Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
34 online now:
GDR, Percy (Admin), ringo (3 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Separation of church and state
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 256 of 313 (581658)
09-16-2010 7:43 PM


Combined response
This covers messages 220, 223, 225, 227, 228, 229, 236, 239, and 241.

220

Theodoric writes:

Wow take a quote out of context much. This is the full quote.

quote:
In summary, Madison's education at Princeton furnished him, from the wisdom of Greece and Rome, a lifelong realism about human nature, a comprehensive concept of political obligation, and an instinctive admiration of patience, prudence, and moderation. From the Christian tradition, he inherited a sense of the prime importance of conscience, a strict personal morality, an understanding of human dignity as well as depravity, and a conviction that vital religion could contribute importantly to the general welfare. From Locke, he learned that to be fully human, men had to be free, and that to be free, they had in some way to take part in their government' (Ketcham 1994, 50).

This is not about "the founders". It is an observation made in a biography of James Madison.

And, in knowing some history about the rest of the founders, I made the observation that that paragraph generally applies to most all of the founders. I know you’ll demand proof, but it’s just my observation. I don’t think you can prove it wrong.

This is the opinions of a biographer writing in 1990 about JAMES MADISON. More importantly, it says nothing about how he felt about the separation of church and state.

When he said “vital religion could contribute importantly to the general welfare”, he said plenty about separation of church and state.

In other words you will ignore all evidence and not present any. When the world is against you it usually means you are the one that is wrong. We have plenty of fundies on this board. Their silence in supporting you should speak volumes.

The world is against me? You think I’m the only one with the views I’ve forwarded in this thread? Your implication that my views are not common speaks volumes.

223

subbie writes:

There are no atheistic teachings in public schools. Public schools teach science, not atheism. They are not the same, no matter how many times you or any others of your ilk repeat the lie.

And no matter how much evidence I show you. For those who constantly demand evidence, it’s amazing how quickly they dismiss clear evidence once they see it.

If you feel that science is anti religion simply because it fails to provide support for, and actually undermines many of the claims of, religion, the fault is with religion, not science. Science is based on evidence. If science doesn't support religion, it's because the evidence is against it.

No, it’s because church and state have been separated, and science is somewhat dull and boring unless it’s providing intellectual fulfillment for atheism.

225

crashfrog writes:

marc9000 writes:

There is clear evidence that science can, and has, been used by politicians and special interests to forward agendas that are perfectly comparable to any religious dogmatism. Global warming is an example, it’s obviously more than a disinterested search for truth when we see destruction of data and attempts to prevent facts (and the facts of the coverup) from being published in leading journals.

This is false. Anthropogenic global warming is sound science; there have not ever been any attempts to "destroy data" or manipulate the publishing of facts except by global warming deniers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...c_Research_Unit_email_controversy

It’s a complicated situation, but to dismiss it as a lie by “global warming deniers” shows an obvious lack of interest in what the truth is.

Part of the reason that global warming continues unabated is that governments don't have billions of dollars invested in it; they have billions of dollars invested in the production, exportation, exploration for, and consumption of greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels.

But there are individuals in the scientific community (with money invested in them) who want political control of it all. It will be the main consultant in all the liberty destroying rules and regulations to cool the planet back down again. Al Gores carbon credit trading will be an important part of it, making him millions. (I assume Al’s still interested – what’s he been up to recently that caused Tipper to throw dishes and lamps at him, I can’t remember)

marc9000 writes:

That homosexuals should not marry is basic to much of Christianity.

Funny that it's so "basic", yet the words "homosexuals shall not marry" don't appear anywhere in the Bible.

The words against homosexuality in the Bible are a lot stronger than that.

Origin of life isn't taught in any school, public or private, for the very simple reason that there remains precious little to teach. It's an emerging field of research, not yet a field with robust findings to be communicated to schoolchildren.

And yet when I borrowed my friend’s son’s biology textbook a few months ago, I found that it had plenty to teach. It gushed all over Darwin, his thinking processes, why he searched for what he did, yet left off any references to his personal problems (the death of his young daughter) to inspire him to search for intellectual fulfillment in atheism.

I made a note of the first paragraph of chapter 17;

quote:
The history of life on earth is filled with mystery, life and death struggles, and bizarre plants and animals as amazing as any mythological creatures. Studying life’s history is one of the most fascinating and challenging parts of biology, and researchers go about it in several different ways. One technique is to read the pieces of the story that are “written” in ancient rocks……….

You may call that “precious little to teach”, but there’s no shortage of inspiration for students to chuckle at “mythological creatures” (that they may have heard about in Sunday School) and to speculate on all the unguided naturalism that was going on during all those life and death struggles for millions of years.

marc9000 writes:

The founding fathers would call them “tyrants”

.

Except that the founding fathers were elites! They believed in the merit of expertise, in the notion that one's hard work and perspicacity in a field of inquiry was something to be respected, not something to be resented.

Something to be respected, not something to be forced on others. If society changes because of recently acquired expertise, it should change because of liberty in its acceptance, not mandates like limits on types and usages of certain fuels, outlawing some appliances, artificially promoting others, maintenance requirements on private vehicles, etc. This type of big government can't help but be loaded with corruption.

They cherished learning. Your notion that the founding fathers were just Sarah Palin-style Real Murikans who hated learning and expertise is belied by the fact that the founding fathers only gave the vote to white male landowners. Not exactly the actions of a group of people deathly afraid of the notion of being ruled by a "group of elites."

You’re comparing landowners in a society to politically established bureaucrats?

Typically for you, you've ignored that they used the word "tyrant" most frequently to refer to the kings who asserted divine right of rule as described in the Bible, and the priests and churches that supported them in their assertions.

How is that different from scientists who assert the divine right of rule described by themselves to save the planet from global warming? Kings who asserted divine right of rule as described by the Bible didn’t care what the population thought, scientists who assert the divine right of rule as described by global warming assertions don’t care what the population thinks. If the population doesn’t agree with either of them, what’s the difference, in determining their detriment to liberty?

marc9000 writes:

The US constitution doesn’t recognize education in any way, shape or form.

Well, except for the part where they only allowed those to vote who could be assumed to be educated - wealthy, white male landowners.

Haha – everyone who owned land back then was educated and wealthy? Who assumes that? Besides you?

marc9000 writes:

It’s taught in schools, it’s publically established, it’s not separated from state.

Because it's a fact, and the purpose of public school education is to prepare citizens for democracy by educating them in what is factual. That's an Enlightenment notion that dates back to - when else? - the thoughts of the founding fathers and their influences.

Kings of the past claimed their interpretation of the Bible was fact.

227

crashfrog writes:

marc9000 writes:

The US foundings represent a fear of "domestic faction and insurrection".

Right. By people like you. Did you not get that when you read the Federalist Papers? That you are who the founders were most afraid of: ignorant, religious demagogues, clamoring for religious authoritarian rule?

Read Federalist paper 10 for the first time. Near the beginning, it refers to instability, injustice, and confusion – kind of reminds you of global warming fanaticism, doesn’t it?

quote:
….prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

“Public engagements”, not just religion.

quote:
A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.

