From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:02:45 GMT

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.  Note
>the reference to "nature and Nature's God" paragraph one, 
>that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"
>paragraph 2, and that "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
>Providence" last paragraph.  

I am perfectly aware of the references to the Christan God in the D.
of I.  Jefferson was a Deist, but by no stretch of the word was he a
Christian.  The references to "God" were common in the literature of
the day, and were politically correct.  They served the needs of the
American colonies, especially when King George III supposedly had
"divine providence".  Call it undermining the king's authority.

Proof that this country was founded on a belief in God?  Nope.

>I never said they were Christian - you just saw the words "God" and 
>"religion" and assumed that I had.  You, on the other hand, took 
>their remarks about Christianity and _assumed_ that they were atheists,
>which they were most assuredly not.

It's "pick your argument time" again, eh?  You are maintaining in
another thread that the Christian, and in some cases, the Catholic
church is responsible for the development of science and Western
civilization.  Here you choose the wording "belief in God" to make it
convenient for yourself.  

In order to support your original statement that this country was
founded upon a "belief in God", you have to have some criteria of what
believing in "God" means, and how it would affect the development of
the country.  Deists have very little in common with Christians, and
the Jews and Muslims differ with them quite a bit.

This just makes it all the more obvious that you can't prove your
original statement.  You offer no criteria, no evidence, and when
pressed you simply argue technicalities.  Oh, and of course you resort
to personal attacks when you can't think of anything else to write.

>All individuals must prove competency.

Untrue.  In the U.S. legal system individuals 18 and over are assumed
competent.  A third party may question their competence, and only
_then_ must they attempt to prove it.  Individuals under 18 are
assumed incomptetent.

>>I disagree with that statement.  Science is the only "faith" (using
>>your term here for the sake of argument) which offers _any_ proof with
>>which to back it.  Most of the physical phenomena we "believe in" may
>>be demonstrated.  We can view the physical results, even if you refuse
>>to accept the basis.  Religion relys on absolute faith.

>The proof is based on faith.  

Certainly if you want to get into the philisophical nonsense-arguments
such as whether your eyes are truly reporting the results of a
demonstration of a physical phenomenon then it's based upon faith.
That's stretching it quite a bit, though.

However, like I said, science at least offers proof of some of its
basic phenomena.  Religion offers none.

>You have faith that the world is millions
>of years old based on radio-isotope dating, yet we have only been studying
>elemental decay rates for less than a century out of all of those 
>putative millions of years, and our testing is all performed in the 
>same century block out of a several million year sample.  Hardly random.
>How do we know our conclusions are worth crap?  We don't.  We take it on
>faith.  Ditto nearly any field of endeavor.  We assume the universe has
>always been the way it is right now.  Absolutely no reason to think that
>assumption is correct other than faith.  Your "proof" is as thin as
>any religion's.  Scientists just happen to be better con men than some.

There are certainly several scientific theories that can only be
accepted in faith.  However, this differs quite a bit from religion in
which _all_ of the theories are accepted in faith.

>Greg, I am very sorry that your life is rotten, but please try to control
>yourself.  I deny that you have any concept of what religion is about.
>That's all I can safely say right now.  I don't want you to do yourself
>an injury.

It really does credit to you and your school (that's sarcasm, son)
that you must constantly personally attack anyone who argues with you.
Sorry to inform you, but I'm not so thin-skinned as to be hurt by such
things.  I take anything posted from a .edu site with a grain of salt,
since of those posters still have some maturing to do.  Perhaps when
you have been on the net longer you'll learn some netiquette,
including how moronic it is to make false allegations of things like
child abuse in front of thousands of witnesses.

I find it amazing, though characteristic of many Christians, that you
see your narrow views as "what religion is about".  This goes to show
how little you know about it.  Several billion people would disagree
with you.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality