features which remain common today.  But not "one redeeming feature" in Christianity? Well beyond Jefferson's peculiar character. While it took him considerable work with a razor to trim out the chaff, there were at least a small folio of teachings he thought were so excellent as to remember that core as "most sublime & benevolent". Jefferson can solidly be claimed as a Freethinker, and his views even well and fairly characterized as more close in contemporary terms to a secular humanist than a Christian fundamentalist. But despite the libels of his contemporary rivals, he was no atheist, and found some gold within the dross. In lamenting the stupid, I'll also note that Bruce Gleason should further be bludgeoned with a dictionary for confusing "tenants" with "tenets" and adding insult to injury; and additionally the board of editors of the Orange County Weekly should have Matt Coker horsewhipped for not flagging "tenants" with the appropriate notation of "[sic]". A journalist should know better and be more careful, even in this degenerate age.

• Bruce, Youv'e got to do your research..Is this how you reseach faith and Christianty? It seems the biggest critics of the faith really haven't done some open minded reseach. As in many things, Christianty takes blame for what bad people do, or even those who call themselves Christians. For instance, for the all dear well meaning folks protesting Capitalism,, once again it isn't the system thats corrupt-- its the ones running it.. " the heart of man is despretely wicked and in need of God"  The Christian faith has corrupt people too...  

• This is stupid... 

TotalComments: 53