Please validate your belief in your God

[ParkingPlaces]

Wayne:

Yes or no? Are you going to respond to our many counterarguments to your charts that showed skyrocketing crime after 1963 or whatever. That were from 1989. That have since had over 20 years of statistics added that show crime dropping back down to about where they were in 1963. Are you going to tell us why crime would drop even though mandatory prayer has not been reinstituted in those five states and forced on the other 45, or are you just going to keep ignoring the question.

Yes or no?

Are you going to continue to ignore my stressing that prayer in schools was only my illustrative example of all the initiatives?  Prayer is part of the whole thing and I think you need to read the first couple of paragraphes of my Why God Let Those Kids Die article to reorient yourself to my actual assertion.  I'm not aruing science-of-man I'm aruing the omniscience of God that has a tendency to over rule man's limitations.

Are you under the impression that if all of your illustrative examples are flawed, they end up being sort of like double negatives and hence true?

Give me one example of anything you have provided that you consider factual. All I've seen so far are convenient fantasies.

[WayneHarropson]

What about my engine shutting down just as the odometer goes to 000,000.7 after my plane flight with the Christian Richard Kyle, from 007, and the motorola phone I was assigned that the pilot fussed about having the number 0070.  Certainly this stuff is worth reporting.

Are you sure you have the right number of zeroes in that odometer reading? It implies that the vehicle had over 1 million miles on it (either that or brand new).

Most if not all cars in 77 rolled over at a hundred thousand, I have added a zero to it in error.

As to the numerical coincidence, if those same three-digit groups had instead been 343, 007, and 049, (say 000,034.3 on the odometer and 0490 on the phone) that specific combination would have been almost exactly as unlikely as the one that you saw. The difference is that one combination attracts your notice, while the other does not. I also have to wonder how many other numbers in your environment you had to ignore in order to isolate that neat little pattern. Road signs, the money in your wallet, the receipt from your last fuel purchase, the time on your watch, etc. At the very minimum you have to ignore the decimal point and extra digits in the odometer reading and phone number.

That is fascinating.  I think.

By the way, did you notice the neat mathematical pattern in my example numbers?

Not really, but I will take your word for it. 

I like my 007 story better, sorry.

[WayneHarropson]

Wayne:

Yes or no? Are you going to respond to our many counterarguments to your charts that showed skyrocketing crime after 1963 or whatever. That were from 1989. That have since had over 20 years of statistics added that show crime dropping back down to about where they were in 1963. Are you going to tell us why crime would drop even though mandatory prayer has not been reinstituted in those five states and forced on the other 45, or are you just going to keep ignoring the question.

Yes or no?

Are you going to continue to ignore my stressing that prayer in schools was only my illustrative example of all the initiatives?  Prayer is part of the whole thing and I think you need to read the first couple of paragraphes of my Why God Let Those Kids Die article to reorient yourself to my actual assertion.  I'm not aruing science-of-man I'm aruing the omniscience of God that has a tendency to over rule man's limitations.

Are you under the impression that if all of your illustrative examples are flawed, they end up being sort of like double negatives and hence true?

Give me one example of anything you have provided that you consider factual. All I've seen so far are convenient fantasies.

I follow the reasoning that David Barton proposes and dismiss yours because as we have already established, i'm not a scholar.  David has done the heavy lifting, I trust him in the whole if not in every detail.  I find you in the most part unable to concede any point, or allow for any doubt that you might be faced with accurate information that weakens your case.  Why should I trust you over Barton?
Remember, I'm not the scholar.
did you ever read the link I showed to the explanations that professors are embarrassed by Barton's scholarship because it knocks them off their position of high priests of American history?

An honest person could concede that the founders were by a long shot, overwhelmingly Christian.  That fact sticks in your craw to such an extent that you almost go violent to deny it.  I bet you can't read and repeat to yourself alloud the following quote without your voice cracking and profanities emanating from your very being.

Try this one. 
I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.

This guy would likely side with Barton, I would think.  His name was Benjamin Franklin.  I'm comfortable with his conclusions, and feel no need to insult your person to maintain this confidence.  I'm in good company with this man.

