Raging_Primate: By the way, the Jefferson Bible is a great read.

It sounds like it. I had never heard of it. I am definately going to read it. I just downloaded it (new window)

What can we do with the old testament? It is way too farked up to save a whole lot, but surely we can get 46 pages worth of good stuff.

TFA: Deists differed from traditional Christians by rejecting miraculous occurrences and prophecies and embracing the notion of a well-ordered universe created by a God who withdrew into detached transcendence.

Jefferson viewed the Creator as more of a superintending power, rather than a detached transcendence.

Thomas Jefferson is, in my opinion, the greatest American of all time. We don't talk about him enough, though, since in many ways he lost the war of ideas about what this nation should become.

mandingueiro: DamnYankees: Thomas Jefferson is, in my opinion, the greatest American of all time. We don't talk about him enough, though, since in many ways he lost the war of ideas about what this nation should become.

yeah, a deist, slave-owning, racist, pedophile?

That's an odd mix of good, bad, and false. I don't know what point you're making.

Also, calling Jefferson a pedophile is pathetic and wrong. I don't even know where you're getting this from, but go fark yourself.

mandingueiro: DamnYankees: Thomas Jefferson is, in my opinion, the greatest American of all time. We don't talk about him enough, though, since in many ways he lost the war of ideas about what this nation should become.

yeah, a deist, slave-owning, racist, pedophile?

You forgot where he stabbed one of his best friends, John Adam, in the back in order to win an election. And he also help speed up the formation of the two party political system that most of the Founding Fathers saw as abhorrent.

Darth_Lukecash: You forgot where he stabbed one of his best friends, John Adam, in the back in order to win an election. And he also help speed up the formation of the two party political system that most of the Founding Fathers saw as abhorrent.

Two things about the Adams relationship. First, they made up and became great friends later in life. Secondly, don't you think there's something to be said about putting country before personal friendships? The election of 1800 was not nice on either side, but someone like Jefferson was not about to put his vision of America on the back burner just in the name of being nice to his pal. I don't see anything wrong with that.

mandingueiro: hey, just pointing out the flaws of being human. As for pedophile: Sally Hemings was allegedly jefferson's concubine. It is a theory supported by many historical revisionists. Research lends authenticity to the accusations. By today's standards, jefferson would be considered a pedophile.

First of all, I never said he was flawless. Some of his flaws are what make him such an amazing American figure. I didn't say he was the most noble or righteous American of all time.

Secondly, concubine? Are you kidding me? This isn't 37 BC in Carthage. He had an affair with one of his slaves. His personal sexual life is of no real interest to me and bears very little on his character. Her status as 'slave' is much more important than her status as 'mistress'.

Thirdly, you're a moron about the pedophile thing. There is zero evidence, zero, that Jefferson liked her pre-puberty. I'll seriously have to report you to the mods if you don't either retract or prove your statement. I don't get touchy about much, but calling a great person a pedophile with no proof or logic is farked up.

Finally, Fark is back. What he heck happened?

mandingueiro: yeah, a deist, slave-owning, racist, pedophile?

O RLY?



There is a whole lot wrong with what I just did right there.

mandingueiro: um...she was 14 and he was parading her in french courts as his "pet". She bore 5 of his children. Somehow, given the circumstances (and this is only my opinion) i highly doubt she was the only slave he had sexual relations with.
/No. I will not retract my statement.Unless evidence is shown otherwise.
//grow a pair. quit getting your panties in bunch.

Your knowledge of history is flagrantly wrong - you probably get your news from Michael Savage or something. I can't prove to you he was *not* a pedophile, just as I can't prove you haven't had sex with a goat. That's not how logic works.

Damn, the LA Times is really on the ball with this story. Took them, what, 100 years to get to it?

fanbladesaresharp: It bears a lot. Personal sexual relationships with a slave? Are you inbred or something? And you say "of no real interest". Man you are pathetic.