Global warming easily falls under “many other points”.

quote:
A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

An environmental interest? A scientific interest? An Al Gore interest in making millions by trading in carbon credits?

marc9000 writes:

So you think these forums represent the population at large?

No, I think they represent objective, verifiable fact.

Wow, major breakthrough here. The founders were talking about YOU. If the founders asked a king in their day if he thought his denomination represented the population at large, he would have answered just like you did, word for word.

228

Theodoric writes:

marc9000 writes:

Global warming is an example, it’s obviously more than a disinterested search for truth when we see destruction of data and attempts to prevent facts (and the facts of the coverup) from being published in leading journals.

You are great with assertions, but absolutely terrible on evidence. How about trying to supply some evidence for these wild ass assertions.

The global warming controversy is news of the day. Why don’t you use a search engine and check it out for yourself, rather than ask me for sources so you can simply dismiss them as “fundie” sites? It’s difficult to have a discussion with a group who claims 100% ignorance of the subject and demands that I educate them on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/.../The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

229

subbie writes:

marc9000 writes:

I love this place!

Glad you've found a home. Here's hoping you stick around long enough to learn something, although I won't hold my breath.

I’ve learned a lot in the past at other sites concerning the debating tactics of scientism – no real surprises for me here. Claims that I’m completely alone, or in a tiny minority in my position. Claims of complete lack of understanding of my position, even though it’s common in political debate all across the communication spectrum. Claims that science is no more atheistic than “plumbing”, except that plumbers aren’t near as united and passionate about separation of church and state as the scientific community is. Plumbers don’t seem to constantly refer to “myths” of the past, either.

236

Dr Adequate writes:

May I take it that, as you are a religious conservative, you are using the term "special rights" to mean "exactly the same rights as heterosexuals already have"?

No, not at all. Homosexuals already have exactly the same rights as single heterosexuals.

239

Hyroglyphx writes:

Courts ARE a part of secular society, so in a sense that should be the only arbiter. People's religious views do play a part in how one views morality, but we shouldn't be using the bible as a template. I trust that you wouldn't appreciate living under Shari'a law, and I assume you wouldn't like living under the Halacha either.

Shari’s law and the Halacha didn’t have anything to do with US foundings.

All you seem to care about is your own views on morality as being the absolute standard.

I haven’t put fourth my own specific views on morality anywhere in this thread. My promotion of Christianity has been very general, just as general as what was put forth by the founders in their various quotes and writings about the virtues of religion.

What if the shoe was on the other foot, Marc? I don't think you would like it.

The shoe IS on the other foot, and I don’t like it one bit. I don’t like humanism being combined with state. I don’t like future generations being taught, with public money, that abiogenesis is a fact, that life all arose from one common ancestor millions of years ago, therefore life is purposeless and pointless. Powerful humans are the only ones with authority to decide rules and morals.

241

dwise1 writes:

From 1954 to 1956, three bills passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican president:

1954 -- The words "under God" were inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance.
1955 -- The phrase "In God We Trust" was required to be on all our coins and currency.
1956 -- The National Motto since 1782, "E Pluribus Unum", was replaced by "In God We Trust".

Now, the Pledge was written in 1892 and therefore a century after the Founding. Even though its author, Francis Bellamy, was a Baptist minister (and Christian Socialist), he did not include any religious references, including our "One nation indivisible". It is truly ironic that the insertion of a blatantly religious phrase, "under God", divides our nation both in the Pledge and in real life, as the mixing of government and religion always does.

And the origin of that phrase, "In God We Trust", is uncertain, with the earliest known form being found in The Star-Spangled Banner written in 1814, decades after the Founding: "In God is our trust". Laws allowing that phrase to be placed on coins and currency started appearing in 1865 and that phrase had appeared sporadically until the 1955 requirement.

But the National Motto does go back to the Founding and what the Founders had decided upon has been replaced by a new upstart phrase, "In God We Trust".

So, since we have a clear and unambiguous case of a founding principle having been usurped, can we count on marc to support my reactionary cause of restoring the National Motto? And there are also the reactionary causes of restoring the Pledge and our money.

I can’t support you, because the founding principle of “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” was usurped in 1947, and by 1954 - 7 years later - it was recognized that the US could become an atheist nation controlled by science in no time at all. Also, 1954 was one year after the 40 year old scientific hoax, the Piltdown man, was finally exposed. (Piltdown man was accepted science in 1947) The pledge, the coins and currency, and the national motto were reactions by Republicans to the judicial activism of 1947 by Democrats.

No, I'm not going to hold my breath. While on the face of it, those three Republican laws of the mid-1950's do fly in the face of the Establishment Clause, the courts have upheld them by instead citing historical context, deciding that the use of religious terms by government has removed from those terms all religious meaning. Which is exactly what James Madison warned against, that mixing religion with government destroys religion. Similarly, putting religious references on filthy lucre (AKA money, as in 1 Timothy 3:3) has always struck me as going against what the NT says concerning God and money. Indeed, President Theodore Roosevelt was also opposed to putting "In God We Trust" on money because he considered it sacrilegious.

So I guess we can take some small comfort in knowing that those religious attempts of the mid-1950's have instead had an opposite effect.

Then why do you want to take those religion destroying things away? Because you suspect that many, including myself, believe that they’ve been good for Christianity and morality and production in the US?


Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 8:07 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 260 by subbie, posted 09-16-2010 8:45 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 262 by Theodoric, posted 09-16-2010 9:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 257 of 313 (581660)
09-16-2010 7:46 PM


Combined response #2
This covers messages 248, 249, 251, and 252.

248

crashfrog writes:

marc9000 writes:

The name of the game at these types of forums seems to be to discourage/stop a creationist from posting.

I don't understand why you think we would want to play that, or even how we possibly could. Short of outright banning for rules infractions, we have no way to make anybody stop posting.

The attempts are to overwhelm, to make a disengagement by a creationist look like a “victory” for the humanists.

And if creationists find it discouraging when trained biological scientists aren't immediately convinced by the arguments the creationist heard in church last week, maybe they should take it upon themselves to educate themselves in biology before they try to stump us.

What does biology have to do with separation of church and state? I don’t think it has a thing in the world to do with it, unless biology has become so atheistic that it has become an opposition to the phrase in the Declaration “endowed by their creator…” . If the scientific community thinks it has, it’s a clear indicator of the “faction” status that the scientific community has attained to.

And if we prevent all the creationists from posting - who do we have to talk to? I think you really need to stop and rethink this whole notion.

It’s not an attempt to completely prevent creationists from posting (I didn’t use the word “prevent”) it’s to allow them a start, then stop them before they get too far.