Are your blood vessels popping yet?

[screwtape]

Remember, I'm not the scholar.

interesting argument.  Pleading stupid as an excuse for stupidity.

"Teacher!  I don't deserve this F."
"Sorry, Wayne, but you don't seem to have learned anything at all."
"But Teacher, I'm stoopid!"

You still get an F.

[screwtape]

This guy would likely side with Barton, I would think.  His name was Benjamin Franklin.

Wayne, As I said before, it is not black and white.  The founding fathers were way more complicated than you are giving them credit for.  That is no less true for Franklin.  I agree, Franklin believed in a god.  But it was not in the same way as you or Barton.

Some quotes that should make you reconsider:
http://articles.exchristian.net/2002/03/ben-franklin-quotes.php

The first quote especially points out how he would disagree with you:

I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

Your approach is lazy and marked by confirmation bias.  Rather than looking for the truth, you are only looking to support your particular belief.  So you do not thoroughly research.  I asked you before, do you want to believe what is true, or do you just want your beliefs to be true?  You did not respond.  But your actions have spoken volumes.

[WayneHarropson]

I'll insert the entirety of it here for others to read, after a few comments.

The divinity of Christ was something that Ben could not confirm, nor would he reject it.  It sounds like he was applying his rational thought to it in the best way he knew how.  I would think that you might respect this God believing man more that you do me, and as I said before I stand in good company with him.  What do you suppose he would have come up with for a policy on gay marriage, or the encouraging of women to have children withour the benefit of a father to help kill the spiders as Keeta said.  Good policy or bad policy.  He sounds in a profound way not only not an Atheist but anything but anti Christian.  I assert, with absolute certainty that the God he believed in is the God that affects my premonitions.  The very same God.  There is no difference except in men's inept means of interpreting that same god in a homogeneous way.  I don't fault Franklin for being cautious about Christ's divinity any more than I doubt that My God is also the God of Israel, all of whom also doubts or rejects Christ's Divinity. 

The Christ of the Apostle Paul worked miracles with Paul, not a lot of them, but a few profound ones, that sustained him, like being blinded on the road to Damascus.  That wasn't pleasant, and if I read the scripture correctly, it seems that Paul suffered some kind of an eye disfigurement the rest of his ministry that could be attributed to some result of that incident.  So, God did not heal the man who wrote three quarters of the new testament. Go figure. 

The name of this site mocks the god that doesn't heal amputees, and that God laughs that you think that your sarcasm somehow limits him.  Paul lived with his ailment, like the aforementioned John Newton, but could see the kingdom of god in it all.  It is a paradox for believers and the unbelieving alike.

More of Benjamin Franklin's statement is below.

"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatic upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all."

All you listening in here would benefit from the rational but believing discourses of our founders.  This nation was established on the solid rock of Christ's principles and now bad religion and Atheism has managed to replace that foundation with what the bible calls sinking sand.  Sandy sand. Like the storm Sandy, and like Sandy Hook.  Don't think that God would never use a metaphor to get your attention.  Try 911.  Remember when I said when God makes a joke, it's a good one.

[ParkingPlaces]

Wayne.

You're not a scholar. That's fine. I'm not one either. But I play a scholar on the Internet 

Listen. First of all, if you are going to choose just one source, have some standards.

Second. Why would anybody want just one source. Too much room for error.

Third. If you're going to dismiss everything we say, you should actually have a better reason than just not liking it. When we read something of Barton's that includes actual facts, like the charts, we look at them critically. If one is going to look at a chart and try to figure out how accurate and useful it is, you need to do a few things. First, look at the date. Is it recent enough to apply to the current situation? Second, look at how the items are being measured. Fox News plays with stuff like that all the time. And stupid idiot views soak it in, because they are incapable of seeing the distortions. Here are a couple of examples:

In this one, the chart proportions offered make it look like the fiscal cliff tax rate is going to go up 400%.



Easy to do when you cut the bottom 33% off of both numbers.

