Merry Christmas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alan Browne
  • Start date Start date
William said:
Stalin == atheist

Unfair! - these guys may have been atheists, but it had nothing to do with
their wars....that's like me blaming Hitler's holocaust on his
religion.....Sure, he might have believed in God, but it had nothing to do
with his murdering 6 million Jews.....He didn't kill them for religious
reasons. And Stalin didn't murder religious people because he was an
atheist, either.....He was just a paranoid megalomaniac, and his atheism had
nothing to do with it......
Click to expand...

I disagree (obviously). Their atheism was at the core of their
world-view. In each case their goal was to establish their government by
violently excising religion. That is equivalent to killing people for
religious reasons (in this case the religion of atheism).
 
Cynicor said:
So back to Bush... I don't see any of those traits in the man. Is it
possible that he's just giving lip service to faith?
Click to expand...

Hey, how 'bout not back to Bush, or God, or Dog, or anything for a while?

How 'bout photography??
 
In a country that has a fundamental separation of Church and state, it
is a bit irksome (at least) when Bush is on the record as saying:

"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas,
had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative
eroding the important bridge between church and state." GWB

Bush makes a lot of references to God in his speeches.

The US Supreme Court has historically been very conservative in its
interpretation of the establishment clause. In great part to avoid the
influence of any religion on government which was a plaguing problem in
Europe for the last 1000 years.

BTW: I have no "anti-religious" bias. OTOH, I don't have a moment of
patience for those who assert creationism as being truth.

What does George believe? Evolution or creationism?

Cheers,
Alan.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment reads, in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This does not say anythign about the President, or his religiosity. It
specifically prohibits *Congress* from making certain laws.
The founding fathers didn't have "the influence of any religion on
government which was a plaguing problem in Europe for the last 1000
years" in mind, the had the fact that the Church of England was in
fact the state religion of England, and membership was required for
most poisitions of responsibility. (This isn't conjecture; there are
many contempary writings that very explicitely spell out the reasons
for each part of the Constitution.)
 
Bill said:
The First Amendment reads, in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This does not say anythign about the President, or his religiosity. It
specifically prohibits *Congress* from making certain laws.
The founding fathers didn't have "the influence of any religion on
government which was a plaguing problem in Europe for the last 1000
years" in mind, the had the fact that the Church of England was in
fact the state religion of England, and membership was required for
most poisitions of responsibility.
Click to expand...

1) I suggest then that you read up on the origins of the Church of
England, aka, the Anglican Church, aka Episcopal. It, despite splitting
from the Catholic Church, remains almost entirely conformal to it in
terms of doctrine and considers itself to be "Catholic" but non-papal.
(if you ever attend a high church Sunday service you will not see much
difference from a Catholic mass.)

2) The crown (England) is the "Defender of the Faith" (above) as granted
by Pope Leo X to that good ole boy Henry VIII, who split the Church of
England from the Roman Catholic Chursh, thereby founding the Anglican
Church. Today, the crown remains "Defender of the Faith". This causes
some red faces as the "faith" in question is the Catholic faith, yet the
Brit crown "protects" the Church of England.

3) So, you can say it any way you like but the 1st ammendment writers
were concerned with any hold that religion might have on the government,
and the origins of that are rooted in the creation of the Anglican
Church from the Catholic Church. And the Catholic Church was entirely
embedded in most European governments for over 1000 years at the time.

As to Bush and "faith based" initiatives, any trouble that might arise
would be via funding. If any FBi uses federal $ for purposes related to
religion (instead of or in addition to social purposes) then Congress
(who authorize the budget by law) will be in conflict with the EC.
There are no loopholes here. Part of the FB i reads: "... through ....
legislation, Federal and private funding," and section 2e and 2f of the
FBi provide clear instruction wrt the Establishment clause.

Cheers,
Alan
 
Mark² said:
Right.
If the "story of creation" came to Moses or other early writers, they would
have to write it using terms they understood. Suppose an eon passed before
your eyes in a matter of moments. How would you describe what you saw? How
would you describe it in the language of thousands of years ago? You most
definitely would NOT have the terminology of describe it in terms that are
scientifically used today. You'd tell a story of it. You'd describe it in
human terms. I believe the Genesis account is just that. -A description of
the birth of the universe, earth, etc. And I agree...that the description
follows a clear path from simplicity to complexity. Chaos...to order.
Sound familiar, scientists?
Click to expand...