I can completely understand a group of like minded thinkers desiring to have a discussion with one of a different view, and it could be as good of a discussion as any one-on-one. But that never happens – the group always gets emotional, and puts pressure on the lone poster in ways not related to the topic. Anytime the lone poster asks a question of one of the group, (of something he said, or something he referred to) it almost always gets answered by multiple posters. It shows a lack of confidence in the person at whom the question was directed. That can often relieve the original questionee of the responsibility of answering the question. When there is a group of posters against only one, no one member of the group has much, if any, obligation to the debate. By answering for him, his friend shows that he believes his own answer may be more complete, or forceful than his friend’s answer would be. Then, the person who was originally asked the question won’t answer it in a direct, basic way, he will expound on his friend’s answer from different angle, or a more complex angle, often demanding more proof or sidetracking the issue. As the debate goes on, the burden put on the single poster constantly multiplies. A lone poster often can’t help engaging in some avoidance. He has to sort out what is relevant to the debate, and avoid being side tracked, as can easily happen in a subjective discussion, with emotion involved. If it’s sidetracked he’ll get the blame from multiple angles. If he gets into complications in proving where the sidetracking originated, it will snowball and multiply even further. (we saw that here with all the fuss about “state” and “foreign countries”). The multiplication that constantly happens simply gets too big for any one person to keep up with. It's common sense that it wears one down to oppose 10 or more people - 10 different thought processes. These constant demands that I get for “proof” are obviously demands for links, which are immediately labeled as “fundie” sites, no matter what they say or who they are. The forum rules here seem to encourage an avoidance of links – they encourage a poster putting their position in their own words. And as we see often, if a discussion gets too far off topic, it gets closed, as this one did. In that case, the admin asked for objections to closing the thread. Didn’t get any from the group, did he?

marc9000 writes:

("oooh, that one lasted only three days before he fled", or "amazing, it took us two whole weeks to shake him down", etc)

None of us have ever said anything of the kind. The point is to try to convince creationists not drive them away in retreat.

See above. If evolutionists aren’t trying to drive creationists away, they should know that it’s not honest to answer questions for each other, or demand proof for things that are common knowledge, either in recent news, or common in the controversy being discussed. One of the most common things I see here is a complete pretending of ignorance of the mere existence of my position. (“Everson v Board of Education, what’s that?” or “Global warming is a controversial subject?”) They want me to start at its beginning, to say as much as possible about it, so that they have more detail to use for sidetracking purposes.

Also, (something we’ve seen in this thread multiple times) if I summarize something, I’m accused of not knowing detail about it. It’s beneficial to a lone poster to keep a new angle to the discussion simple, in case it’s responded to from multiple angles from multiple posters. If I go into detail at the beginning, then I can be drawn into endless demands for “proof” and research that no one person could keep up with, even if he never needed to sleep.

As the lone poster here (the one being opposed by a group) I’m obviously responding to 10 or more posts in one evening, and after sorting out what’s relevant, it still requires putting together 5 or 6 posts that cover the general response to the 10 posters, using the reply button, so they all get proper notification that I’ve responded. Almost always, I can’t put them all in consecutively – I can’t get past two or three posts before someone cuts in and shouts about one little thing in one post, they just don’t have the patience to wait and see my complete position of that evening. The reason they do that is twofold, one is to try to distract me as I put together my responses. The other is to make the thread harder to read, to try to confound and confuse what I’m saying. That’s not a very effective way to “convince” me of anything pertaining to the subject, is it?

So I’ve rethought the notion, and find it more convincing than ever. Now I wonder if admin will find these (admittedly long winded) responses to your questions to be off topic. They are, but I think they needed to be said. I’ll do my best to avoid this issue from here on, and get back to topic of the opening post.

This thread is taking too much of my time now, though as I said, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t enjoy it – if non-politically correct searches for truth weren’t important to me. In the next week or two, (depending on the substance I receive to these two posts) I’ll summarize the thread and then disengage.

crashfrog writes:

Honestly. He used the word in a definition you weren't familiar with. It wasn't a trick or a trap. You just made a mistake. Get over it, you're being ridiculous. Nobody is judging you based on the mistakes you make but on your capacity to recognize and correct them.

Do you think all my opponents here are doing a good job of recognizing and correcting their mistakes? Or haven’t they made a single one?

Religion may play a large role in the life of a voter but that doesn't mean that religion plays a role in that voter's government. That's forbidden in the United States under the First Amendment, and you should be thankful that it is, because the first priority of a number of religions is eliminating the competition.

Like the science of abiogenesis eliminiates the competition of Intelligent Design? If only the first amendment took care of that problem....but wait, IT DOES! Today's courts just won't allow it.

Why is it that the clowns who demand the government establish a religion always assume that it's their religion that would be established?

That’s not the topic of this thread. Nowhere have I advocated an establishment of religion, only a promotion similar to what was actually promoted in the US before 1947.

249

crashfrog writes:

Who says Calvinism is the correct Christianity? Are you a Calvinist?

One denomination's general political application of Christianity, that doesn't clash with any specific rituals of other traditional Christian denominations makes the application of correctness irrelevant. It should only be subject to a secular application of common sense.

And let's take a look at Romans 13:

quote:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

The United States was founded in rebellion. The notion that you can use Romans 13 to defend rebellion against God's appointed king is absurdly contrary to a plain reading of the text. I mean did you even look up Romans 13 before you quoted John Calvin? I don't get any sense that you did. Chalk up another instance, I guess, where the atheist knows his Bible better than the Christian.

Did you read the link I provided you with? I don’t get any sense that you did. For someone who’s encouraging me to read thousands of books and travel the world to verity Darwinism, it seems that you would have spent 5 minutes of reading that link. Here’s a paragraph from it that sums it up;

quote:
St. Paul’s command in Romans 13 for Christians to be obedient to government applied only to those that “are orderly and lawfully instituted by God.” Tyrannical government came from Satan, not from God. To obey a tyrant was to rebel against God—“to forsake the Laws of our God, and to continue in our wonted rebellion, by yielding to the ungodly commandments of wicked men.”

marc9000 writes:

The humanist manifestos claim a new knowledge that trumps worldviews of the past.

Exactly. Skepticism in human knowledge necessarily includes skepticism about the knowledge of humans in the past. Why would being old make something more right? That's nonsense.

Because some things never change. Humans still have two arms and two legs today, the same as they did 200 years ago. Tyrants lust for power hasn’t changed. The reasons for and severity of wars hasn’t changed. Human laziness and desire for association with factions hasn’t changed. A lot of things in this world don’t change.

marc9000 writes:

There are no hints anywhere within humanism, scientism, evolutionism, atheism, liberalism that the population at large will have much, if any say in deciding just who the "clear minded men and women" will be.

I can't imagine what you think you're on about. Why would people have to elect people to be clear-minded?

Because clear-mindedness is subjective. Some people think Barrack Obama has a clear mind. (believe it or not) Some people don’t believe that.

Either they're clear-minded or they're not. I guess you're opposed to the notion that people should be intelligent, as well; surely if secular humanists came out against cancer, you'd stand up in support of more cancer.

I might stand up against the use of public money to make rich those who claim they might be able to find a cure for cancer someday. Claims of utopia on earth by science is never as simple as it sounds on the surface.

251

marc9000 writes:

It's this mantra, repeated over and over in spite of the fact that it has been completely demolished, that makes so many people not trust so much of what emanates from the scientific community.