In this one, an impressive pie chart, shows that 193% of republicans support one of three candidates. Talk about voter fraud!



It is so easy to distort the truth. In the Barton case, you are looking at old data. It was probably fine (albeit biased) back when it was written, but the world has changed. You are distorting it when you look at a chart from 1989 and ignore us telling you that the line headed back downhill for the last 20 years. If, when you are called on your distortions, you think that you can casually relabel them as well-meaning aspersions, you are wasting your time if you get out of bed in the morning.

If you are willing to look at anything uncritically simply because it matches your hopes and dreams and wishes, then the only things you will ever look at are things that match. And sadly, there are far too many people willing to lie their asses off to create data you'll love.

It is one thing to recognize that you are not a scholar. It is something else to make that your goal in life.

[WayneHarropson]

I  need to take a break here.  Remember, my lack of answering every point doesn't necessarily indicate my unwillingness.

Remember my amputated leg dream?  Something happened yesterday and I'm still working it into a story, and it's a good one.

[Dante]

Remember my amputated leg dream?  Something happened yesterday and I'm still working it into a story, and it's a good one.

There's the key word.

Stories, much like the one's in your holy book, need not have any relevance to truth.

[Jag]

^^^Glad to hear you intend to respond - you've got a lot of posts hanging, waiting for your replies, and it sure looks a lot like unwillingness from here.

[screwtape]

I would think that you might respect this God believing man more that you do me,

I do, but so what?  What is your point?  You are just making vague statements without context here.

What do you suppose he would have come up with for a policy on gay marriage,

Who cares?  That is not the topic of discussion.  And it is an anachronistic question. 

or the encouraging of women to have children withour the benefit of a father

Red herring and ambiguous.

He sounds in a profound way not only not an Atheist but anything but anti Christian.

NOBODY SAID HE WAS!  What kind of fuckballs stupid statement is this, Wayne?

I assert, with absolute certainty

Asserting anything with "absolute certainty" is foolish. Certainty is just a feeling, an emotion.  It is like asserting somthing with absolute happiness.

... that the God he believed in is the God that affects my premonitions.  The very same God.

begs the question on multiple fronts. And stupid.


Wayne, the rest of what you said was preaching.  That is expressly forbidden here.  Please stop doing it.  Also, please stop making pointless posts like this while numerous members are waiting for replies.  You have a lot on your plate.  Don't fart around with malarkey like this.

[WayneHarropson]

Oh screwtape.  Why so angry?  May I surmise that you are not a Christian by your behavior?

[ParkingPlaces]

Oh screwtape.  Why so angry?  May I surmise that you are not a Christian by your behavior?

Before he flails you.

Haven't you figured out that we're all atheists on the bus yet?

And if you can't see why you are frustrating most of us, you won't ever understand why anyone us upset with you. Here or otherwise.

[WayneHarropson]

I have a suspicion that screwtape can take a joke.  I assume that because on the introductions page he very cogently identified my intoduction as the same one from Sympathy for the Devil, that I must be Satan or at least inspired by Satan.

That, my friend, would make him a believer.  The validity of his observation I shall, for the sake of humor, neither confirm nor deny.

[ParkingPlaces]

You don't have many of us in a joking mood.

[Azdgari]

Wayne:

Tells people they are responsible for kids getting murdered.

Expects them to feel like joking around with him.

[Willie]

21% of atheists have been divorced
21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced
24% of Mormons have been divorced
25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced
29% of Baptists have been divorced
24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced

I'm not going to do all the work willie might to counteract this group of statistics except to ask if the coorelations are adjusted for the likelyhood that the group getting married in the first place.  It that relationship was equal between atheists and Catholics, would they still be at 21% for Atheists.  That would be interesting.  In other words Catholic's faith requires marriage, compelling them at a higher rate to get married rather thatn cohabitate, whereas Atheists, not being required to marry marry at a lower frequency whereby the few that do marry seem to have the same commitment as the many Catholics that marry.  Good for them.