These analogy based explanation lack the one key element of science:
evidence.
In science you can do two basic things:
Observe and prove. Experiment and prove.

If you don't have evidence, then it simply remains a theory. It is
valid in science to prove that something "isn't" as well as something
"is" as long as you have the data. This is why scientists can't
"disprove" the String Theory or the existence of God.

Scientists don't go around insisting that God does not exist (since they
can't prove he does not exist) but religious nuts go around insisting
God exists in the absense of proof. That's called faith.

Nobody knows what happened before the big bang or even in the slimmest
moments as it began. Maybe it was the result of a big crunch. Maybe it
was there "forever" and suddenly burst out. Maybe God "made it happen".

But if you don't have the proof, existance of God remains (at best) a posit.

But to link this to oral histories such as Genesis while ignoring
different human religious oral histories is foolish at best.

To say Fiat Lux = Big bang is convenient at best. Scientists have very
good theories to support BB and observations to support the BB theory.
It is always undergoing review, change and improvement. (Something most
religions avoid).

Another key point is that science has evolved. From the time that
amateur scientists began practicing technological arts based on
observation of nature, science began. (These first scientists and
technologists were the early hunters and farmers). Then came the
philosophers who discovered more disciplined thought processes (mainly
the early Greeks). Seek truth.

Religion has evolved as well. Sometimes for the good, othertimes, well,
the Crusades and witch burnings recall a negative side. But religion
has never "proven" the existance of God and has a vested interest in not
proving his non-existence.

If science could prove or disprove God's existence, it would. But it
would have the evidence to do so.

In the meantime science is content to say "we don't know". Truth.

Religion (Judeo-Christian) insists that God exists. Faith.

You can have all the faith you like. Doesn't do a thing for me without
backup.

Cheers,
Alan
 
Ron said:
Alan Browne wrote:
Yes, but then so did JFK, and George Washington, and Abe Lincoln.

As for the last question, why does that matter to you?
Click to expand...

It matters to everyone. Whenever faith and government mix, bloodshed
and injustice invariably follow.
Some of us believe in both.
Click to expand...

Faith is faith.

Cheers,
Alan
 
Mark² said:
I believe in what I'd call theistic evolution.
I think God is in charge, but see no reason why his means of creation would
have to be incompatible with scientific principles. The Bible's reference
to time is very loose and uses language devices of the day, and should not
be taken like clockwork. I don't have a problem at all with the concept of
evolution somehow being incompatible with God.
Click to expand...

That is the mainstream feeling.

What concerns many are the Christians who interpret the Bible literally
as "God's word" and that way of life and law should derive from a
literal interpretation of the bible. This includes belief in the end of
the world and a new heaven and earth (Big Crunch/Big Bang!).

And of course Islam makes no distinction between government and religion.

Cheers,
Alan
 
Mark² said:
He has said "God speaks to me", but that is quite different. The two sound
similar when not on a microphone, and I note that the "supposed quote" was
merely something someone "overheard".
Click to expand...

Whether "to" or "through" these are extraordinary statements from a head
of state of a secular nation whose constitution clearly wishes
government and religion remain quite separate.

(As did Jesus Christ, by the way).
 
Mark² said:
God doesn't need money, and when Bill Gates comes to the "Pearly Gates" his
money won't matter.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's why Gates is giving so much aid to so many causes...

"just in case" (the ultimate "code patch").

Cheers,
Alan
 
Ron said:
Yes. And to complicate things, in US schools, spelling seems to be
taught by sound of the word, and such things as 'there' 'they're',
and
'their', 'know' and 'no', 'knew' and 'new', 'allowed' and 'aloud'
are
all used interchangeably. It makes reading VERY difficult for those
of us who didn't learn to read that way.
I have a long list compiled from reading fanfiction of such spelling
irregularities. Yes, English is a VERY hard language to learn to
use
well, and spelling is very important if meaning is to be maintained.
One can cause great confusion by using 'meat', rather than 'meet',
for
instance.
Click to expand...

