I guess it was an understatement, but really it’s amazing how much was known and how much scientific knowledge was first achieved/popularized during the Enlightenment. Jefferson and others in the know had a good understanding of the physics, astronomy, taxonomy, chemistry and often detailed knowledge of different technologies. Jefferson probably understood the science of his day much more deeply than the average person today understands ours.
I’m not really sure what discoveries since Jefferson’s day would alter his religious beliefs–whatever they were, exactly.
I don’t doubt it, but have you tried understanding the physics of our day? My degree is in (astro-)physics, and there’s plenty that I don’t get. I barely passed Quantum Mechanics.
I was definitely including myself among the average people.
What I meant was, Jefferson was scientifically quite sophisticated, extremely well-educated and well-read, an innovative thinker and politician, unquestionably very smart and believed in God.
So–having tried hard at certain points in my life to reason myself out of religious belief and failed–I don’t consider myself to be in bad company.
I have the “advantage” of not having been raised religious- to imagine my perspective, then take your perceptions of some of the beliefs of Scientology or Mormonism (assuming you aren’t a Scientologist or Mormon), and apply it to every religious belief. They all seem equally absurd and irrational to me… the concept of a divine Jesus dying for our sins is as ridiculous to me as the concept of galactic overlord Xenu destroying billions of people with hydrogen bombs and depositing their souls on Earth.
I was brought up in a family that followed some of the forms of religion (Roman Catholic), but did not really believe. So I don’t think my upbringing, though quite different from yours, had a lot to do with it.
Evolution along with Archeology and the more modern understandings of the age of things disproves Genesis and the Flood - the basic ‘premise’ on the ‘Origin’ of man.
No I am just an irrational, emotional woman. Not an emotionless automaton who worships rationality. It’s ok.
Plus, if you don’t bother to look at his other arguments you aren’t any better than the “irrational” people you look down on with so much disdain. :rolleyes:
It utterly undercuts the story told by the bible. If you decide that those parts aren’t real, it does open the possibility that more of the bible isn’t real.
When we had no idea how man could exist sans a creator, it was reasonable to assume one existed.
I don’t see what your sex has to do with that. Women are no more irrational than men in my experience. Your inability to reason is blamed on you, not your gender.
I have emotions. I just can think clearly.
Not at all. I have looked into many arguments for the existence of God. And universally they are by people who heap fallacy upon fallacy.
The fact that you randomly posted one of twenty, and it is so clumsy and inept that a child might have written it, doesn’t make me think there is a nugget of brilliance in the rest of the list.
I tell you what, sift through his nonsense and get me the best of it and I’ll see if that makes any sense.
Honestly, if you had a list of ten thousand arguments, would you expect me to read them all? You’re the one claiming one or more of them is solid, so show me which one.
I was just letting you know I am a girl, I wasn’t implying that woman are more or less rational than men.
You “sift through” it. You asked for it. I can’t understand a lick of it, and I don’t understand your “rational” arguments either, and like I said I don’t care either way, you do.
I just picked an example at random, I didn’t read it either, like I said I don’t care to debate this or anything else based on rationality, it’s boring and dull. And yes, you are the one getting all hot for rationality, so I would expect you to read all you can that is presented to you when you yourself asked for it. You either really don’t want to hear what others have to say, or you are scared it might make sense and upend all you stand for. You really are kinda dense aren’t you, when you don’t see how pigheaded your stance is, making you just like those you criticize?:dubious:
So you’re just handing out homework without knowing a damn thing about what you’re doing?
Can’t you see how utterly insane that is? You did a random search, quoted something and now I must look at the rest of his list? After the thing you quoted is utter gibberish nonsense?
Seriously?
Look at it this way, if you cite an automotive website and the cite says that cars use jet propulsion from their exhaust to move the car, I’m not gonna go to that site and sift through looking for reasonable information.
You provided the link. It was gibberish. I have no time or desire to argue your side of the case for you. You make the assertion, you back it up. That’s what reasonable people do.
It’s dull to you because it challenges beliefs you hold dear.
You’re wrong. I asked for evidence. Not someone who is so lazy they just post a link and say, “Go at it!” If you’re not willing to contribute, that’s fine. Just stop pretending that you’re being reasonable.
I do want to hear what others have to say. I don’t want to indulge someone so lazy they can’t even read what they are citing.
Again: You presented a cite and it was gibberish. When this is pointed out, you say essentially, “Well, read the rest of his site!”
You should be able to understand why that’s silly.
Not even a little. My stance is, show me the evidence. You are attempting to point me at a site you know nothing about and saying, “maybe there is evidence there.”
If you can’t understand this, you probably aren’t gonna do well in GD.
I’m not a fundamentalist obviously. But even though proof that life evolved means the story of Adam and Eve isn’t literally true, it doesn’t disprove that God exists or even make it less likely that She does.
It makes it less likely that the bible is divinely inspired.
Jefferson already thought that there was no immaterial world. Tell him where people could have come from, it might have pushed him farther from deism.
And I can’t prove God doesn’t exist. But I also can’t prove vampires don’t exist. Neither has real evidence to speak for them, so I assume both don’t exist.
It casts doubt because it destroys one of the historically most effective arguments used for gods; if there’s no gods, then where did we and life in general come from? Evolution destroyed that argument’s effectiveness, at least among those willing to be open minded, by providing an alternative to “goddidit”. Especially since there’s no evidence at all for any gods, and plenty for evolution.
It doesn’t disprove your god, but it went a long way towards destroying the argument that a god is necessary.