Let us choose wisely, and choose God.

Let us choose wisely, and choose God.

And not ***** too much when God fails to do anything
for us...

"words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Alas, America is no longer a shining city on the hill because under the
influence of militant atheism and transnational socialism fueled by
Darwin's theory of evolution, she has been turning her back on God and
the Judao-Christian moral principles upon which she was founded.

I thought over 90% of America is Christians. Does it have to be 100%
Christian, all the same exact sect, down to the last person, before
crap like the above goes away?

"words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Alas, America is no longer a shining city on the hill because under the
influence of militant atheism and transnational socialism fueled by
Darwin's theory of evolution, she has been turning her back on God and
the Judao-Christian moral principles upon which she was founded.

I thought over 90% of America is Christians. Does it have to be 100%
Christian, all the same exact sect, down to the last person, before
crap like the above goes away?

words of truth <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:

Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.'

And then the extremist Christianist radicals wrecked everything...

In article
<1128797109.991549.211740@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:

Two astute statesmen from our past left these words of wisdom for us.
The first of these, Thomas Jefferson, warned us that, "God who gave us
life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought
secure when we have removed their only basis, a conviction in the minds
of people that these liberties are the Gift of God?"

Jefferson was never very clear about his meaning of "God". He was
pretty clear about the bible though.

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective
and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into
it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with
the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right,
from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are
genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that
parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that
other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as
easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from
dunghills."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Warning - this is long ! :)

I am Australian not American so u r free to say 'What the f*** do you
know', because only an American, pure of heart (obviously), has the
right to answer such questions ;-) .

Anyway here's my opinion on this idiot's views

Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment in the
history of the world, was the only nation to which people oppressed and
repressed by old world systems of social classes and castes could be
free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man created

constraints.

i'm sure all the american indians and african slaves were 'well
chuffed' by the new political and religious freedoms they enjoyed under
Golden Era America and all wish the old days were back.

She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the bible,
and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.

Now this is never true no matter what country you're talking about.

Under the aegis of the Judao-Christian worldview, Americans were able
to work towards a civilization of excellence and virtue wherein natural
families and their children could grow and thrive in safety and
security.

As long as they were not indian, black or hispanic, or another
religion, whom i guess must have had 'Unnatural' families. I like the
fact the he falsely projects backwards the modern view of nuclear
family (mom dad 2 kids) onto agrarian early america, in which large /
extended family would have been more 'natural'. The nuclear family only
arose as a major social factor in the industrial revolution (which is
where society REALLY went off the rails).

America was also a civilization where individual liberty could be
maximized to the fullest in the absence of strangling webs of manmade
laws since followers of Judao-Christianity were guided by the Golden
Rule and voluntarily exercised self-control over destructive impulses
for the common good of all. As Augustine said, "Human law cannot punish
or forbid all evil, since while doing away with evils it would do away
with many good things which would hinder the advance of the common
good."

Then areas free of 'man made laws', like the 'Wild West', must have
been particularly nice to live in.

the 'Golden Rule' was in force while they massacred or dliberately
infected with diseases like smallpox millions of native peoples ???
maybe this is true if your Golden Rule means 'Do unto others before
they do it to you' ?

Alas, America is no longer a shining city on the hill because under the
influence of militant atheism and transnational socialism fueled by
Darwin's theory of evolution, she has been turning her back on God and
the Judao-Christian moral principles upon which she was founded. As a
result, our once decent, orderly civilization has regressed to a state

The USA is the most religious of all industrial nations. USA was the
'Shining city on the hill' in modern times because the world was
devastated by WWII and USA was lucky enough to escape civlian
casualties in either. USA has only a handful of civilian casualties
compared to millions for each other nation in the war.

Declassified state policy documents from after WWII basically state
'USA has 6.3% of world population and 50% of world wealth, now how can
we ensure that this situation continues forever?'. Each country/region
was assigned a 'role' in new US dominated world economy. It was decided
to rebuild Germany/Japan/Europe as industrial, SE asia, africa, south
america as labour / resources (ie keep them poor so we get cheap
stuff). The main reason to rebuild industrial rivals was that US
corporations after the war needed customers to buy US products now the
war was over, otherwise the world could have gone to ***** and the US
would not have cared. Who the US government declares enemies generally
have little to do with human rights or ideology and more to do with
which governments oppose completely selling out their sovereign rights
to multinationals.