If I understand you correctly, what you're suggesting is that if we had the number of atheists, Baptists, etc. who've married at all, then we could find the divorce rate relative to the number of people who marry in each group rather than the total number of people in each group. So, for example (these are made-up numbers), if 80% of the Baptists polled had been married at some time, and only 50% of atheists, then the divorce rate for those who've married at all would be 36% (29/80) for Baptists, and 42% (21/50) for atheists, which would imply that atheist marriages fail more often and that the only reason their overall divorce rate is lower is because fewer of them marry in the first place. Is that the kind of thing you're looking for?

I found an article that has some numbers for people who've been married at least once, and the numbers do suggest that fewer atheists marry. These are:

78% of overall population
84% of born again Christians
65% of atheists

Unfortunately, there's no way to match up those numbers with the denominations in the list that Screwtape posted. However, the same article has a table for "Divorce Among Adults Who Have Been Married", which is the end result I was trying to get to. Here it is:



As you can see, even when the difference in marriage rate is compensated, Atheists still come out ok. They don't have the lowest divorce rate in the list, but they are below the mean.

Source: http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

A note about the source. The Barna group says this about itself:

The Barna Group, Ltd. (which includes its research division, The Barna Research Group) conducts primary research, produces media resources pertaining to spiritual development, and facilitates the healthy spiritual growth of leaders, children, families and Christian ministries.

As you can see, this organization is not without a religious/political agenda. That does not necessarily mean that there's anything wrong with their stats, but I thought it should be disclosed.

[Add Homonym]

Are your blood vessels popping yet?

I must alert you that you are still clueless about what an atheist actually is. Atheism is an umbrella term, which overlaps the deism of the US fathers. Atheists generally agree with the opening statement of the Declaration if Independence: "and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". That is to say, atheists look to the laws of nature, to understand what could be the point of living, and whether there is a God at all, and what to do about it. Christians don't. The declaration does not use the word Christ or Jesus.

I'd be surprised if Franklin was in you company. I don't know who's company you are in, because you never say anything concrete, and the terms of your argument change.

The quote you offered, states that Franklin doesn't terribly believe that Jesus was divine, and the gospel has been corrupted, but he thinks that it's OK for the uneducated masses to believe it, as a form of blunt authority instrument. It doesn't worry him that he is supporting a lie, because it's for the greater good (so he thinks), or coercing people into believing the general precepts of "sound religion".

That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

This afterlife idea is present in Zoroastrianism, Islam, Buddhism, (and just about all religions except the Hebrew religion Christianity came from). Therefore he regards them all as sound as Christianity. He, like Masons, believes that it's popular vote which has decided whether or not there is an afterlife and judgement. Atheists are still looking at what the "God of Nature" could possibly want, and afterlife is not very likely. We side with the Hebrews.

Jefferson also believed that religion had to have an afterlife, or it was useless for compliance to morality.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jeffjews.html

Franklin said

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

Here's  Franklin quote for Wayne, who worships Barton.

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."

"Revealed religion has no weight with me."

Proof that he attempts to use science, reason and nature to ascertain what God could possibly want.

He stated that if religion has any worth, it does not need state endorsement.

When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

If Christianity needs help from the constitution, then it is a bad religion.

Franklin, like Washington, refers to God as Providence, or the Architect, as do Masons. Their idea of religion is (1) cross cultural commonality in the belief in afterlife, (2) the development of moral principles, such as the golden rule, across religions, is a good thing  (3) Jesus was a moral philosopher, like Buddha and Muhammad, and not a part of God.

This is plurality, not Christianity. Washington and Franklin espoused cherry-picked Christian principles, not because they are divine, but because philosophically, they agreed with them, and thought them to be the best.

Atheists can acknowledge the superiority of some cherry-picked Christian morals, but also see huge deficiencies, and we wonder why most Christians ignore the morals and the deficiencies. They are the product of thought, trial and error, but not God. The reason for this, is not because we don't think that man could be in contact with God, but because we can't see why God would be interested in morality, since the God of Nature put worms in people's eyeballs, and seems to be interested in something else.