Don't trust it, Marc, read the journals and see for yourself.
People aren't supposed to trust scientists. Scientists don't trust other scientists. The entire community is based on the state nickname of Missouri - the "Show Me" state.
The whole notion of science is that you just don't trust people, you look at their data and their methodologies to see if they did it right.

Give me a break, many militant atheist posters on these forums are teenagers or 20 somethings – they haven’t had near enough time to research and verify all the material that has built up over 150 years concerning all the detail of Darwinism. They’ve readily accepted what they were told was discovered by Darwin, by Dawkins, by Sagan, many others. It was a faithful acceptance, often accepted at puberty, just when parents get to be thought of as a little too old fashioned. "Evolution, the world is nothing but happenstance, there is no God, there are no rules. Forget those 10 commandments, funtime!"

When the Tikaalik Rosea was discovered in the frozen tundra up north (wherever it was), few if any, in the scientific community had to make the journey there to verify it. They gladly accepted what they were told, because they wanted to.

All throughout human nature (admittedly religions have it as well) there is the common practice of a conclusion being reached at the beginning, then making “evidence” fit that conclusion. It happens throughout science all the time. It happened with Darwin’s studies, it happened with Tikaalik Rosea, it happened with the “big bang”, it happened with global warming, and it happened with abiogenesis. The list goes on and on.

252

subbie writes:

marc9000 writes:

I recently borrowed my friend's son's biology textbook, and saw it with my own eyes. I don't need to prove it to anyone.

Given your poor track record in this thread, you'll forgive me if I'm not particularly inclined to take your word for anything.

You’re forgiven. If you deny that it’s happening, we have little more to discuss. It’s like everyone telling me that the word “separation” is in the first amendment. Sometimes we just have to move on.

Actually, you base your conclusions on what you want them to say. Then, when the vast majority of people who've spent time studying and practicing law come to a different conclusion, you simply dismiss them with a wave of your hand as if calling them names means they are wrong.

“Vast majority”? There are a lot of well known people who have spent a lot of time studying and practicing law that basically agree with me. Former Supreme court justice William Rehnquist is one of them.

Where have I "name called" anywhere in this thread?

Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 8:29 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 261 by subbie, posted 09-16-2010 9:02 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 263 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2010 9:31 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 313 (581662)
09-16-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by marc9000
09-16-2010 7:43 PM


Re: Combined response
It’s a complicated situation, but to dismiss it as a lie by “global warming deniers” shows an obvious lack of interest in what the truth is.

Right, but the truth is that in eight investigations nobody at Hadley-CRU was found to have manipulated data, concealed data, acted against the public's interest, or done anything dishonest at all.

The only person who broke the law was the climate denier who hacked the Hadley-CRU email system and violated the privacy of dozens of research scientists.

But there are individuals in the scientific community (with money invested in them) who want political control of it all.

If people in the scientific community want to have "political control", they leave the scientific community and become politicians. Honestly you sound like a raving moonbat with this conspiracy theory stuff. You've been lied to, Marc; the only conspiracy is the very well-funded one to deny the troubling but valid scientific truth of anthropogenic global warming.

Al Gores carbon credit trading will be an important part of it, making him millions.

He's already a millionaire. "Millions"? Chump change compared to the billions in profits at stake in oil and gas production. Marc, the oil and gas industries produced the most profit last year of any year of any business in all of recorded human history. If you want to follow the money, don't you think that's where it leads? To the enormous amount of money that stands to be lost by oil and gas producers if we reduce our carbon emissions even a tiny bit?

The words against homosexuality in the Bible are a lot stronger than that.

Sure, but it's just against having gay sex, not actually against being gay or being gay married. Isn't that kind of weird?

And yet when I borrowed my friend’s son’s biology textbook a few months ago, I found that it had plenty to teach.

And what, specifically, did it say about origin of life?

It gushed all over Darwin, his thinking processes, why he searched for what he did, yet left off any references to his personal problems (the death of his young daughter) to inspire him to search for intellectual fulfillment in atheism.

Yeah, and I didn't learn in Civics class that J. Edgar Hoover persecuted homosexuals but was a transvestite. Some stuff just isnt going to make it. And anyway you've completely confused the chain of causality, here - Darwin had already developed evolution by natural selection by the time his daughter died. He was hardly on a quest for "fulfilled atheism" - his degree was in theology, remember? And remember how you just made up the part where he supposedly joined some kind of atheist-geologist cabal?

You may call that “precious little to teach”, but there’s no shortage of inspiration for students to chuckle at “mythological creatures” (that they may have heard about in Sunday School)

No, I kind of suspect they're talking about dragons, unicorns, fairies - you know, from mythology. What indication is there that this paragraph is supposedly referring to the Bible? Don't you think kids these days know about mythology? At least from video games?

What "mythological creatures" are you teaching about in Sunday School, anyway? That sounds way cooler than what I had to suffer through.

to speculate on all the unguided naturalism that was going on during all those life and death struggles for millions of years.

I don't even see the word "naturalism" in what you quoted. Pull your tinfoil hat a little tighter, Marc; you're interpreting any statement of scientific inquiry into the natural world as being a secret code for atheism.

Something to be respected, not something to be forced on others.

Marc, you're talking about a group of people that legalized slavery. Right into the US Constitution. (Does your copy not have that?)

You’re comparing landowners in a society to politically established bureaucrats?

No, I'm not, Marc. Not even close. Go back and re-read.

How is that different from scientists who assert the divine right of rule described by themselves to save the planet from global warming?

Provide even one example of a scientist who has asserted a divine right of rule to "save the planet." One example, please. In other words the difference is what you're talking about doesn't exist. Pull the tinfoil hat a little tighter!

Near the beginning, it refers to instability, injustice, and confusion

Right - the results of religious demagoguery and manipulation of an ignorant populace. You know, people like you.

Global warming easily falls under “many other points”.

I doubt that the Founding Fathers were referring to global warming, a phenomenon not discovered until 1970 or so.

An environmental interest?

I don't see "environmental interest" in the material you quoted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by marc9000, posted 09-16-2010 7:43 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 2:51 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 259 of 313 (581665)
09-16-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by marc9000
09-16-2010 7:46 PM


Re: Combined response #2
The attempts are to overwhelm, to make a disengagement by a creationist look like a “victory” for the humanists.

If the attempt is to "overwhelm" why are people doing you the favor of dropping out? Pull the tinfoil hat a little tighter yet.

What does biology have to do with separation of church and state?

Nothing. We were speaking of creationists, which is why I said "creationists." See? It's right there in the first line.

It’s not an attempt to completely prevent creationists from posting (I didn’t use the word “prevent”) it’s to allow them a start, then stop them before they get too far.

Get too far and... what, exactly?

As the debate goes on, the burden put on the single poster constantly multiplies.

Marc, I already told you - you can have a Great Debate opened with anyone you want. Any one person, or any number. Your choice! And no one else can barge in. You can literally put anyone you want on the spot, subject to their desire to participate. I think it's obvious that any of us, would.

Why would we offer such accommodation if the point was to gang-bang every creationist who stumbles in? And if it's truly so vexing for you to field replies from multiple people, why haven't you started a Great Debate on the topic of your choice?