Meat me at the corner store:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/42/74038224_b140e48cfb_o.jpg
 
Frank ess said:
Meat me at the corner store:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/42/74038224_b140e48cfb_o.jpg
Click to expand...

In pertinance to this group, I particularly like the ones that say
"lens flair" :^) ("flare" is the proper term - "flair" denotes
stylishness or originality, or an ability or aptitude for doing
something)

Almost makes me grit my teeth every time one of the obviously
knowledgable (otherwise) people who use it that way do so.

However, my overall main pet peeve in this manner is the people who
think that pluralizing words is done by adding an apostrophe-s to them.
Apostrophe-s ("'s") is almost exclusively used for two circumstances -
to denote a contraction, usually of the word "is" ("it's", "that's",
etc.), and to denote possession ("John's", "Ralph's", "The Public's",
etc.) NOT to pluralize ("bird house's for sale", "usenet NG's", "data
file's", "Anchor's Aweigh", etc.).

I see so many signs put up by supposedly professional business people
with this blatant error that it makes me wonder if anyone at all ever
proofreads (or better yet, has someone else proofread) their
advertising copy. All they would have to do is substitute the word
"is" for the "'s" in their copy to determine if it is actually sensible
(and correct) to use the contracted form.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 
Ken said:
ess
Click to expand...


el snippo
In pertinance to this group, I particularly like the ones that say
"lens flair" :^) ("flare" is the proper term - "flair" denotes
stylishness or originality, or an ability or aptitude for doing
something)

Almost makes me grit my teeth every time one of the obviously
knowledgable (otherwise) people who use it that way do so.

However, my overall main pet peeve in this manner is the people who
think that pluralizing words is done by adding an apostrophe-s to
them. Apostrophe-s ("'s") is almost exclusively used for two
circumstances - to denote a contraction, usually of the word "is"
("it's", "that's", etc.), and to denote possession ("John's",
"Ralph's", "The Public's", etc.) NOT to pluralize ("bird house's
for
sale", "usenet NG's", "data file's", "Anchor's Aweigh", etc.).

I see so many signs put up by supposedly professional business
people
with this blatant error that it makes me wonder if anyone at all
ever
proofreads (or better yet, has someone else proofread) their
advertising copy. All they would have to do is substitute the word
"is" for the "'s" in their copy to determine if it is actually
sensible (and correct) to use the contracted form.
Click to expand...

http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
 
William said:
Stalin == atheist

Unfair! - these guys may have been atheists, but it had nothing to do with
their wars....that's like me blaming Hitler's holocaust on his
religion.....Sure, he might have believed in God, but it had nothing to do
with his murdering 6 million Jews.....He didn't kill them for religious
reasons. And Stalin didn't murder religious people because he was an
atheist, either.....He was just a paranoid megalomaniac, and his atheism had
nothing to do with it......
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence to support that? Surely you don't think Hitler
just had all those Jews killed because he didn't like the 'death grip
they had on European economy'. And perhaps his paranoid megalomania had
something to do with Stalin being an atheist. Do we really know?
 
Ken said:
In pertinance to this group, I particularly like the ones that say
"lens flair" :^) ("flare" is the proper term - "flair" denotes
stylishness or originality, or an ability or aptitude for doing
something)

Almost makes me grit my teeth every time one of the obviously
knowledgable (otherwise) people who use it that way do so.

However, my overall main pet peeve in this manner is the people who
think that pluralizing words is done by adding an apostrophe-s to them.
Apostrophe-s ("'s") is almost exclusively used for two circumstances -
to denote a contraction, usually of the word "is" ("it's", "that's",
etc.), and to denote possession ("John's", "Ralph's", "The Public's",
etc.) NOT to pluralize ("bird house's for sale", "usenet NG's", "data
file's", "Anchor's Aweigh", etc.).