Atheists can get no guidance from "revealed religion" because we agree with Franklin, that it is crap. We can only look to the "God of Nature" and the philosophy of man for guidance. Unfortunately, what the US Fathers didn't understand, is that God of Nature would change a fair bit, after Darwin came along.

You can base a constitution on "Christian principles", and "Buddhist principles", without it being terribly Christian or Buddhist.

What are Christian principles, anyway? It's a Christian principle that we will be resurrected and thrown into a lake of fire, and that Jesus resurrected on the 3rd day. How do you put that into a constitution? Answer: you don't. You cherry-pick some bits morality, common with other religions, and then you say it's based on Christian principles, and that keeps the Christians happy.

Wayne seems to be happy, even though the constitution tells him that his religion is no better than anyone else's.

Meanwhile, sneak some scientific terms into the Declaration, and constitution, that say we will follow science, reason, Nature, equality, liberty and happiness. I think the atheists got some input.

[ParkingPlaces]

Willie

Nice work, but I assume Wayne's divorce numbers were something he made up for the sake of argument. He has told us at least twice that he made up some stuff just to prove a point (?), and I trust he did it again in this case.

And Add H, nicely done. Good research. Nice explaining. However, since Wayne won't agree with it, it can't be true.

The guy doesn't even know what a discussion is. He seems to think it is us sitting around listening to him, jaws dropped, shaking our heads in astonishment as he tells us of the wonders of god. He apparently assumes his charm is universal and his message is exactly what we want to hear. And he sees no need to listen to our side of anything, because of course we're wrong. He can prove it. We've all said we don't agree with him. How much more wrong could we be.

His picture is in several places in the dictionary. It is used to show the meanings of "obstinate", "self-centered", "righteous" and "erroneous". They were going to use him for "silly" but Sarah Palin beat him to the punch. And he is no Michelle Bachman, so her picture is safe as the illustration for "a**hole". But if he doesn't start sharing in the discussion instead of merely droning on and on, he may end up giving Michelle a run for her money.

[DumpsterFire]

I think you're getting yourself a little worked up here Dumpster.

Thank you for your thought provoking commentary on my emotional state, it really added to the discussion. Now please stop dodging and respond to the pertinent points I raise.

You are not as clever as you think you are, Wayne. It is obvious to all that you are deflecting (see above), dodging, or flat-out ignoring every question or comment that truly challenges the worldview you have presented here. You are far from the first theist to come along here and do that, and you definitely won't be the last. I challenge you to be one of the very few who display some intellectual honesty for a change. Of course, that would require you to logically reexamine your worldview, which clearly scares the hell out of you.

BTW, I'm not saying you spend every day doing a Monty Burns finger shuffle while saying "I sure hope more kids get killed today, mwahahaha!" But repeatedly stating that god is causing/allowing school massacres to happen because he's angry over the loss of school prayer yet continuing to praise and worship such a god indicates that you do, at the very least, consider the killing of children to be justified for your angry god to make his point.

edit: fixed quoting

[Anfauglir]

Wayne, you’ve not put a response to me up yet , so I’ll reiterate the points for your convenience.   Again, before we begin, I’ll remind you of the stakes – and what you need to show.

….the moment you show me a graph that proves causation between the two factors, then yes - I will change my view.

I mean, golly Wayne!  You've got a chance here to prove an atheist wrong!  A chance to get them to agree that removing prayer in schools was a terrible bad thing!  ALL you have to do is show the evidence for your argument.

Remember - CAUSAL.  Correlation would be irrelevant, since there would ALSO be correlation (as I said) between the Russians decommissioning their Cuban missiles in 1962, and whatever you claim happened after…. So I'll stress it again - please ensure that whatever graph you point us to makes clear that there was a CAUSAL relationship.

Let’s look at the data.  You say:

.....David Barton (faulty as a man is for being a man) has compiled tons of this stuff and probably a little bit more than you're going to want to throw yourself at.

Yes indeed.  But as has been REPEATEDLY shown to you:

(They) were from 1989. That have since had over 20 years of statistics added that show crime dropping back down to about where they were in 1963. Are you going to tell us why crime would drop even though mandatory prayer has not been reinstituted in those five states and forced on the other 45, or are you just going to keep ignoring the question.