The forum rules here seem to encourage an avoidance of links – they encourage a poster putting their position in their own words

Your arguments should be in your own words. They should be supported by fact, which should be corroborated by a source.

Honestly I don't see why this is so hard to follow. You never had to do this in college? High school, even? Make an argument supported by cited facts, but without plagiarizing?

They want me to start at its beginning, to say as much as possible about it, so that they have more detail to use for sidetracking purposes.

Nobody wants to side-track you. We want to correct your copious errors of fact.

You say dozens of things that just aren't true, Marc. Every post is riddled with errors of fact and we take it upon ourselves to research and correct them, so that the debate can proceed from a basis of fact, not fantasy.

The reason they do that is twofold, one is to try to distract me as I put together my responses. The other is to make the thread harder to read, to try to confound and confuse what I’m saying.

Again - you need to understand that we just don't give a shit about you. I know that's hard to believe, since you've wrapped us all up in another one of your self-serving tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, but we just don't care about you. What you say is interesting and we respond to it but nobody is sitting at home thinking "how can I trip Marc up, tonight?"

These sweeping accusations of dishonesty and bad faith are fallacious well-poisoning and violate the forum rules about arguing in good faith. Nobody is presenting an argument except because they believe it's an effective response to yours. But I'm beginning to see that you're wrapped up in so many paranoid delusions of persecution that it may not be possible to reach you at all. We'll see, I guess.

This thread is taking too much of my time now, though as I said, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t enjoy it

Why is it so hard for you to believe that the same might be true of us? That it actually has nothing to do with you at all?

Like the science of abiogenesis eliminiates the competition of Intelligent Design?

If that's true why are half of Americans creationists? No, I was rather thinking about the treatment of Christians in Muslim Saudi Arabia, or the treatment of Jews by Christians in Europe, and so on. You know - getting rid of the competition.

Nowhere have I advocated an establishment of religion, only a promotion similar to what was actually promoted in the US before 1947.

What was promoted before 1947 continues to be promoted - freedom of religion for all, and a government inherently secular and therefore religion-blind. Secular government protects freedom of religion. Some of your religious peers understand that. It's a shame they haven't done more to convince you.

Did you read the link I provided you with?

I did, and when I looked up Romans 13 I found that it was entirely bogus. Not a single thing said in your link actually reflected the Bible verse:

quote:
St. Paul’s command in Romans 13 for Christians to be obedient to government applied only to those that “are orderly and lawfully instituted by God.”

But that's untrue. There's nothing in Romans 13 that says Christians only have to be obedient to governments that are lawfully instituted by God; Romans 13 says that all governments are lawfully instituted by God. Otherwise, God would not allow them to govern!

When your link can't even get the plain meaning of the Bible right, why should I trust it on anything else? When you're willing to just make up your own personal scripture, Marc, why should I trust you on anything?

Because some things never change.

Doesn't mean they were right back then. One thing that never changes, after all, is that humans are inherently flawed, isn't that right? Why would we expect the humans of the past to be less flawed?

I might stand up against the use of public money to make rich those who claim they might be able to find a cure for cancer someday.

Feel free to, or to stand up against any other use of public money you object to. I wish you luck with that, I honestly do - everybody has the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, everybody has the right to representation in democracy.

I think the public benefit of scientific research - benefits like the computers and networks that allow you and I to have this conversation - outweigh the costs, even the cost of making somebody a little rich. I don't expect you to immediately agree, and you don't have to. You and I have the same right to try to influence the government with our speech and with our votes, and I hope you continue to take advantage of that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by marc9000, posted 09-16-2010 7:46 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 3:34 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 260 of 313 (581668)
09-16-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by marc9000
09-16-2010 7:43 PM


Re: Combined response
And no matter how much evidence I show you. For those who constantly demand evidence, it’s amazing how quickly they dismiss clear evidence once they see it.

You've provided evidence? Well, I don't claim to be infallible, and I've largely been concentrating my attention on what you've been saying to me so I might have missed it. Please show me where it is and I'll have a look.

No, it’s because church and state have been separated, and science is somewhat dull and boring unless it’s providing intellectual fulfillment for atheism.

That you find science dull and boring may explain why you don't understand it. Or, perhaps the fact that you don't understand it explains why you find it dull and boring. In any event, that's a purely subjective assessment and one that many people disagree with, me included.

crashfrog writes:

Origin of life isn't taught in any school, public or private, for the very simple reason that there remains precious little to teach. It's an emerging field of research, not yet a field with robust findings to be communicated to schoolchildren.

marc9000 writes:

And yet when I borrowed my friend’s son’s biology textbook a few months ago, I found that it had plenty to teach. It gushed all over Darwin, his thinking processes, why he searched for what he did, yet left off any references to his personal problems (the death of his young daughter) to inspire him to search for intellectual fulfillment in atheism.

I made a note of the first paragraph of chapter 17;

quote:
The history of life on earth is filled with mystery, life and death struggles, and bizarre plants and animals as amazing as any mythological creatures. Studying life’s history is one of the most fascinating and challenging parts of biology, and researchers go about it in several different ways. One technique is to read the pieces of the story that are “written” in ancient rocks……….

You may call that “precious little to teach”, but there’s no shortage of inspiration for students to chuckle at “mythological creatures” (that they may have heard about in Sunday School) and to speculate on all the unguided naturalism that was going on during all those life and death struggles for millions of years.

Wow, that's a powerful imagination you have there, mate.

I'm sure others will point this out to you (actually, I'm sure it's already been pointed out to you and you refuse or are unable to understand the point), but let me add my input anyway. Darwin didn't study origin of life. You might recall, the name of the book was On the Origin of Species. Evolution describes how life changes once it starts. If you can't understand this simple point, there's no reason to continue.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by marc9000, posted 09-16-2010 7:43 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 3:44 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 261 of 313 (581670)
09-16-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by marc9000
09-16-2010 7:46 PM


Re: Combined response #2
marc9000 writes:

I recently borrowed my friend's son's biology textbook, and saw it with my own eyes. I don't need to prove it to anyone.

subbie writes:

Given your poor track record in this thread, you'll forgive me if I'm not particularly inclined to take your word for anything.

marc9000 writes:

You’re forgiven. If you deny that it’s happening, we have little more to discuss. It’s like everyone telling me that the word “separation” is in the first amendment. Sometimes we just have to move on.

Or, you could actually provide evidence of what you say. I suspect that the problem is that you are conflating the beginning of life with evolution. Of course, if you refuse to provide evidence to support what you claim is being taught, it's quite impossible to know for sure what you are arguing against. And if you refuse to provide evidence, you give me little choice but to move on.

subbie writes:

Actually, you base your conclusions on what you want them to say. Then, when the vast majority of people who've spent time studying and practicing law come to a different conclusion, you simply dismiss them with a wave of your hand as if calling them names means they are wrong.

marc9000 writes:

“Vast majority”? There are a lot of well known people who have spent a lot of time studying and practicing law that basically agree with me. Former Supreme court justice William Rehnquist is one of them.