It bears a lot on what? His personal morality? He had sex with a slave. I honestly don't see whats horrible about that. The "slave" part is the bad thing, not the sex part.

rka: DamnYankees: Thirdly, you're a moron about the pedophile thing. There is zero evidence, zero, that Jefferson liked her pre-puberty. I'll seriously have to report you to the mods if you don't either retract or prove your statement.

Are you his long lost relative or something?

Settle down Francis, this is Fark. Only pansies run around calling for mods.

Sorry, but for some reason calling people pedophiles with no proof sort of bothers me. I rarely report to mods (twice ever, I think).

greatgodyoshi: mandingueiro: um...she was 14 and he was parading her in french courts as his "pet".

Wasn't 14 about marrying age back then?

He also brought Sally to France to accompany his daughter there. It had nothing to do with parading her around. Also, when you consider the earlier supposed child Sally had was in 1790, when was 17, that's hardly pedophilia.

Gulliver: DamnYankees: He had sex with a slave. I honestly don't see whats horrible about that. The "slave" part is the bad thing, not the sex part.

He was in a position of absolute authority over her. She had no choice in the relationship. None of this matters to you?

Thus the bad part of slavery - being forced to do things, often quite horrible things, without consent. The fact that he had an affair with her is sort of besides the point.

mandingueiro: All I am saying is circumstantial evidence shows that he was most likely taking advantage of a young (negro) woman as it was common practice back then. Maybe your knowledge of history has been obfuscated by a couple of centuries of propaganda.

Having sex with a 15 or 16 year old is not pedophilia.

fanbladesaresharp: ?????? Go fark your little cousin then and get back to us on the results.

What does incest have to do with anything?

Pic of Jefferson's bible. Notice how he kept the Greek next to the Latin Vulgate next to the English. He could write Greek in one hand and Latin in the other at the same time. He, like most Deists, was quite interested in comparative religion, and preferred the ethics of Paleopagans to the ethics of the New Testament (new window), at least as he understood them both.

t3knomanser: Point of order: pedophila is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents. People who fark 14 year olds aren't pedophiles, because (barring hormone or genetic issues) 14 year olds are past puberty. The proper term for someone who farks 14 year olds is "teacher".

That's really all I'm saying. I'm not defending the guy having sex with his 16 year old slave beyond saying its not pedophilia.

And goddammit Fark, get fixed!

bullock.: DamnYankees
Having sex with a 15 or 16 year old is not pedophilia.

You do realize that this thread is discoverable, right? Forever and ever.

Just saying; FARK is a little creepy currently.

/Looking at you, not blinking.

What am I supposed to be hiding from? Definitions of words? Pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent kids. There's zero evidence of anything like that with Jefferson, and its slanderous to say so. (Well, libel since its being typed.)

DamnYankees

Thomas Jefferson is, in my opinion, the greatest American of all time. We don't talk about him enough, though, since in many ways he lost forsook the war of ideas about what this nation should become.

Luke 19.37 And as He was now approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen

John 10.32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." 14.11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

Exodus 15.11 "Who is like Thee among the gods, O LORD? Who is like Thee, majestic in holiness, Awesome in praises, working wonders?

aerojockey: DamnYankees

Thomas Jefferson is, in my opinion, the greatest American of all time. We don't talk about him enough, though, since in many ways he lost forsook the war of ideas about what this nation should become.

What do you mean "forsook"? Are you talking about his hypocrisy of owning slaves?

rbuzby: Jefferson was a great man, and also a massive hypocrite. It's good to see the founding fathers as people instead of deitys.

Agreed completely.

rbuzby: Jefferson also condemned a lot of essential things that Hamilton set up, like the treasury department. Then of course as President, Jefferson enjoyed the benefits of Hamiltons labor and did nothing to undo anything Hamilton did, because it turned out Hamilton was right.

Jefferson was an idealist, maybe the most idealistic of our founding fathers. That's why he loved revolution. He had his troubles when reality collided with his high-mindedness. Thus his owning slaves, because he was afraid of what would happen if slavery was gone. He bought Louisiana thinking he didn't have the power to do it because he couldn't turn the offer down. He ran a dirty campaign in order to win.

fanbladesaresharp: Always some goddam technicality with some people. Grow a pair will ya?

