Then prove it. We have clearly shown an overwhelming amount of evidence to discredit this theory.

if you Google and search enough...you can find " overwhelming evidence "...to support ANY position...like I said before...all I ask for...is a front row seat and extra popcorn...when the day of Judgement arrives...

Whatever. I thought you were serious. Nevermind. Peanut gallery.

I like peanuts...

And as for your comment that "ANY position can be supported" by performing a simple Google search. Well there is a considerable difference between documented information taken from texts and historical societies and that of a bunch of crazy right wing Christian websites. No one takes that crap seriously.

You know, each generation of the followers of the death cult of Christianity have been eagerly awaiting the Apocalypse, what makes you think you will be any less disappointed on your death bed to have not seen it?

crazy right wing Christian ...it says that...right on my business card...

huh ?

There is nothing the slightest bit confusing or unclear in that statement.

Your beliefs exist because you ACCEPT that the sole purpose of Jesus was to DIE for YOU.
You are the reason and therefore the cause of that person’s death. I find it amazing that people are so willing to accept that others would DIE so that life will continue, but claim no responsibility for contributing to that death.

For every Christian martyred there is blood on your hands, for they have established, through their death, what you believe. You would accept that, yet you claim offense when you are asked to take responsibility for it.

Someone made a point about the Pilgrims and the fact that they came here in the hopes of establishing a nation of “free thinkers.” If part of that ideal meant creating a place where one is “free” to “think” whatever they will, than it is accepted that freedom to ‘believe’ what one will is part of that package.

It was also made clear that the country that was being left behind was a Christian Monarchy, a true Christian nation. It’s obvious it didn’t work, why do you think those who came here would attempt it again?

It is also obvious that the past experience of all those people included exposure to God in one way or another. Most morality, at that time, had a large attachment to religious concepts. No one of any intellect would deny that past experiences influence our thoughts, decisions and actions.

Of course the role of God in this nations founding and beginning development was influential. What needs to GIVE from both sides of this particular argument are two things, one is that a belief in an “Absolute” creator does not equate to Christianity. The second is that it’s clear, no matter what one reads, that the intended direction of this country was to become a haven for all free thinkers, and that meant leaving religion to those who chose to freely think and act according to their beliefs.

Accepting those two things, one has to admit that we were not founded on Christian principles and that the only Christian, anything, within our legal system are those moral concepts that fit best with the ideals of a “free thinking” republic. In this light, they are not Christian morals anymore; they are what “free thinkers” believe to be right for all.

As for the original post;

I agree with the idea that to be agnostic was a designation intended to save lives. Atheism, within my lifetime, has developed from a concept to be hidden and to be guarded in discussion, into the open air realm of a free thinking society.

This did not happen because Christianity is so loving, accepting and tolerant, it happened becasue the fundamental orthedox Christian is loosing ground, running out of steam.

This clearly poses a control problem for a religion designed and intent on ruling the world.

Where do you think that idea came from?

I might suggest it is a backlash effect, that was handed down over generations and is now in the hands of those Christians who still believe we were a nation founded on Christian principals.

Krimsa can you give me the site where you got that info.

Its actually from several sites. I combined different quotes and information. My primary source of information is Mein Kampf in English My Struggle which was dictated by Adolph Hitler. I read this work about 8 years ago.

As David Berlinski recently noted, “the thesis that there is a connection between Darwin and Hitler is widely considered a profanation.” But striking an indignant pose – feathers in full ruffle – is not an answer to such a serious charge, especially when the words of both Darwin and Hitler speak otherwise.

Those defending Darwin cannot have read his Descent of Man, wherein he applies the principles of natural selection to human beings – a thing he prudently avoided in his earlier Origin of Species. In the Descent, the eugenic and racial inferences are clearly and startlingly drawn by Darwin himself.

Darwin understood the eugenic implications of his own theory, and warned his readers against imminent evolutionary backsliding. “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” Insert a few terms like “Aryan” or “Jew” and that could be in any Nazi screed.

“If … various checks … do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule.”

While Darwin tried to soften the hard implications (by suggesting that we not kill the rogues; rather, we should just keep them from breeding), the eugenic edifice was his.

And the racial thing? Evolution is driven by competition, and competition brings extinction. Darwin notes, matter-of-factly in the Descent, that one tribe extinguishing another is the very engine of human evolution. In his words, “extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, race with race,” allowing the victorious tribe or race to pass on their superior endowments.

That is not a moral complaint; it is a detached scientific description uttered by Darwin entirely without angst. As the engine of evolution is never idle, it is also a prophecy. Again, his own words:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [i.e., most human-looking] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Get it? Ranking the human races, we find the Caucasian at top, and down at the bottom, dangling at the edge of humanity, “the negro or Australian” who is just an evolutionary hair’s-breadth away from the anthropomorphous gorilla. In pushing upwards to the �ber-Caucasian, evolution also exterminates all the “intermediate species,” so that natural selection will do away with the Negro, the aboriginal Australian, and the gorilla.

Like it or not, Darwin’s eugenic and racial ideas spread from him, and infected both Europe and America.

Now for Adolf. I suspect that, just as a lot of folks haven’t read Darwin’s execrable Descent of Man, so also they feel free to enter the debate without having read Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

It is inaccurate to blame the entire of Hitler’s evil on anti-Semitism precisely because his anti-Semitism was part of a larger biological vision. “National Socialism is nothing but applied biology,” said the deputy Party leader of the Nazis, Rudolf Hess.

As Hitler made clear in Mein Kampf, the fundamental political category is biological. Consequently, “the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a State or Government but rather the conservation of the race.” This aim accords with Hitler’s larger Darwinian view of the cosmos, wherein the “fundamental law of necessity” reigning “throughout the realm of Nature” is that “existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife….where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.” Survival of the fittest.

Hence Hitler’s creation of a kind of “folk” religion, that is, a religion of the racially defined Volk. Worship was directed to the Germanic race as the only one capable of eliminating the weak and bringing the �bermensch – “superman” – into existence in accordance with the cruelties of Nature. Hitler’s words all too clearly portend the atrocities to come when the Nazis gained power:

“[T]he v�lkisch concept of the world recognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind. Therefore on the v�lkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the v�lkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound, in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker…. For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be lost for ever.”

Hence the folk concept of the world is in profound accord with Nature’s will; because it restores the free play of the forces which will lead the race through stages of sustained reciprocal education towards a higher type, until finally the best portion of mankind will possess the earth and will be free to work in every domain all over the world and even reach spheres that lie outside the earth.

According to Hitler, the Jews threatened the superior race with degradation, but so did the “mongrels and negroids,” the Slavs, the Gypsies, the handicapped, the retarded, and all the other inferior biological misfits.

All this doesn’t mean that Darwinism was the sole cause of Hitler’s barbarism. But it does make clear that Darwinism must shoulder its share of the moral burden, because the connection is undeniable.

There is a good book out Called From Darwin to Hitler.

"Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and 'racial hygiene'. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power." -- Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich

David Berlinski (born 1942 in New York City) is an American educator and author of books on mathematics. He is a leading critic of evolution within the intelligent design movement and author of numerous articles on the topic.

I'm afraid that your information on Washington and Adams being Deists is erronious. Where did you get this list from? I would assume that it is a non-historical, and anti-christain site to be sure. Just like your objection to Wallbuilders being "biased" - you need to examine your own sources with the same discernment.

I point you to Washington's fairwell speech when leaving office as a perfect example of his not being a Deist.

So Krimsa - what is a christain?

You continue to site all these examples of christains - so tell me what a christain is?

That may be, that doesnt discredit His information. Its the book I am most interested in.