Well, that's one. If you think one equals a lot, I'm afraid we're never going to agree on anything. Of course, you could add Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and probably Alito to your list. That wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of Supreme Court Justices, including unanimous opinions in Reynolds v. U.S. and Everson v. Board of Education disagree with you. Keep in mind, "a lot" of people might agree with you and still the vast majority disagree. "A lot" doesn't really mean much.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by marc9000, posted 09-16-2010 7:46 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 3:47 PM subbie has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 262 of 313 (581676)
09-16-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by marc9000
09-16-2010 7:43 PM


Re: Combined response
And, in knowing some history about the rest of the founders, I made the observation that that paragraph generally applies to most all of the founders. I know you’ll demand proof, but it’s just my observation.

You misrepresented the evidence. In other words you lied.

When he said “vital religion could contribute importantly to the general welfare”, he said plenty about separation of church and state.

Then post something from Madison showing this is how he felt. And I repeat, this says nothing about how he felt about the separation of church and state. If you feel it does then make a valid argument.

And yet when I borrowed my friend’s son’s biology textbook a few months ago, I found that it had plenty to teach. It gushed all over Darwin, his thinking processes, why he searched for what he did, yet left off any references to his personal problems (the death of his young daughter) to inspire him to search for intellectual fulfillment in atheism.

Repeat after me. Evolution does not have to do with origins. When science books mention Newton, should they also mention that he was a firm believer in alchemy? You point is ridiculous to the extreme.

Read Federalist paper 10 for the first time. Near the beginning, it refers to instability, injustice, and confusion – kind of reminds you of global warming fanaticism, doesn’t it?

Not at all, but it sure does sound like the teabaggers.

An Al Gore interest in making millions by trading in carbon credits?

Evidence please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...c_Research_Unit_email_controversy
I followed the link and read the article. It said this.

quote:
Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised by scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors[8][9]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9][10][11][12]

And you know what. It had references to sources that show that the film is a bunch of crap. Read the references.
Oh from the same wiki page
quote:
In an official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy". Ofcom also backed complaints by Sir David King, stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch, on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change.

Homosexuals already have exactly the same rights as single heterosexuals.

Marriage would be a "special right"?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by marc9000, posted 09-16-2010 7:43 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 263 of 313 (581677)
09-16-2010 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by marc9000
09-16-2010 7:46 PM


Re: Combined response #2
It’s like everyone telling me that the word “separation” is in the first amendment.

It is not true that everyone has told you that. For example, no-one participating in this thread has told you that.

Could you try to be a little more truthful?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by marc9000, posted 09-16-2010 7:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 264 of 313 (583362)
09-26-2010 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by crashfrog
09-16-2010 8:07 PM


Re: Combined response
marc9000 writes:

It’s a complicated situation, but to dismiss it as a lie by “global warming deniers” shows an obvious lack of interest in what the truth is.

Right, but the truth is that in eight investigations nobody at Hadley-CRU was found to have manipulated data, concealed data, acted against the public's interest, or done anything dishonest at all.

The only person who broke the law was the climate denier who hacked the Hadley-CRU email system and violated the privacy of dozens of research scientists.

This is another thread, but the global warming controversy is far from over.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

If people in the scientific community want to have "political control", they leave the scientific community and become politicians.

You're saying that politicians are the only ones with political control? So if Michael Behe wrote a few chapters in science textbooks about ID, it wouldn't have any political effect?

Honestly you sound like a raving moonbat with this conspiracy theory stuff. You've been lied to, Marc; the only conspiracy is the very well-funded one to deny the troubling but valid scientific truth of anthropogenic global warming.

It’s always ironic to see those who go ballistic over Intelligent Design to accuse others of a paranoia of conspiracy theories.

marc9000 writes:

Al Gores carbon credit trading will be an important part of it, making him millions.

He's already a millionaire. "Millions"? Chump change compared to the billions in profits at stake in oil and gas production. Marc, the oil and gas industries produced the most profit last year of any year of any business in all of recorded human history. If you want to follow the money, don't you think that's where it leads? To the enormous amount of money that stands to be lost by oil and gas producers if we reduce our carbon emissions even a tiny bit?

And they probably pay the most in fines and lawsuits than any other business in human history. It only makes sense that they should go for all they can get to cover themselves, and if they do it with free markets, there’s not a thing wrong with it. If the oil and gas producers lose an enormous amount of money due to government mandated rules and regulations, citizens and businesses in the US - blocked by those rules and regulations from buying it - stand to lose an enormous amount of liberty.

marc9000 writes:

The words against homosexuality in the Bible are a lot stronger than that.

Sure, but it's just against having gay sex, not actually against being gay or being gay married. Isn't that kind of weird?

Your analyzation of it is kind of weird. Would it be wrong for one to take things that don’t belong to him, yet be okay for him to be a thief?

marc9000 writes:

And yet when I borrowed my friend’s son’s biology textbook a few months ago, I found that it had plenty to teach.

And what, specifically, did it say about origin of life?

That it happened some way in all the primordial soup, and there’s a lot to learn, and we’ll learn all of it someday.

marc9000 writes:

You may call that “precious little to teach”, but there’s no shortage of inspiration for students to chuckle at “mythological creatures” (that they may have heard about in Sunday School)

No, I kind of suspect they're talking about dragons, unicorns, fairies - you know, from mythology. What indication is there that this paragraph is supposedly referring to the Bible?

“The word “mythology” is applied to the Bible by many in the scientific community, and on forums such as these. Noah’s ark from Genesis is often referred to as a myth.

I don't even see the word "naturalism" in what you quoted. Pull your tinfoil hat a little tighter, Marc; you're interpreting any statement of scientific inquiry into the natural world as being a secret code for atheism.

I have a copy of Victor Stenger’s “How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist”, and have a hard time distinguishing what it says from any statement of inquiry into the natural world.

Marc, you're talking about a group of people that legalized slavery. Right into the US Constitution. (Does your copy not have that?)

A knowledge of the US foundings shows that most founders were opposed to slavery. It was a way of life back then that wasn’t going to go away overnight. They knew that if they outlawed it, that almost no southern states would have ratified the Constitution. They made provisions for its abolition, and they worked.

Provide even one example of a scientist who has asserted a divine right of rule to "save the planet." One example, please. In other words the difference is what you're talking about doesn't exist. Pull the tinfoil hat a little tighter!

Here are some honeyed words by an Al Gore lover.

quote:
As a politician, Gore is aware of the difficulties of bringing about the necessary changes. However, he argues that it can be done through the creation of what he calls a Strategic Environment Initiative, roughly modeled on the post-World War II Marshall Plan. Through both public and private actions, he believes humanity can be persuaded to reverse short-term gratification in favor of long-term thinking and planning. In this earth-saving endeavor, Gore argues that the United States must take a leadership role.

“Long term thinking and planning”. How much of that will the public be permitted to do?

http://www.enotes.com/earth-balance-salem/earth-balance

marc9000 writes:

Global warming easily falls under “many other points”.

I doubt that the Founding Fathers were referring to global warming, a phenomenon not discovered until 1970 or so.