I can't tell if this is sarcasm.

bullock.: It is against the law. And gross.

What is? Sex with a 16 year old? Nowadays it is. But Jefferson lived 200 years ago.

bullock.: Who said you were hiding?

You warned me this was public and could be found, implying I was saying something which shouldn't be said in public.

bullock.: What's up w/ the inclusive definition of libel? Are you attempting to show off?

Slander is verbal, libel is written. If making that distinction is "showing off", then the bar on Fark is pretty low.

DeadParrotSociety: The word you are looking for is pederast...by 14 she might have already begun puberty. A pedophile is some attracted to pre-pubescent persons.

No. Pederasty is only between a boy and a man. This is not that.

A relationship between a man and a post-pubescent woman is merely illegal in the US. There's no name for it.

mandingueiro: wow we agree on something. realism does not equal morality. His policies based on hypocritical morality is his downfall as a great president (although i do take into account the time period.). to put into perspective: mount rushmore is called the four thieves. Historical analysis of american policy vindicates the statement.

I never said he was the most moral American ever, nor am I judging him purely on his presidency.

And I've never heard Mt. Rushmore called the "four thieves".

ninjakirby: DamnYankees: A relationship between a man and a post-pubescent woman is merely illegal in the US. There's no name for it.

"Statutory"?

That's a legal term. It's not a psychological or social condition like pedophilia and pederasty. We may think a 40 year old guy and a 16 year old woman is weird and emotionally wrong (this illegal), but that's a whole different can of worms than child molesting.

give me doughnuts: Correct. The proper term is "ephebophilia" or "giggity."

Yup. Wikipedia says it simply: "Attraction to adolescents is not generally regarded by psychologists as pathological except when it interferes with other relationships, becomes an obsession which adversely affects other areas of life, or causes distress to the subject."

I think this statement about obsession or distress could apply to damn near anything, like comic books or MMORPGs.

\bullock.: I'm just saying that showing support for having sex with little girls is akin to showing support for enslaving black people.

Yes, both had no social repercusions, legal or otherwise years ago, but it makes you look extremely stupid defending it now.

You're a freaking moron. Thomas Jefferson did not have sex with "little girls". Jesus, what the hell is wrong with you? Having sex with a 16 year old isn't right and I'm not defending it, but its lightyears different from having sex with "little girls", especially given the time period, when people married and gave birth alot younger than nowadays.

And fix your tags, its not hard. You don't need a maid.

AurizenDarkstar: There's been a lot of talk that it may have been one of Jefferson's nephews who may have actually had the relationship with Sally Hemings. But as far as I know, there's been no way to prove it as of yet.

Aside from sheer curiosity, I never understood the relevance of this whole thing. Whether Jefferson was or wasn't the father, does it have any lasting bearing on the man's legacy?

mandingueiro: well, maybe you should delve into historical events and the factual renderings on the people they affect.

A google search for "four thieves mount rushmore" serves up nothing. What are you talking about? Is this your personal nickname for those 4 men?

Bevets: Exodus 15.11 "Who is like Thee among the gods, O LORD? Who is like Thee, majestic in holiness, Awesome in praises, working wonders?

Zeus
Oh, wait, also:
Jupiter
Odin
Wotan
Kinich Ahau
Ra
An
Anu
Anus (the Hittite "king of the gods", for real)
Tabiti
Kamui
Brahma
Izanagi
Banaitja
Kutkh
Crom

Now, I am sure you think your God can beat up all these other Gods, but they think/thought the same about yours. Just that Christians and Muslims made it difficult to be anything except Christians or Muslims in the lands they ruled. Either by edict, by pogrom or by financial burden.

Congratulations in winning the God race. The masses suffered for your glory.

fanbladesaresharp: Well you seem to have a pretty good distinction on just what designates "pedophile" (why that's such a contention with you I don't know but we'll fark with it anyway) so I'm at a bit of a loss how you haven't heard that phrase already. Hell, I heard it 30 years ago and I never even visited the place.

