OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Page 5 of 13  


Other than the fossil record and DNA...
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Plenty of people said that after 4 years, just not enough. As in 2004, we may see the majority of voters voting against the other candidate, instead of for 'theirs'.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:

After the events in Iowa last week, it is clear that "the winds of change" are blowing.
The general population is just fed up with the current situation.
As the old saying goes, "A new broom sweeps clean".
I have the distinct feeling there is going to be a lot of "sweeping" in the upcoming election.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The "Wall of seperation" was penned by Thomas Jefferson during his term as president. It was in a letter in response to a Baptist congregation (Danbury) which had written him regarding some concerns about religiuos freedoms. Jefferson assured them the constitution protyected their rights to express their religion in civic affairs. He apparently coined the well known phrase in this letter, although Madison uses a simialr but stronger phrase "total wall..". However, to be clear in both case the writers were speaking to the protection of the church and their religious freedom and not the protection of the state. More specifically to the churches right to organize and be active in civic affairs (vote in theior guy). And they both stress that it is the civic duty of the religious to exercise their "natural right" and their "right to conscience" commonly interpreted to mean they should be active in civic affairs such as campaigning, etc. So I would contend that the legislative intent of the first ammendment is at least equally strong in both the establishment and restrictive clauses.
If you would like, I can go back farther, into maybe the 1600's and discuss the Mayflower Compact. Now that is a document that claims this land for God!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SonomaProducts.com wrote:

...
By coincidence I've been reading memoirs of W T Sherman -- last night got to point where the Union had recaptured Fort Sumter. On the day of the fourth anniversary of its surrender, there was a major observance during which the specific flag which had been flown at the time of surrender was re-raised, salutes in tribute and acknowledgment were fired from the same batteries which had performed the bombardment and there was a program. The order of the program was to open w/ prayer and the address was by an ordained preacher. The "separation" so extolled by the present-day folk as a tenet is, as noted above, absolutely not the same thing as most now take it to be.
It was, of course, simply that there was a strong aversion to the founding of an actual state-sponsored and/or required religion and/or church, _not_ that there should be no religious observation.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True. But one way to make the formation of a state-sponsored religion difficult, if not impossible, is to forbid government sponsored events from having officially led prayers. It's a little like the school prayer bullshit: no one is prevented from praying in school; what is prevented is any official form of prayer, led by teachers, or by student leaders. Any student, teacher or principal, can sit and pray to himself or herself as often as they like, without let or hindrance, except that if they are too loud at it, others will scratch their heads and gaze upon them with wonder--asking themselves, "What's that fool doing out alone?"
Then again, people may just think they're using a cell phone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

But, imo, that violates the proscription clause from the other direction by eliminating free expression. (Again, I'm not promoting religion, simply pointing out that what is presently being practiced is _FAR_ different than the observations and intentions and actions of those involved in the beginning who established the rules as compared to the interpretations of present day.)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:54:56 -0600, dpb wrote:

But those rules were made by politicians in a land whose predominant culture was Protestant Christianity. There was a limit as to what they could say without losing all support. For example, if you read the private writings of Jefferson you'll find a much less benign view of religion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Personal belief, yes. Separation and forbearance, also. A much more reasoned time overall in most respects. Sadly we have lost much of what makes for real debate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I agree you can say many of the founding fathers had a dim view of "Religion" but that should not be construed to support any contention that they weren't "God fearing Christians". They surely were believers in public and private.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:41:46 -0800, SonomaProducts.com wrote:

Sorry, wrong. Most were deists. Read their writings. Certainly Jefferson was, and I think Paine and Franklin were as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You gotta remember, though, that many Christians cannot accept that someone is a deist if they don't believe as the Christian believes. If you don't believe in Christ and the Trinity, then you, by definition, are NOT a deist.
The gyrations some locals go through to show that scientific theory is on a par with creationism are absolutely incredible. So far, science has sort of won, but I'd bet if we get another committed born-again in the White House, we can kiss that goodbye, and start bowing down to intelligent creation, a newer form of myth.
Bush is talked to by God. I'd guess that Huckster is, too, or, like Bush, believes he is. He probably believed the same when he got the stomach banding that he know calls willpower and diet. Or maybe it was God that told him that the Writers' Guild had ended their strike for the talk shows (another facile lie to try to keep from upsetting his heavy load of union supporters).
Basically, one pseudo-relgious nut a century is sufficient for the U.S., IMO, and I dont' give a damn what Locke or Adams or even Jefferson or even my leading founding father, Ben Franklin, would think. I feel that Eric Hoffer was right: True Believers do too damned much damage to make up for any good they may do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