They could imagine factions happening in the future, concerning things they didn’t yet know about. The way they debated and founded the US, it's obvious they were trying hard to do just that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 8:07 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by subbie, posted 09-26-2010 6:09 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2010 8:36 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 284 by Theodoric, posted 09-27-2010 9:15 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 265 of 313 (583366)
09-26-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by crashfrog
09-16-2010 8:29 PM


Re: Combined response #2
If the attempt is to "overwhelm" why are people doing you the favor of dropping out? Pull the tinfoil hat a little tighter yet.

There could be several reasons, besides trying to do me a favor. They could feel that 4 or 5 others can get the job done without them, , or maybe they simply had a personal complication (a computer crash, death in the family, any number of things) that would prevent them from posting.

Or, my posting could have been the first time they actually saw Federalist paper #10, and they’re having second thoughts about trying to defend the position that today’s scientific community isn’t really a faction that Madison defined. You don’t think so, right? Neither do I, there’s no less “closed mindedness” in humanism than there is in religion.

marc9000 writes:

What does biology have to do with separation of church and state?

Nothing. We were speaking of creationists, which is why I said "creationists." See? It's right there in the first line.

"We" weren't speaking of creationists, it was YOU who brought up creationists, right there in your first line. This thread is about separation of church and state. Why is it that those who insist science has nothing to do with politics constantly bring up science during political discussions?

marc9000 writes:

It’s not an attempt to completely prevent creationists from posting (I didn’t use the word “prevent”) it’s to allow them a start, then stop them before they get too far.

Get too far and... what, exactly?

Continue to embarrass themselves as they try to dance around more and more historical and logical points that they’ve never seen before.

Marc, I already told you - you can have a Great Debate opened with anyone you want. Any one person, or any number. Your choice! And no one else can barge in. You can literally put anyone you want on the spot, subject to their desire to participate. I think it's obvious that any of us, would.

I may propose one sometime this winter, when I have more time.

Why would we offer such accommodation if the point was to gang-bang every creationist who stumbles in?

“We” didn’t offer it, only you did. There are probably several in this thread who wouldn’t want to take me on one on one. Not necessarily because they’re afraid of me, they may not have the time. They may only have time for a small participation as part of a group. Or, some may very well be afraid of a one on one. I believe I could make a good case that today’s scientific community is a faction exactly as described in Federalist #10.

And if it's truly so vexing for you to field replies from multiple people, why haven't you started a Great Debate on the topic of your choice?

I’m fairly new here, it’s only natural that I would get a feel for the posters and subjects before I do that. Right now I’m focused on this subject – it wouldn’t make much sense to start a one on one on the same subject, and either cover the same ground twice, or start beyond what was covered here, which would make it a less-than-complete discussion from start to finish. And I never said it was completely vexing for me to field replies from multiple people, the tactics used against me (or any lone creationist) that I described show weakness/uncertainty in the group’s confidence in itself.

marc9000 writes:

The forum rules here seem to encourage an avoidance of links – they encourage a poster putting their position in their own words

Your arguments should be in your own words. They should be supported by fact, which should be corroborated by a source.

Honestly I don't see why this is so hard to follow. You never had to do this in college? High school, even? Make an argument supported by cited facts, but without plagiarizing?

I don’t see my opponents here citing more sources than I am. Since I have multiple opponents, it seems like they should supply multiple sources for each one of mine. It's not even close.

Nobody wants to side-track you. We want to correct your copious errors of fact.

You say dozens of things that just aren't true, Marc. Every post is riddled with errors of fact and we take it upon ourselves to research and correct them, so that the debate can proceed from a basis of fact, not fantasy.

Anything that goes against the atheist worldview is an “error of fact”? I’ve made 54 posts in this thread. If every one is “riddled with errors of fact”, why don’t you make a list of however many you want, and then we’ll all get together and analyze just how many of them are errors of fact, and how many of them are simply not of a radical liberal worldview?

Again - you need to understand that we just don't give a shit about you. I know that's hard to believe, since you've wrapped us all up in another one of your self-serving tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, but we just don't care about you.

You wouldn’t have to care about me if what I say made you nervous. A desire to shout someone down doesn’t indicate a caring for them.

What you say is interesting and we respond to it but nobody is sitting at home thinking "how can I trip Marc up, tonight?"

They may be if they don’t like what I say. They may have seen Federalist #10 for the first time in this thread, or that Hugo Black was a KKK member appointed by FDR. They may not want to see these facts, or more like them.

These sweeping accusations of dishonesty and bad faith are fallacious well-poisoning and violate the forum rules about arguing in good faith.

Do multiple accusations of tin-foil hat wearing fall into that category as well? It seems to me that those who fear global warming would need some type of non ferrous head gear more than myself.

Nobody is presenting an argument except because they believe it's an effective response to yours. But I'm beginning to see that you're wrapped up in so many paranoid delusions of persecution that it may not be possible to reach you at all. We'll see, I guess.

Again, it’s always ironic to see those who shout down Intelligent Design accuse others of having paranoid delusions.

marc9000 writes:

This thread is taking too much of my time now, though as I said, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t enjoy it

Why is it so hard for you to believe that the same might be true of us?

Because there are so many of you, each of you individually don’t have to put near the time and thought into it that I do. That the same might be true of you concerning enjoyment, of course I fully understand that you would. But I suppose there could be a different level of enjoyment in being part of a group, I wouldn’t know. I’ve heard that there are creationist forums where creationists gang up on one atheist, but I’ve never seen one or been linked to one. I’d never join a gang like that, it’s just something I personally wouldn’t enjoy.

That it actually has nothing to do with you at all?

My position is common among millions of US citizens. Many prominent conservatives agree with most everything I say. It does seem to be about me when my opponents in these types of discussions pretend that I’m the only one with these positions – that MY mental state is what needs to be altered.

What was promoted before 1947 continues to be promoted - freedom of religion for all, and a government inherently secular and therefore religion-blind. Secular government protects freedom of religion. Some of your religious peers understand that. It's a shame they haven't done more to convince you.

Some of my religious peers have been deluded into believing that, or most likely, been informed that they’ll be financially ruined if they don’t toe the line and say they believe it. All the while the government opens its eyes to atheism.

But that's untrue. There's nothing in Romans 13 that says Christians only have to be obedient to governments that are lawfully instituted by God; Romans 13 says that all governments are lawfully instituted by God. Otherwise, God would not allow them to govern!

You’re oversimplifying. As the link said, Calvin’s book “Institutes of the Christian religion” goes into detail about legitimate governments and resistance to the tyranny of kings, and it takes all of the Bible into account, it doesn’t just consult a few words in the Bible and come to a hasty conclusion, as atheists often do. I haven’t read Calvin’s book, but I suspect Romans 13 could have been referring to existing governments of that time, not necessarily future ones.

Freedom and the concept of freedom is mentioned multiple times in the Bible. Galations 5:1 says; Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

When your link can't even get the plain meaning of the Bible right, why should I trust it on anything else?

I don’t trust secularists to know the “plain meaning of the Bible”.

When you're willing to just make up your own personal scripture, Marc, why should I trust you on anything?

“Make up my own scripture”, no wonder others are bailing from this thread.

marc9000 writes:

Because some things never change.