Yes, I know the definition of the word "pedophile". Apparently, this is weird to do. If you don't see the difference between having sex with a 6 year old and a 16 year old, I don't know what to say.

And maybe I'm just ignorant about Mt. Rushmore nicknames, but I've never heard that one, and google isn't helping.

fanbladesaresharp: You can try to define it all you want. There's a better application of it: Common Sense. As in, Just. Don't. Farking. Do. It. Moran.

In the 18th century, it was not uncommon to be married at that age. In Jefferson's day, it was not at all 'common sense' to avoid post-pubescent girls. Martha Washington, for example, was married at age 18, Abigail Adams met John when she was 15, and Martha Jefferson had a kid by age 19.

Frank Anthrax: I have no idea if this is a reputable journal or not, but putting "four thieves" in quotes turned this^ up:

The Lakota dubbed the Mt. Rushmore result "the four thieves" as each had taken vast tracts of Indian land.

Putting "four thieves" in quotes with Mt. Rushmore gives you 8 results on google. It's clearly not that famous a nickname.

fanbladesaresharp: Wow. No shiat? It didn't come up on google, therefore it doesn't exist? Try Wikipedia.

It's not there at all. You think Wikipedia has more information than google?

mandingueiro: "the four thieves" refers to the ways the american gov't used political leverage, modified, and broke their own laws to gain access to sacred land.It is a common moniker among native americans.

Fair enough. I'm not an Indian, so I don't know that. All I have access to is internet research at the moment, and it wasn't helping.

I wonder how many of these Jefferson critics think George W. Bush is awesome.

Frank Anthrax: fanbladesaresharp: You can try to define it all you want. There's a better application of it: Common Sense. As in, Just. Don't. Farking. Do. It. Moran.

Did... did you just call Thomas Jefferson a moran?

Also, just realized this. Martha Jefferson, the wife of Thomas, married her first husband at the age of 16.

JeffreyScott: Why is he a hypocrite simply because years later he took a different opinion. He was apparently an intelligent person who continued to push the boundaries of his knowledge until the day he died. Isn't it possible that he simply changed his opinion based on additional information and sound reflection?

I don't think even the biggest Jefferson fans deny he had hypocritical parts of his life. It's one of the great mysteries of the man.

fanbladesaresharp: Try Alta Vista and Dogpile.

Try no. I've looked, there's very few references t it. One on all of google. In this thread it's been explained to me what it means. I didn't deny the nickname existed, but its hardly a well-known one.

bullock.: Do you think that having sex with underaged girls is ok, today?

Yes or no?

No. Are we done?

Mr. Right: The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans: no early civilization believed in the equality of all men before the law as did the Jews.

As a Jew, I feel fine saying...what the hell are you talking about? Jewish Law is far from this.

Jefferson himself makes reference in his writings to an age of consent being 12 years old.

fanbladesaresharp: And yet here he is trying to define it and come off as an intellectual. Which way do you want it, chief?

This is how far out country has fallen? Now knowing what words mean is considered elitist.

Ignorance abounds here.

IN Jefferson's time, having sex with a woman of 14, 15, or 16 was not unusual, nor was it considered deviant, since many people didn't often live to see fifty years of age, and many died much earlier than that due to disease and health concerns which we have since addressed with modern medicine.

In fact, if a woman hadn't been with a man by the time she was 16, people would whisper the word "spinster" in regards to her. Marriages often took place between women in their teens, and men who ranged in age from slightly older to decades older. Some were arranged, some were not.

When it came to slaves, it was not unusual for the master of the estate to have his way with slave women. It was wrong, but it was also not always unwilling on the part of the woman. Sometimes, a slave who was cozy with her master had a very comfortable life in comparison to that of other slaves.

All this aside, it is NOT, nor has it every been "pedophilia" when someone has sex with a teenager who has gone through puberty, and barring some disorder, Sally Hemmings had most likely experienced puberty when she was around 12 years old. She would have been a WOMAN by nature's standards when she was 14.