USA is the only developed country i have heard of which allows creation
to be taught in a science class !! Does 'Militant atheism' even exist
as a movement ??

of 'almost anything goes' permissiveness and outright barbarianism
where the common good has been displaced by the demands and desires of
the few. Human life is no longer sacred and is now liberally aborted

I would suspect the breakdown of extended family and community,
rootless populations following soulless corporations in search of work
and money above all else, living in glorified rat-infested shoeboxes,
replacing social interation with hours of TV, have more to do with the
above problems. Maybe abortions increasing because of lack of social
support for young mothers ?

Conservatives are quick to blame social problems on 'permissiveness'
and promise an agenda of militant law enforcement and right-wing
economic agenda will bring a 'Golden Age'. It's actually the upheavals
in economic relations going back 250 years which are the roots of the
situtation we see now, but they would never point this out, seeing as
they are busy lining their pockets with the proceeds from said social
disruption.
(Truism : Capitalism requires constant growth for stability, true
stability requires zero growth, capitalism therefore cannot be
fundamentally stable as a system. Therefore we get inflation, planned
obsolescence, booms and crashes, massive inequality of wealth (richest
person on earth is about 100 billion times as rich as the poorest). It
can easily be shown that if everyone got rich the whole capitalist
system would collapse (just not enough lear jets etc to go round) so,
the rich *require* poverty to ensure the value of their assets (if
everyone has 1 billion dollars, everyone might as well have 1 dollar,
rich only has meaning if you can use wealth to coerce or convince
(poorer) people to do stuff for you).

Dostoevsky predicted this would occur when he said, "If God is dead,
then all things are permissible." Nietzsche concurred by saying, "[...]
God is dead...the heroic individualist is no longer bound to a
traditional slave morality, but is creating his own."

Since when does 'defining your own morality' equate to 'anything
goes'??

I think everyone must by necessity be 'defining their own morality' as
they discover the world.

What about Christian paedophile priests ?? What was the last time you
heard mention of an Atheist, Communist or Socialist paedophile ?? (and
u can bet if they got one they would repeatedly point out in the media
the persons political background).

If 'God is Dead' = 'Anything goes' then God must be with the atheists
on this one.

Nietzschean secular humanists, socialists, and militant atheists who
call themselves 'free thinkers' are shaping our culture and politics,

are they ?? They are considered radical fringe and a joke here in
Australia, which is not an overly religious society. In the US they are
political pariahs.

and what they are determined to create is an atheistic America. By
definition, free thinkers are people who reject authority and religion
in favor of what they refer to as "rational inquiry and speculation
based upon science."

Are they ?? I know plenty of 'free thinkers' not interested in or
opposed to science, an also not Christian. I know you are asking 'how
can people exist outside the labelled boxes I have created form them
??' but I assure you they can.

But they have elevated science to a philosophy and

Then these people you refer to are not 'free thinkers' *by definition*
because they have put authority (in this case established science)
above reason.

what they call reason is nothing but the constantly changing fickle
whims that arise from unbounded self-idolization, selfish desires, and
wishful thinking. In this way, as in so many other ways, free thinkers

Yeah yeah and what you call religion is nothing but the constantly
changing fickle
whims that arise from priests 'interpreting' a non-existant deity,
unbounded glorification of humanity as (second most powerful) supreme
universal force, anthro-centrism, selfish desires, and wishful
thinking.

have not risen one inch above their ancient pagan ancestors. The free
thinkers sitting on America's USSC who have made highhanded rulings
based on world law rather than on American law provide a good example
of capricious decision making sans fixed moral ethics.

*You* are our *recent* pagan ancestors, make no mistake.

Richard Dawkins is one of the free thinkers 'leading lights,' and in an
ambiguous way, he alluded to who he believes should be the ultimate
source of morality in his book, "When Religion Steps on Science's
Turf," He said, 'No civilized person uses Scripture as ultimate
authority for moral reasoning." He clarified this just a bit, by saying
that there is an alternate source, "That alternate source seems to be
some kind of liberal consensus of decency and natural justice that
changes over historical time, frequently under the influence of secular
reformists. Admittedly, that doesn't sound like bedrock. In practice we
more or less ignore Scripture, quoting it when it supports our liberal
consensus, quietly forgetting it when it doesn't. And wherever that
liberal consensus comes from, it is available to us all."

Falsely implying that all 'free thinkers' follow Dawkins (most
worldwide have probably not even heard of him). And he never says here
what he though 'should be' the source of morality, he said what he
thinks 'seems to be', which is neither for or against. He rightly
points out that morals are decided as a consensus view amongst a
population (though some eg priests or kings may have more clout in
setting the rules).

