Re: ~~The Truth About Lies.~~

On 2008-10-03, adman <grat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2008-10-03, adman <grat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no
God.

Exactly what trouble does this cause? In what way is it different
than
the trouble caused by creationists who hijack science's conectps and
ideas and distort them into an effort to say there is a God?

Several authors have made millions exploiting science with a
dishonest agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience.

Who, precisely? In what sense is their agenda dishonest?

Going as far as to say
our very Christian forefathers in America did not believe in God.

The Christian founders were of course Christians. There were founders
who were not. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian
nation, but rather a nation conceived of the idea that a wall of
separation should exist between government and religion.

Some of
them did not. But in actuality what the forefathers efforts were was
to ensure government would not establish or hinder religion. The
wall of separation of church and state did not exist until SC
Justice Black's decision in 1948.

Of course it did. It's established in the Bill of Rights, and was
clearly in mind by the founders.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man & his god, that he owes account to none other
for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of
government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate
with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation
between church and state."

Your quote is from a letter Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association in 1802. It is not how the final constitution looked.

Dear Lord.

Jefferson is _quoting_ the language of the First Amendment. Here, in
case you've forgotten:

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances." (emphasis added)

It's precisely the wording in the Constitution. That was its intent.

The Supreme Court recognized the importance of Jefferson's observations.
In Reynolds v. U.S, the court wrote:

"Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by
a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113),
took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a
matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes
account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the
legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not
opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of
the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of
separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression
of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of
conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress
of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural
rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his
social duties.' COMING AS THIS DOES FROM AN ACKNOWLEDGED LEADER
OF THE ADVOCATES OF THE MEASURE, IT MAY BE ACCEPTED ALMOST AS
AN AUTHORITATIVE DECLARATION OF THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE
AMENDMENT THUS SECURED."

In other words, the court held that the First Amendment means exactly
what Jefferson said that it meant: that a wall of separation exists between
church and state.

James Madison, not Jefferson, was the principal drafter.

Madison, who wrote:

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the
error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning
Christians; as well as in the corrup hearts of persecuting
usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and
civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence
is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony,
and to political prosperity."

IOW Jefferson's version was not used in the Constitution but Madison's was.
The fact is, the wall-of-seperation idea was latter rammed into the
constitution with admendment by Black over catholic school busses.

Actually, the entire point was that it wasn't Catholic school busses: they
were public school busses. It is interesting that the New Jersey law which
_allowed_ payment for transportation of students to private religious schools
was _actually held to be constitutional_ in their decision. Black, writing
for the majority in a 5-4 decision:

This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their
duty under state compulsory education laws, send their children
to a religious rather than a public school if the school meets
the secular educational requirements which the state has power
to impose. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 ,
45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R. 468. It appears that these parochial
schools meet New Jersey's requirements. The State contributes no
money to the schools. It does not support them. Its legislation,
as applied, does no more than provide a general program to help
parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely
and expeditiously to and from accredited schools.

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and
state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not
approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it
here.

The bit that you see quoted by Black all the time is this bit, which
did shape a great many subsequent cases:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment
means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government
can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one
religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over
another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or
to remain away from church against his will or force him to
profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can
be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing
religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be
levied to support any religious activities or institutions,
whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt
to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal
Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs
of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the
words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion
by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at
page 164.

THIS was the real version as used in the constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

My position is America has always has a history of religious tollerence. It
is in our constitution. Some forms of atheistism seek to curtail that
freedom via the misuse of the theory of evolution.

Your position is idiotic. Moronic. Ignorant. Stupid. I could go on
if you like.

This is the same Justice Black that "filibustered an
anti-lynching bill" and was a member of the KKK.(1). Is there any
wonder why such a lie regarding church and government separation
would come about? A mistake with many ramifications to say the
least. The date is noteworthy also, but that is another thread.

I would place his decision in Korematsu v. United States as perhaps
the more profoundly disturbing, esp. in light of recent events.

IMO, Black made many bad decisions and will go down in history as an example
how the decisions of one person can effect many for generations.

He certainly isn't without controversy.

Yours is another example of his bad decisions

Skimming over the rather extensive list of achievements of Black on
Wikipedia, we have a picture of a man with many ideas which certainly
influenced the Supreme Court to this very day.

Black supported a literalist view of the Constitution, to a degree
that caused him to labeled as a "strict constructionist". He chided
his colleagues for legislating from the bench. He opposed the idea of
justices as social engineers. He opposed the abolishment of capital
punishment. He didn't believe in a Constitutional right to privacy.
He voted with the unamimous court in striking down segregation in
Brown v. Board of Education, but of course voted with the majority in
Korematsu v. U.S. He supported free speech, saying that the First
Amendment is "wholly 'beyond the reach' of federal power to abridge",
but didn't believe that these rights applied to actions such as the
kind of protests which occurred during the civil rights movement and
the Vietnam War. He didn't believe that national security provided
a context to abridge the First Amendment either. He voted with the
majority in Miranda v. Arizona, and authored Gideon v. Wainwright, which
provides for attorneys for defendants who cannot afford counsel.