In the modern era, now that we've decided on some arbitrary age where it's "OK" to have sex, we call attraction to post-pubescent teenagers "hebephelia" and whether or not it's legal has to do with what country, state, and county you're in. In some states it's 14, in others it's 16, and still others require a person to be 18 before they can have sex.

For those who are STUPID, "Pedophelia" is the deviant mental condition which makes an adult (defined as: someone who is past puberty) attracted to children who have not experienced puberty. This is its ONLY meaning. It does not mean "when an old dude farks a teenager" in ANY dictionary or law-book on Earth.

But pedophelia and hebephelia aside, relationships between people past the age of 18 and those who had experienced puberty but were not yet 18 years of age were the SOCIETAL NORM in Jefferson's day. I guarantee you that EVERY ONE of the founding fathers nailed a teenager at some point in his life. (Ben Franklin probably did it weekly.)

My own grandmother, wife to a Quaker, was married when she was 14 years old. She had twelve kids, starting as soon as she was married, and remained with her husband for over 75 years. My grandfather, then 17 years old, met her when she was 12 and told her he was going to be his wife some day. Two years later, when she was at "marrying age", he asked for her hand in marriage, and her father's blessing, and got both. My grandmother was born in the late 1800s, and it was still pretty normal for women to marry young at that point in time.

People in this thread trying to lay 21st century sexual repression on 18th century historical figures need to shut up. You're way off-base.

Holden Caulfield: Didn't he found the University of Virginia?

Isn't it ranked the best public university on the East Coast?

Yes, he did. U of V and UC Berkeley are basically tied for the best public school in America.

Though we all know Berkeley is better.

aagrajag: No. There's nothing inherently "wrong" for an older man to have sex with a post-pubescent, but pre-age-of-majority girl. Most of us just don't do it, firstly:

Well, he asked "is it ok". Considering it is illegal, I said no. If he asked if it was immoral I would have answered differently.

//it was hijacked in 1955

ZeroCorpse

(Ben Franklin probably did it weekly.)

I thought he liked the older ladies?

Thomas Jefferson supported the theory of intelligent design. I think he would be surprised to learn that some people today consider his views unconstitutional.

SkinnyHead: Thomas Jefferson supported the theory of intelligent design. I think he would be surprised to learn that some people today consider his views unconstitutional.

If this was posted by anyone else, I would give a hearty congratulations on the satire.

SkinnyHead
Thomas Jefferson supported the theory of intelligent design. I think he would be surprised to learn that some people today consider his views unconstitutional.

I have a sneaking suspicion that he would have changed his mind had he read Darwin's works during his lifetime.

ninjakirby: Fascinating, please tell us more.

Certainly. Anti-Christian types like to cites Jefferson's 1823 letter to Adams where he talks about how the "day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter..." etc. You probably seen that before here on Fark. But they fail to read the rest of the letter where Jefferson lays out his theory of intelligent design:

"...I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it's parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it's composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with it's distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in it's course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro' all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Of course, if he tried to say something like that today, people would be calling him all sorts of names and trying to have his views banned from schools.

SkinnyHead: Of course, if he tried to say something like that today, people would be calling him all sorts of names and trying to have his views banned from schools.

We hold your stupidity to be self-evident.

bullock.: Farking Canuck
bullock.: I am just saying that you angrily defending having sex w/ underaged girls certainly casts you in the light of pedophelia.

Your insistance on incorrectly labeling people casts you in the light of a moron.

I suspect that you think you are coming off as an intellectual in your attacks on DamnYankees but you are wrong. He has not defended pedophilia in any way ... he has merely pointed out that you do not understand the term. And he is correct.

So you think it is ok to have sex with underaged girls, right?

Underaged means less than 18 years of age, fyi.

This is the point you meant to make, correct?

Learn to close your tags already. /

DamnYankees: We hold your stupidity to be self-evident.

You lead off the thread saying how you think that Thomas Jefferson is, in my opinion, the greatest American of all time. We don't talk about him enough, though, since in many ways he lost the war of ideas about what this nation should become. But then when you find out that he advocated the theory of intelligent design, you end up calling him stupid. I guess that just proves my point.