You didn’t answer that extremely relevant question at that point – just began to distance yourself from 1963 in particular.  But that still DOESN’T explain why for the last 20 years, crime has been going DOWN.  You DO come back to the issue later though:

I follow the reasoning that David Barton proposes and dismiss yours because as we have already established, i'm not a scholar.  David has done the heavy lifting, I trust him in the whole if not in every detail.  I find you in the most part unable to concede any point…Remember, I'm not the scholar.

But Wayne – NOBODY has made any stats up – we’ve linked to later research, THAT’S ALL.  Research done just as scrupulously as your favoured person.  Yet you simply want to dismiss it because….well, because it came from us.

These are the facts, Wayne – indeed, this is the summary of my post which you can quote in your response.
1)   Barton shows crime went up from 1963 to 1989 – the end of his data.
2)   All later studies then show crime going DOWN from 1989 to today – to 1963 levels.

Why precisely are you unwilling to accept ANY of the later studies – none of which, incidentally contradict Barton’s work.  What they DO do is contradict the conclusions that you have drawn from a far, far, earlier study – which is therefore, for the purposes of your argument, incomplete.

Is that the only reason you automatically reject ALL the later data Wayne?  Because it doesn’t fit the conclusions that you have drawn?  Because you can’t – despite repeated arguments – explain the mass of data within the scenario you have constructed, and so therefore it MUST be wrong?
I’ll repeat these again in closing, in the hopes that you will be able to live up to your own ideals.

The real test of honesty is when someone can admit that a commonly misconstrued rumor doesn't support their viewpoint as well as their less honest allies say it does.

Because, frankly Wayne:

I find you in the most part unable to concede any point, or allow for any doubt that you might be faced with accurate information that weakens your case. 

Pot – meet kettle, as they say.

[Willie]

It has already been shown that the correlation Barton (and consequently, Wayne) claim for the violent crime rate doesn't hold when data from later years is considered. The only thing I would add to that in regard to this specific chart is that Barton chose to chart the total offenses instead of the rate. That produces a chart that shows a nearly continuous rise over the entire period, even though a chart of the much more meaningful violent crime rate would show a bumpy plateau from about 1973 onward. That's more than 1/3 of the whole chart. You can't meaningfully compare any two bars on this chart without taking population into account. There is a population line on the chart, but it has no numerical scale, and doesn't really help much to diminish the misleading visual impression.

[Astreja]

An honest person could concede that the founders were by a long shot, overwhelmingly Christian.

AFAIK they were largely Deist rather than Christian but they were also many other things, including male and Caucasian.  They are also now quite thoroughly dead, and those who have inherited the nation they founded are quite within their rights to modify said nation in light of modern sensibilities.

There is no particular advantage or honour in maintaining tradition for tradition's sake.  I may be descended from Vikings and Highland Scots, but I don't own a longship or go traipsing around with a kilt and Claymore.

Don't think that God would never use a metaphor to get your attention.  Try 911.  Remember when I said when God makes a joke, it's a good one.

A joke?  911 was horrifying, and your comment is fetid excrement on the graves of all who died that day.  For shame, Wayne.  If I were your god, I would take a minute out of My busy day to personally bitch-slap you for publicly impugning My character.

[WayneHarropson]

Franklin was a worldly man that amended his Deist views when confronted with the wonders of the obvious interventions that made the Constitution possible.  You accuse me of cherry picking but you cannot admit that you avoid Franklin's statements that are clearly affirmations of God that reinforce my premonitions.  You then act as though you think like he does?  How can we both agree with him but me in error and you in concert?

Is Deism really Atheism? Or are you taking refuge here from your obvious logical fallacy.
I'll quote a scholar here:
The atheist continually resorts to the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty) when dealing with Deists or even theists. The appeal here is to science as an authority which cannot be challenged. Unfortunately, this appeal is plagued by its own problems.

First of all, science makes no claims about God one way or another, so it is not the scientists who are for the most part claiming God does not exist on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence, but the scientific layman asserting it.