...
???
Deists believe in a divine power but as I understand it, Christianity would be, to them, a "revealed religion" relying on Christ being a divine incarnation which would defy their version of "reason". Of course, how "reason" derives the divinity to begin with is a little hard to contemplate... :)
So, I don't see how any Christian would have a problem being convinced someone is a deist if the don't believe as they do. The last sentence seems almost precisely backwards.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Huh? That entire parapgraph is incoherent. A "theist" is someone who believes in God. A Judeo-Christian believer is a theist who believes God is personally knowable and has expressed Himself in a number of ways humans can apprehend (General Revelation [nature], Special Revelation [the Bible], the advent of Jesus, etc.). A *deist* is some who believes there is a creating God but one who "wound up the clock of nature" and walked away - in effect deists believe in a Creator, but not a personally knowable one.

The ignorance that most self-proclaimed modern "sophisticated thinkers" exhibit in this matter is profound. Science in its perfect form can only ever be about *how things work*. Science cannot - by its very definition - speak to questions like "Where did it come from?", "Why is it here?" or "What does it mean?" That's why it is perfectly possible to acknowledge the value of science, accepting its results where they are valid, and at the same time be personally devout in one's faith. Only the truly arrogant (and ignorant) think science trumps theology. The fact that a few people have misused religion and abused science does not speak to the larger issue in any meaningful way.

And scientists have "Aha Moments!", mathematicians pursue "hunches", philosophers "contemplate". Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance. The human thought/creative process is complicated. It is not easily expressed in words. People faced with difficult decisions find various ways to work through them. It is hardly your place to decide which methods are- and are not "acceptable" until/unless every single thing you do is rooted *exclusively* in a rational process - something NO functioning human can claim.

Yeah, unlike those fine "rational" atheists/anti-religionists of the 20th Century that were responsible for ... lessee now ... about 100 MILLION dead. You fear the leader with a life of faith. I fear a conscience-free atheist who thinks science has all the answers, there is no God to whom they answer, and they are free to do whatever they wish. This has nothing to do with defending a particular religious tradition. It has to do with the observable damage that secular atheists have wrought upon mankind which is many orders of magnitude worse in kind and scale than all the abuses by religionists over history.
Oh, and one more thing - it took people of Judeo-Christian faith to do something in Western culture that NO one had done for the preceding 9000 years: get rid of slavery. Slavery is recorded in almost every part of the human history we have available. It was those "religious nuts" in Western Europe and the U.S. that forced their respective nations to face the moral foul that is slavery. They did this in less that 500 whereas slavery had been nicely tolerated by virtually every culture for the preceding nine millennia. So before you blather on about the evils of religion, you might try and acquaint yourself with some slight understanding of factual Reality, because the absence of religion - Judeo-Christianity in particular - has done a whole lot more harm than its presence. I can provide more examples if you like.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Science in its perfect form" ? What in the hell does that even mean?

That is absurd! Sure it can! I encourage you to read about "God of the Gaps".
Ancient man: Why do we have dark followed by night? Don't know, must be God. Why does it rain? Don't know, must be God. Where did this meteorite come from? Don't know, God must have sent it here. What does it mean when I get nauseous after drinking sour milk? Must be God punishing me.
Lets look into your "Why is it here?" question and use MRSA and other antibiotic resistant bacterial strains as an example. Bacteria demonstrate evolution before our very eyes. We know "why MRSA and antibiotic resistant strains are here" and it they were not before. Over use and mis use of antibiotics.

Bible rigid Christians would disagree with your above statement. Literalist bible thumpers have a problem accepting evolution and being devout at the same time. Mainly because they are told that every living organism was "created" at the same time. Dinosaurs walked the earth with humans, etc. We now know (Science filling in the Gaps) that this is not the case.