I see so many signs put up by supposedly professional business people
with this blatant error that it makes me wonder if anyone at all ever
proofreads (or better yet, has someone else proofread) their
advertising copy. All they would have to do is substitute the word
"is" for the "'s" in their copy to determine if it is actually sensible
(and correct) to use the contracted form.
Click to expand...
Yes, very true. I read a fanfiction story in which the author seemed to
have gotten the impression that every plural had to have apostrophe
's'. Every time I found one, I had to fix it before I could go on. It
took me ages to read the story. It seems that many people are really
good story-tellers, but very bad at spelling. At a minimum, they should
run their stories through a spell checking program to prevent things
like 'teh' Sadly, some (many) don't.
 
Mark² said:
Actually, according to the Bible, God won't be looking at his deeds at all.
He'll be looking at his relationship with God (or lack of). Deeds are
great, but apparently not the end-all, be-all in God's view. I should add,
of course, that deeds often reflect the heart and the relationship...but
even a complete ass can perform "good deeds." Heck, even T.O. of the Dallas
Cowboys has shown up at charity events... :)
Click to expand...

While good works, alone, won't do the job, they don't hurt. It is
possible to be a good person, and to be rich. I recall M. Dell funding
insurance for uninsured children in central Texas while the legislature
debated their program to death. That has to go on the plus side of the
ledger.
 
Cynicor said:
So back to Bush... I don't see any of those traits in the man. Is it
possible that he's just giving lip service to faith?
Click to expand...

Perhaps that is because you have never met the man, spent time with him,
or observed him about his daily business. Perhaps you could ask some of
his neighbors, or friends, or maybe the people who work in the White
House. I am sure they could give you some insight.
 
Alan said:
These analogy based explanation lack the one key element of science:
evidence.
In science you can do two basic things:
Observe and prove. Experiment and prove.

If you don't have evidence, then it simply remains a theory. It is
valid in science to prove that something "isn't" as well as something
"is" as long as you have the data. This is why scientists can't
"disprove" the String Theory or the existence of God.

Scientists don't go around insisting that God does not exist (since
they can't prove he does not exist) but religious nuts go around
insisting God exists in the absense of proof. That's called faith.

Nobody knows what happened before the big bang or even in the slimmest
moments as it began. Maybe it was the result of a big crunch. Maybe
it was there "forever" and suddenly burst out. Maybe God "made it
happen".
But if you don't have the proof, existance of God remains (at best) a
posit.
Click to expand...

The difficulty comes because the "proof" of God doesn't come in a
scientifically measurable form.
There will always be that disparity, so if the scientist insists that God
follow this formula, you may simply be ensuring yourself that you miss it.

Believe me when I say how I wish it could be proven "scientifically" Alan.
I struggle with the propensity to demand scientific proof, and you're right
that faith becomes a clear factor. In the eyes of science, faith seems
foolish, and to those of us who value scientific thinking, this becomes a
problem. I haven't solved that problem even in my own thinking, so I really
do understand your point. I am convinced, though, that there is more to
existence than can be measured. I guess that in itself is a kind of faith,
regardless of whether I attribute that to God...but there it is. Not all
things can be logically explained. I think that's the ultimate
disparity...since the basic principle of science is that ALL things have a
coherant explanation...and that for those areas we don't understand, it's
merely because we haven't yet identified the logical explanation. I am
convinced that there are some areas that are, and will remain, beyond the
reach of scientific explanation. -Not because they are just too difficult
to get at, but because their very nature is at odds with scientific
laws/thoeries, etc. The concept of ultimate "beginning" will
never...ever...be explained. It is literally impossible to comprehend the
idea that there was ALWAYS matter of some kind. You can't comprehend it,
because it simply doesn't make scientific sense, and it NEVER will. At some
point, you bump up against that. Does this automatically point to a deity?
No. But...it the point at which science also falls apart. There will NEVER
be an explanation that accounts for the timeless existence of matter. -What
came before the big bang? How did that get there? What came before that?
How did that get there? What started it all? And what started the stuff
that started it all. This is doomed to being a forever-imponderable, and is
an example of a concept that will never be explained by science...or
religion.
 
Alan said:
Whether "to" or "through" these are extraordinary statements from a
head of state of a secular nation whose constitution clearly wishes
government and religion remain quite separate.

(As did Jesus Christ, by the way).
Click to expand...

Tell that to the founding fathers.
They were clearly nuts...if it's nuts to believe you are led by God.
 
Back
Top