Second, science for all its great accomplishments is still in the infant stage, there is much about nature it simply does not know, even on this planet. So to conclude that a discipline, which has limitations here and now, somehow can conclude that something beyond its immediate ability to study is the final word, is logically speaking, a fallacy.  http://www.deism.com/atheism.htm

I wish I'd said that.
But I think the casual observer of this back and fourth would conclude that, in my own way, I really have.

What I am here to introduce is a God that did not show himself to Franklin in the same way he did to me.  That is not to diminish Franklin.  Franklin clearly saw the impossible occur before his very eyes and made a direct coorelation to a divine hand.  Who knows, maybe he had confirming premonitions that he didn't want to talk about as to not scare anybody, like I do, but he hasn't made claims like I have so there is no reason to believe that he derived his belief in a deity my way. 

The proof I have is in twenty year old writings that I was spiritually guided to rediscover long after I had forgotten them that unknownst to me portended a future of spiritual punishments to a nation that reneged on first principles.

This is real.  It is realer than real, and if you haven't yet taken a look at my Obama is America's Idi Amin, then you don't know the half of it.  We're in big heap'em trouble.  The nation is going to HE double hockeysticks for gay marriage, and you all that keep parroting the liars about separation of Church and state are going to get the afterlife version of that judgment.

Take a look at Lincoln's second inaugural about how the nation would pay the price for slavery in blood during the civil war and then look at this founder's quote:

 As George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights said:  "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities." -

I don't think Franklin would think it a stretch, given his evangelical statements of how god smiled on the formation of America, that the same God could'nt later frown on it.

Now don't try to position yourself on Franklin's side here.  Deist or not, Franklin's assertions fully support the same divine hand that gave me premonitions, and those premonitions don't come from No God.

[Astreja]

Is Deism really Atheism?

No, but neither is it Christianity.  The god of the Deists is closer to pantheism than Christianity -- A non-intervening, non-personal deity that wound up the universe like a clock and wandered off elsewhere.

What I am here to introduce is a God that did not show himself to Franklin in the same way he did to me.

Your personal testimony is of no value to Me, Wayne.  If your god wants Me to believe in it, I require a physical manifestation rather than an intellectual or spiritual one.  I can imagine up gods till the cows come home, go to bed, wake up, and head back out to the fields in the morning, and I have zero confidence in the reality of things that I can imagine up so very easily.

The nation is going to HE double hockeysticks for gay marriage, and you all that keep parroting the liars about separation of Church and state are going to get the afterlife version of that judgment.

Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad baculum.  I'm so sure that hell doesn't exist that I took a vow to go there on purpose, and stay there till everyone else is released.

And yes, I support gay marriage unconditionally.  I even publicly lobbied for it in Canada and allowed Myself to be interviewed in the local paper in that regard.  We won.   

Deist or not, Franklin's assertions fully support the same divine hand that gave me premonitions, and those premonitions don't come from No God.

I disagree.  I think that if you had genuine premonitions, 100% of the power rested with you and not with a god.  The unconscious mind is capable of amazing behind-the-scenes data analysis.

Besides, you're missing another possibility:  What if there's more than one god?  You have a very long way to go to demonstrate that your god and Franklin's god are the same entity.

[Willie]

Like the violent crime chart, this one also graphs total incidents rather than rate, visually exaggerating the trend. Everything from about 1973 onward actually suggests a declining rate, but plotting total incidents makes it look flat. And what's going on with that "Population Growth" line? It's going down on this chart, while the crime rate chart showed it going up. Does it represent percentage growth on one chart and total population on the other? Year to year delta, maybe? Just plain wrong? I don't know. Once again there's no numerical scale to help make sense of it.

This chart seems particularly deceptive. If expressed as a rate, this would be a blip followed by a decline. I don't have any numbers for the unwed rate, but given the under 15 age group, I doubt it's much different from the overall rate. And the overall rate has declined. I cited this quote from the CDC in an earlier post, but since it's relevant here I'll repeat it.