SkinnyHead: But then when you find out that he advocated the theory of intelligent design, you end up calling him stupid. I guess that just proves my point.

I called you stupid. A decent respect for the opinions of Farkers demands you be mocked.

Egalitarian: ZeroCorpse

(Ben Franklin probably did it weekly.)

I thought he liked the older ladies?

Mr. Franklin did not discriminate on the basis of age ;)

DamnYankees: SkinnyHead: But then when you find out that he advocated the theory of intelligent design, you end up calling him stupid. I guess that just proves my point.

I called you stupid. A decent respect for the opinions of Farkers demands you be mocked.

I see what you did there.

Lenny_da_Hog: Psst. Genetics had not yet been discovered at the time of Jefferson and Adams' letter exchanges. Darwin hadn't yet sailed the Beagle. Gregor Mendel was still a baby. Jefferson had nothing else to go on, other than the Deist approach.

LordJiro: He didn't know any better. He died 33 years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. We know better now. Evolution happens. We've seen it in the laboratory, with bacteria and fruit flies. We have the transitional fossils. Much like gravity, it's the exact *mechanism* that's still being uncovered.

Guys, he knows this. He's the most inanely dense poster on Fark. You're tilting at windmills.

mandingueiro: yes someone pointed this out earlier. OK. So he was a statutory rapist?

No. It wasn't illegal.

Kensey: Creationism and Intelligent Design presuppose the inability of God to accomplish this, and therefore constitute blasphemy.

Me and Thomas Jefferson don't see it that way.

DamnYankees: I called you stupid. A decent respect for the opinions of Farkers demands you be mocked.

What does that mean? You playing to the crowd?

Lenny_da_Hog: Psst. Genetics had not yet been discovered at the time of Jefferson and Adams' letter exchanges. Darwin hadn't yet sailed the Beagle. Gregor Mendel was still a baby. Jefferson had nothing else to go on, other than the Deist approach.

I relying on what he really said and you're just projecting on him what you want him to be. Besides, most of his views concerning intelligent design theory were based on fine-tuned universe. Darwin had nothing to say about that.

SkinnyHead: What does that mean? You playing to the crowd?

You're a funny little man. You used to annoy me, but now I find you amusing.

Jim_Callahan: Which was OK, considering what he wanted to do to immigrants and people who talked bad about the government.

//Alien & Sedition act... not gonna live that one down. Especially since he's dead, I guess.

That was Adams, not Jefferson.

Mr. Right: Every other civilization set up rulers who could make and change laws at a whim or create laws that applied to some folks and not others. Our system of laws was set up precisely to prevent that.

This doesn't make any sense.

1) Plenty of non-Judeo-Christian civilizations creates a legal system where the laws could not be changed at whim. For example, the Roman Republic.

2) Our system of laws was set up to include slavery, and women could not vote. Our system has *evolved* to become more egalitarian, but it wasn't set up that way in practice.

ninjakirby: We learn those views already bucko - Civics class and US History.

Jefferson's buddy, Thomas Paine, argued that science should be taught theologically, with reference to the creator. I think Jefferson would probably agree with him.

Lenny_da_Hog: ...based on what he knew about the universe. In the 1820s. Shoot, might as well teach flat-earth theory. That was the predominant observation before the 1400s....

Except that modern science has found that the universe is much more fine-tuned that Jefferson ever imagined.

In fact, the only thing that materialists have to explain away the fine-tuned universe is to say that there must be an infinite number of universes (multiverses) and that we just happened to luck out by living in the one that's fine-tuned. It's either that or intelligent design.

Sum Dum Gai: Racism and sexism are another aspect of our minds

Absolutely. Asimov spoke to this a thousand times (both aloud and in his writing), and did so more beautifully than I can.

SkinnyHead: In fact, the only thing that materialists have to explain away the fine-tuned universe is to say that there must be an infinite number of universes (multiverses) and that we just happened to luck out by living in the one that's fine-tuned. It's either that or intelligent design.

yeah..no. It's not.

You're a farking idiot if you truly believe that those are the only two choices.