Truly laughable!
<snip> of the rest of your junk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GarageWoodworks wrote:

It's called a "boundary condition argument". Assume science were perfect. What could it "know". It could know how things work, how the universe operates, how life evolves/adapts, etc. It could NEVER know where it all came from, why things are the way they are, what - if any - meaning it has, taken as a whole. Science it a utilitarian philosophy that is strictly limited in what it can examine - it is limited to those things open to the empirical/rational method. But there are lots and lots of other things that matter to humans than just those that can be inspected by reason and science by its very structure must be mute on these questions.

I encourage you to explain - just in principle - how by sticking stictly to science we can ever discover answers to questions of first cause.

Modern Man: I have this nifty swiss army knife of utility value called "science". Since it has provided so many interesting results for me and given me useful consequences I will assume, without proof, this is the only form of knowledge that exists or that I need. I will dumb down my quest for Truth to that which is limited to purely rational inspection and make fun of or demean anyone else who has larger questions.

A purely mechanical question well below the level of ontology I was asking.

Now I understand your reasoning: Because there are people who improperly apply a school of thought or method of knowledge the entire method is invalid. Guess what Sparky? You better abandon science. I can show you any number of bad science practitioners just as you can show me bad theologians. But unlike you, I don't presume science is invalid because some people abuse it.

Truly ignorant on your part. I have studied and been schooled by *both* rational empiricists, mathematicians, AND theologians. The smartest of the bunch - by a mile - were the theologians. This doesn't make them right. But your dismissal of theology to the benefit of science means that you've simply switched religions. Instead of treating science for what it is - a utilitarian philosophy of knowledge - you've elevated it to being a belief system. Welcome to the world of religion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

Well, if it were to be such perfect knowledge then it would also be able to ascertain the existence or not of the outside influence--ergo, all would be known including root cause.
It may also turn out, that the root cause is, indeed, buried in the randomness of quantum theory.
Then again, more realistically, it's likely we'll continue delving indefinitely.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

No Sir (or Ma'am as the case may be) - for the following reasons:
Note 1: Science - by it's design and method is innately limited to those things which can be known by means of the sense/reason process, as filtered through the rules of logic. Once you leave sense/reason and/or abandon logic, it *may* be "true" but it is not science, nor can science comment upon it. This is where the Intelligent Design people get in trouble, BTW - they take a big jump that is outside the methods of science (a jump with which I at least partially agree), but then demand it be recognized as "science". Good manners demands that we all admit the limits of any system of knowledge we're currently using. I fault the IDers for this but I also fault the science worshipers for assuming everything else is crap.
Note 2: Goedel pretty much demolished the idea that *any* logical system can be internally consistent AND complete. In effect, using logic, you *cannot* "ascertain the existence or not of outside influence". This drove mathematical logicians mad when it was first demonstrated within mathematics. Science folk - especially those who are laypersons interested in science without the requisite mathematical background - often don't get how this translates into the limits of knowledge for *any* logic-based reasoning system, including science itself.
For instance, a perfect science would take us all the way back to the Big Bang (or before that if there was a "before"), explaining all the minutae of how it worked. But even perfect science could not meaningfully comment upon whence the matter and energy that comprised the "First Event" came from. It's an interesting question because science does inform us that matter and energy can be exchanged but not increased. So ... where did it come from? Who/what made it happen? Why do the rules of quantum physics (to the extent we understand them), cosmology, etc. work the way they do. Once you step up a level from the mechanical details you discover: a) Science has no voice in these existential/ontological questions and b) They are pretty dang interesting questions.

Even so, how things got to be quantum/random is a question science cannot answer.

Probably, and that is as it should be. The search for knowledge is a very good thing for we humans to undertake. I just rebel at the idea that there is only *one* meaningful way to know things, that's all...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

Well, it appears it just "is" -- read Hawking, Greene, etc., ..., for about the best common explanation of what we now understand.
As for "why" it works as it does, it's getting to appear more and more that "because it can't work any other way" is a reasonable approximation.

That's still open...see above.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Many people seem to confuse what science _has_ done with what science _can_ do. We're a long, long way from hitting the limits. Maybe there _are_ questions that it can't answer. If so, I'd wait until we knew enough to allow it to take a solid whack at them before I dismissed its ability to do so.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.