"Birth rates fell from 2009 to 2010 for teenagers in age groups 10–14, 15–17, and 18–19. The rate for the youngest teenagers was a record low for the United States (0.4)."

[Add Homonym]

Appears you have done another cut and paste rant, Wayne.

The idea of argument is to grasp what your opponent is saying, not just pick up on key words and cut and paste from propaganda.

Franklin was a worldly man that amended his Deist views when confronted with the wonders of the obvious interventions that made the Constitution possible.

Eh, where did you get this from? Franklin was a Deist, his whole life, rebuking Christian orthodoxy.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_4.html

You accuse me of cherry picking

I didn't accuse YOU of cheery picking. You just misinterpret the intention of those who put religious neutrality into the constitution, using your powers of obstinacy. Then you present faked-up quotes.

Deists cherry picked Christianity, to put some of its cross-culturally revered principles into the constitution. They could have just as easily cherry-picked Buddhism, because there is not enough Christianity in the constitution to be identified by chapter and verse.

but you cannot admit that you avoid Franklin's statements that are clearly affirmations of God that reinforce my premonitions.  You then act as though you think like he does?  How can we both agree with him but me in error and you in concert?

WTF?

Is Deism really Atheism?

I didn't say Deism was atheist, I said that Deists lurk in the same places as atheists, because their attitude to Orthodox Catholic Christianity is similar. That is to say, some people here are Deists. It is not necessary to exclude a god from the universe, to prove that Christians are wrong. Most of us here, are only concerned with the falsehoods of orthodox Christianity, and other orthodox religions.

Or are you taking refuge here from your obvious logical fallacy.
I'll quote a scholar here:

You can quote all the scholars you like, but if you are hurling random quotes at a deist, then it's only you who is making a logical fallacy.

But I think the casual observer of this back and fourth would conclude that, in my own way, I really have.

Have what? Totally not engaged in the argument of whether the Christian God is true, or whether the Constitution is framed to be religion-neutral, by people who did not believe in Orthodox Christianity.

What I am here to introduce is a God that did not show himself to Franklin in the same way he did to me.  That is not to diminish Franklin.

How modest, but to me it looks like God never showed himself to Franklin. He was educated as a Christian, within a Christian era, and managed to reject most of it, without being persecuted.

  Franklin clearly saw the impossible occur before his very eyes and made a direct coorelation to a divine hand.

Whatever, Wayne.

  Who knows, maybe he had confirming premonitions that he didn't want to talk about as to not scare anybody,

Just make some shit up, Wayne.

there is no reason to believe that he derived his belief in a deity my way. 

Then you should shut up, then.

The proof I have is in twenty year old writings

Awesome.

Take a look at Lincoln's second inaugural about how the nation would pay the price for slavery in blood during the civil war and then look at this founder's quote:

You pretty much take anything you like as proof of your position. Why don't you go pop off, and look at how polio did, after 1962.

[Disciple of Sagan]

The nation is going to HE double hockeysticks for gay marriage

Since you appear to be such a big fan of posting data to back up your arguments, how about conjuring up any pertinent information detailing actual, detrimental effects same-sex marriage has caused in the United States (or anywhere else in the world for that matter)... besides the agita that appears to only afflict the religious right.

Tell me, when same-sex unions started to become legal in some states, did you turn to your wife (if you are married) and sighed "Honey, I feel our marriage is a sham now that those gays can legally wed."?

Have you heard of steady sweethearts in your neck of the woods deciding that it was no longer worth getting married solely because the gays have "defiled the sanctity of marriage"?

Pray tell, just exactly how is gay marriage dooming our country in any quantifiable way? And please, I do so hope you pull out the fallacious "slippery slope" argument....

[bertatberts]

How about he stops dodging and start answering the question put to him, we seem to be given this imbecile a lot of leeway. In the recent past we would have put him in ER until he did what he was asked, and if not asked him to leave.

A religious person can believe a considerable load of rubbish, and yet go about their daily work appearing reasonable and in a cheerful manner. They do not like to think. If they think, they must reach a conclusion. And conclusions are not always pleasant, well not for them, they're not.