What Dawkins is saying, in a vaguely worded manner, is that when it
behooves people like him to pretend to believe Scripture, they will do
so, but that in reality, the real source of moral authority is people
like himself: "intellectually superior" human animals.

It's not vague and he's not saying what you say !! the term *we*
refers to all people, not just Dawkins and his buddies. He is making
the point that *we* notice when scripture backs up what *we* want to
do, but we ignore it when it contradicts what we want. Christian
fundamentalists are not expempt from this basic observation. (they
ignore scripture which doesn't suit them too). So there is no
'people like him' there, it refers to all of us. You are the one
superimposing some sort of elitist interpretation on this passage.

If you are too stupid to understand Dawkin's very basic statement
then you need a course in common sense.

Dawkins smug claim shines a light on the incoherency and
self-contradictory nature of scientific naturalism. By declaring
himself and those like him to be the source of moral authority, he

No, he stated that *everyone* is the source of moral authority.

exempts himself and his cohorts from the framework they prescribe for
everyone else, that human beings are but worthless matter operating
without reason or purpose by natural causes. Dawkins is obviously
stating that he is a superior being capable of rational thought, of

Where ?? Only if you take the 'we' in his passage to me 'me and
my buddies'.

I found a further example of the incoherent and contradictory reasoning
of Dawkins "free thinking," on a secular humanist forum where they had

you are clutching at straws.

a "frequently asked questions" site. A questioner reverently asked
Dawkins if evolution has a purpose. Dawkins responded emphatically,
"[it] has nothing to do with survival of the species. If anything it is
the passing of genes. Really there is NO purpose...It is simply that
those genes that DO survive are the ones we see...There is no higher
purpose...The only higher purposes in the universe are to be found in
evolved brains such as our own when we have conscious purpose to
achieve...our brains are so accustomed to this that they
falsely...ascribe purpose where it doesn't exist."

Did you catch that clumsy verbal sleight of hand? Notice the initial
absence of purpose. Then, almost immediately there is a higher purpose
so long it's for "evolved brains such as our own" that seek to "achieve
a purpose." Then to escape from the mess of contradictions he created,
he did what all morally defective narcissists do... he created another
incoherent contrivance. In effect, he said that when the brain is
consciously trying to achieve a purpose, it's actually fooling itself
into believing it is achieving a purpose that it knows nothing about,
since purpose has never existed in the first place. This web-weaver of
incoherency is a leading light of academia?

You guys love confused semantics so much you read it in everywhere else
besides your own writing where it is to be found in it's natural
habitat.

By your logic

'I am happy' => 'The Sun is happy' (projection)
but, the sun cannot be happy (it has no emotions), therefore how can I
be happy ??

you are the incoherent one. Dawkins refers to purpose in several
unambiguous contexts within this passage, which you deliberately
confuse.

'Ultimate purpose' => hypothetical reason for existence
'individual purpose' => that which we conciously set ot to achieve.
'projected purpose' => conscious purpose which we attribute to an
element of nature which really has no purpose (eg 'a raindrop is
missing the sea, that is why it falls').

Dawkins contends that it is only 'individual purpose' which really
exists (in our minds).

Apparently their hatred towards God and Christian-Judao morality is not
premised upon facts but on cobbled together contrivances. Lewontin

Rubbish, your bible is all 'cobbled together contrivances'

audaciously attested to this when he made this startling admission, "we
are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an
apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanation.

As with your religion which will always produce a 'magical pixies in
the sky did it' answer to any question, due to yout a priori
adherence to magical pixies in the sky causes.

In other words, the science of secular humanism is just quackery. Its'
authority is nothing but a web of ideologically contrived deceptions
presided over by snake-oil salesmen pretending to be real scientists.

Projecting from your own religion *again* !! And argueing from
authority again ! Do you know what 'free thinker' even means ???

These hateful, narcissistic frauds apparently believe that along with
Hitler, Mao, Marx, Stalin, and Lenin that they, instead of mankind's

Wow, Dawkins = The New Hitler. What does that make George W Bush ??

Creator, are capable of being the earthly judge of right and wrong. Two

Ahhh... gibberish how we have missed you

of the wrongs according to Dawkins are religion, which he terms an
intellectual virus, and parents having the right to instruct their
children into their religious faith. Dawkins declared, "Society, for no

reason that I can discern, accepts that parents must have an automatic
right to bring their children up with particular religious opinions and

can withdraw them from say, biology classes that teach evolution."

It isn't enough that these self-worshipping tyrants have reduced all
Americans, excluding themselves, to nothin