There was rather a lot of good and bad in his career. I think that
certainly he was involved with many of the landmark cases of the last
century, and had a lasting influence on the court. Claiming however
that this "one man" influenced generations is perhaps a bit too strong:
no decision of the court is issued without a majority of the Justices
agreeing.

The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science
with their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment,
even going as far as the reporting of junk science as fact.

One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory.
For Big Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and
chemistry would have to be in place before the Big Bang.

No.

You believe these laws existed outside of time and space?

No. I don't believe that for the Big Bang to take place, the law of
physics, mathematics, and chemistry would have to be in place. In fact,
such a claim is silly. Laws aren't objects: they are generalizations
that are based upon empirical observations. They don't generate
anything, they are observations of systems.


And even then, the singularity
defies known laws of physics.

Which isn't at all surprising.

Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
guess.

It isn't a guess. It's a scientific model used to help us understand
what we observe. We observe that the universe is expanding. We
observe the Cosmic Background Radiation. We observe the relative
abundance of light elements. We observe time dialation in the light
curves of supernovas.
All these features are explained by Big Bang cosmology.

Then the explanations are unproven until big bang is proven

There is no "proof" in science.

That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact.
Thereby doing their brand of social engineering to change public
opinion and to remove humanity's heart away from God and the
concepts of God.

In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws, this
would mean without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of
time and space as we know it.

I'm confused. Here you seem to say that the Big Bang _did_ happen,
it's just that God must have done it. Before, you were mocking the
idea that
it happened. Which is it?

I set conditions on BigBang being a reality. Pay attention.

Why should we accept your conditions? After all, you are to all
appearances a complete dolt.

Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of
physics and mathematics discovered so far in order for big bang to
have happened in the first place. Someone or Something had to create
the matter that caused big bang.(that is assuming big bang is indeed
how the universe came about)

The Prime Mover argument has been dead for centuries.

Not to me.

Yes, but you are a complete dolt.

If big bang happened, then a force we do not understand caused
it.

Well, I suspect that your car moves by a force that you do not understand,
so perhaps that isn't so amazing.

The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts,
traditions, and all the other information handed down to us for
thousands of years as ignorant superstition.

Shrug. A great deal of it is.

By scientific standards?

Yes. And others, of course.

That is amusing since science is an incomplete body of work.

It's stupid to pretend that if we don't know everything, we don't know
anything.

Can ALL that information be wrong?

Yes, absolutely.

Defies logic.

On the contrary. Logic describes "argumentum ad populum" as a fallacy.
Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't mean that
it logically follows that it is true.

Perhaps a peek at the study of dead and ancient languages would
illuminate things for you

I've done more than peek. I'm rather interested in ancient civilizations,
particularly the Maya and ancient Egyptians.

Doubtful to say
the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of
truth?

If it is, you probably should be able to demonstrate that it is.
Would you like to try?

God said "In the Begining" He created everything. And everything is here.

That's a pretty feeble try.

I'll counter with this one.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a
lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad
move."

Is
ALL that information inaccurate? Yes, if you believe the atheists
view point. But they are sinking their own canoe. No lie has ever
survived in history.

Oh please.

One look at Hitler's murderous rampage, or the KKK's rein hate is
recent evidence of that fact. Hatred through out history has come
and gone,

It's never gone.

Hitler's specific lie is gone.

I'm left wondering what planet you live upon. On Planet Earth, we
still have anti-Semitism. Oh, and genocide too.

But you are correct. The evil is never gone.


yet the concepts of love, kindness and God still survives.

Well, the first two anyway.

The three are one in the same.

No. They aren't. If they were, the godly would be more kind and loving.

There is a reason
for that. Truth will prevail. It is really that simple.

Eventually real science will no longer allow itself to be used as a
pawn between those that hate God and those that love God. At that
point, the lie of atheism will disappear just as all lies throughout
history have disappeared.

If I were a real scientist,

You'd know what you were talking about?

Snide remarks is all you got left?

No, I have considerably more than that. But if you put the ball on the tee,
I'll probably take a swing or two.

with a real desire for the betterment of mankind
through my work, then I would be appalled at how my work has been
distorted and used by those with an agenda to destroy the concept of
God; to destroy the teachings that have been handed down for
thousands of years regarding God; and to destroy an entire planets
way of life that has continued for thousands of years.

Frankly, I suspect that destroying the concept of God would be for the
betterment of mankind. Here's an idea: as humans, we are responsible
for each other. We don't need a cosmic scorekeeper to threaten us
with punishment or give us rewards.

That is an opinion, not a fact.

Never said it wasn't.

Mark

.

Relevant Pages

  • Darwins god
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... Atran has been struggling with questions about religion ever ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Religion and evolution
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... about religion ever since - why he himself no longer believes in God ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Religion and evolution
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... about religion ever since - why he himself no longer believes in God ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • The Science of Belief
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... about religion ever since - why he himself no longer believes in God ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine
    ... Religion. ... opinion might be to mine. ... I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. ... called Gentiles, or Mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. ...
    (soc.rights.human)
Loading