/some people shouldn't be allowed near a computer until they've mastered that whole logic/reading/scientific thought thing.

jrnorton23: The two beliefs cannot be held together in the same mind; and he who thinks that he believes both, has thought but little of either

From your Paine quote, I don't see why the "two beliefs" are not compatible. G-d created it all, and left it for us to figure out. What is not to believe about that? After all, the whole hullaballoo about Jesus' birth had a lot to do with following a star...

My dad was raise very, very, very Roman Catholic. He got his head knocked in after asking a teaching sister (who was talking about the whole Adam and Eve story) if she didn't understand that this was allegory. I'm surprised he lived through the whole thing, at all.

/raised atheist, by that same RC dad...now a semi-buddhist

Mr. Right: the Romans captured nearly the whole world.

Really now? They never got off that little bit of land called Europe.

Funny, that.

Sum Dum Gai: He's not saying there IS design, he's saying we PERCEIVE design. Perception and reality aren't always the same thing -- there are a whole slew of things that we perceive that aren't actually real.

You're trying to be too cute. If he meant that the perception of design was an illusion, he would have said so. In the same letter, he states:

"So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro' all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe." ~ Thomas Jefferson

SkinnyHead: they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe." ~ Thomas Jefferson

If a million people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.

Mr. Right: It makes perfect sense. In the Roman Republic laws could not be changed at a whim but they applied only to Romans and the Romans captured nearly the whole world. In every place except Rome and for every person not Roman by birth the laws did not apply and any governor could arbitrarily treat non-Roman subjects as they wished. The Republic didn't last very long and the Caesars took over. The Caesars defined whimsy in the application and generation of laws.

Ok, lets break this down. First of all, they Romans didn't conquer the whole world, they aren't even the largest empire in world history. They clock in around 16th biggest of all time. Secondly, the laws of every country only apply to the citizens and border of that country. American laws don't apply between Frenchmen in Paris. And American law certainly has different laws for citizens and non-citizens.

Secondly, the Roman Republic last about 500 years - twice as long as the US. So what are you talking about being shirt-lived. By even the most constraining time period, the Roman Republic lasted longer than the current United States has.

granolasteak: Really now? They never got off that little bit of land called Europe.

Yes they did. They had all of North Africa and a good bit of the middle east.

Mr. Right: As to slavery, it was universally accepted at the time of the founding. There was much conflict in the colonies as to its legitimacy.

Are those two sentences in agreement with one another?

If G-d led to the founding of the US, wouldn't "He" have whispered in someone's ear that slavery was of the devil?

Mr. Right: As to slavery, it was universally accepted at the time of the founding.

Japan ablished slavery in 1588. Russia abolished slavery in 1723. In 1772 the England courts found slavery illegal.

Abolition was hardly an unknown idea. Lots of the founders wanted it.

Mr. Right: The much-denigrated 2/3 of a person clause was actually an attempt to limit the influence of slave states and slave owners by reducing their representation in the House.

Noble sentiments are irrelevant. The reality is the United States Constitution treats one race of people as 3/5 (not 2/3) the value of another. They are not subject to the same laws.

Women's suffrage was another notion that was universally rejected. Sounds like a cheap excuse to say that we weren't any worse than anyone else but that is the fact.

What does this have to do with anything? Are we judging ourselves according to other countries, or according to the undying laws of God? Who cares if no other country did it first? The fact is our country did not provide equal rights to women in its foundation. Neither did anyone else at the time, but that's not relevant when you're claiming we got our laws from Godly ideas of egalitarianism.

DamnYankees: Yes they did. They had all of North Africa and a good bit of the middle east.

I was just going to correct myself, because of course they had other bits of land. But not what we know as Russia. Or India. Or the US. Or Canada. Or South America, or Australia, or Norway or Finland or Greenland.

;)

Mr. Right: How about the whole KNOWN world?

And that's where we get into a conundrum...KNOWN to whom? I'm sure the people living in Australia KNEW they were where they were. Likewise the folk in North America, South America, etc.

LordJiro: Citation, please

"It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author." ~ Thomas Paine.