Doesn't mean they were right back then. One thing that never changes, after all, is that humans are inherently flawed, isn't that right? Why would we expect the humans of the past to be less flawed?

We can often judge the decisions they made by their historical results. Many people today, probably more than ever, believe the US is on the wrong track. Many people today consider humans of the past US citizenry to be less flawed since they didn’t allow the government to own auto companies, own banks, introduce government mandated health care, or elect a president that re-writes the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/...-declaration-of-independence

I think the public benefit of scientific research - benefits like the computers and networks that allow you and I to have this conversation - outweigh the costs, even the cost of making somebody a little rich.

“Making somebody rich” – with free markets, not government mandates. Sure, there are plenty of benefits of scientific research, too many to name. Computers and networks, even a lot of pain killing medication and medical procedures are all fine and worth some cost, but not all cost. Not worth it all being taken over by government.

I don't expect you to immediately agree, and you don't have to. You and I have the same right to try to influence the government with our speech and with our votes, and I hope you continue to take advantage of that.

I do believe I’ll be smiling a little more brightly than you after the November elections this year.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 8:29 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 266 of 313 (583368)
09-26-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by subbie
09-16-2010 8:45 PM


Re: Combined response
You've provided evidence?

Yes, as I described in Message 250. What do you want me to do, get your address and visit you personally and show you the book?

Well, I don't claim to be infallible, and I've largely been concentrating my attention on what you've been saying to me so I might have missed it. Please show me where it is and I'll have a look.

There’s no shortage of proof all over the net that public science sometimes crosses the line concerning scientific philosophy. You’re going to say you don’t believe it no matter what I show you, so here’s one more. Go ahead and move the goalposts and claim victory if you need to, I won’t be showing you any more.

quote:
One example is William B. Provine, professor of biological science at Cornell. He notes that at the beginning of his class about 75% of his students "were either creationists or believed in purposive evolution" guided by God or a divine power. Research on his incisive, direct, hard-hitting teaching on origins (how students often describe his lectures) reveals that the number of creationists and those who "believed in purposive evolution" dropped to about 50% by the end of the course.[8] No one has hauled him into court for his openly indoctrinating students in atheism, and indeed, scientists in general have applauded him.

http://www.icr.org/article/new-state-religion-atheism/

That you find science dull and boring may explain why you don't understand it. Or, perhaps the fact that you don't understand it explains why you find it dull and boring. In any event, that's a purely subjective assessment and one that many people disagree with, me included.

I wasn’t applying dull and boring only to myself, it’s a historical fact that most in the 1950’s US found biology dull and boring, largely because it wasn’t getting near the funding and attention that other branches of science were at that time. The forming of the “Biological Sciences Curriculum Study” in 1958 was largely a political act to combine biology with politics – the beginning of something that is well underway today. Check Message 248 of this thread where I was accused of daring to challenge biologists to a discussion of separation of church and state.

I'm sure others will point this out to you (actually, I'm sure it's already been pointed out to you and you refuse or are unable to understand the point), but let me add my input anyway. Darwin didn't study origin of life.

But that doesn’t stop textbook authors from speculating outside of Darwinism, and combining that speculation with Darwinism.

You might recall, the name of the book was On the Origin of Species. Evolution describes how life changes once it starts. If you can't understand this simple point, there's no reason to continue.

Yes yes, that Darwinism doesn’t have one single thing to do with naturalistic abiogenesis. Well, except one, that they both involve change over long periods of time, Well wait, maybe two, that they’re both unguided and happen solely by naturalistic processes. When science textbooks devote one or two chapters referring to both, speculating about both, combining them both, it’s clear that the closer one looks, the more closely related the two subjects really are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by subbie, posted 09-16-2010 8:45 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2010 4:18 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 271 by subbie, posted 09-26-2010 6:14 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 272 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2010 5:56 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 267 of 313 (583369)
09-26-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by subbie
09-16-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Combined response #2
Well, that's one. If you think one equals a lot, I'm afraid we're never going to agree on anything. Of course, you could add Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and probably Alito to your list. That wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of Supreme Court Justices, including unanimous opinions in Reynolds v. U.S. and Everson v. Board of Education disagree with you. Keep in mind, "a lot" of people might agree with you and still the vast majority disagree. "A lot" doesn't really mean much.

How about some names from your "vast majority"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by subbie, posted 09-16-2010 9:02 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by subbie, posted 09-26-2010 6:03 PM marc9000 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 268 of 313 (583373)
09-26-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by marc9000
09-26-2010 3:44 PM


Re: Combined response
So, nothing here about the doctrine of separation?

OK, I think we're done.

Perhaps if you now wish to be wrong about biology instead you could start a thread in the science section.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 3:44 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 269 of 313 (583382)
09-26-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by marc9000
09-26-2010 3:47 PM


Justices who disagree with you
Here is a partial list of Supreme Court Justices who disagree with your interpretation of the Establishment Clause, together with their take on it:

Reynolds v. U.S.
Justices: Waite Hunt Clifford Strong Miller Bradley Swayne Harlan Field

quote:
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.


Everson v. Board of Education
Justices: Vinson Black Frankfurter Rutledge Douglas Murphy Reed Burton Jackson

quote:
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 entertaining 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 form 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, at 98 U. S. 164.

(Although this was a 5-4 decision, the dissent agreed with the majority’s statement of the meaning of the Establishment Clause, but disagreed with the application.)

Engel v. Vitale
Justices: Warren Black Brennan Douglas Clark Harlan

quote:
The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

School Dist. of Abington Tp. v. Schempp
Justices: Warren Black Goldberg Brennan Douglas Clark White Harlan

quote:
The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality. Though the application of that rule requires interpretation of a delicate sort, the rule itself is clearly and concisely stated in the words of the First Amendment. Applying that rule to the facts of these cases, we affirm the judgment in No. 142.

Epperson v. Arkansas
Justices: Warren Fortas Brennan Douglas Marshall White Harlan

quote:
Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion, and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.
As early as 1872, this Court said: "The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect."

I omitted citations and footnotes in several of these quotes.

I recognize that there is some overlap in the various collections. Taking that into account, there are the names of 27 Justices. You provided one. Even considering the four or five more that I provided for you, 27 still amounts to a "vast majority."

Also, I don't claim that this list is exhaustive. I stopped when I figured I had a long enough list to make my point. However, it took me no small amount of time to put this list together. If you intend to continue to dispute my position, I would hope your response will be well-considered and similarly supported.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 3:47 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:32 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 270 of 313 (583384)
09-26-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by marc9000
09-26-2010 2:51 PM


You were asked for specifics
marc9000 writes:

And yet when I borrowed my friend’s son’s biology textbook a few months ago, I found that it had plenty to teach.

crashfrog writes:

And what, specifically, did it say about origin of life?

marc9000 writes:

That it happened some way in all the primordial soup, and there’s a lot to learn, and we’ll learn all of it someday.

I'd bet my last dollar that that isn't, specifically, what the textbook said. Instead, it's your take on what you think you remember it said. As such, it's completely worthless in this discussion.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 2:51 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019