Yes, proof of the existence of the One God and our certainity of His existence comes by the natural light of reason. reason is the intellect apprehending truth. Men even children possess reason; animals have none. Reason is one of the things that separate man-kind from animal-kind. 

Believing in God seems to be the natural condition or intuition. That's why I said  people don't have to persuade themselves that there is a One God, rather they have to try to persuade themselves there is no God. That's why I said that men do not grow into the idea of a One God, rather they endeavor to grow out of it. 

 

No, I meant what I said. To understand you must think it through.  

 Reason is the intellect apprehending truth and true science is about apprehending truth, isn't it? 

Some cultures do not include any concept of your god or any other dieties. It is not always a choice between one or the other. It is different for everyone. When the Spanish arrived in South American the natives were not choosing between your god or no god. They were choosing between life and death. Same goes for North America. Many natives were given the choice to believe in your god or die and then their children were taken away from them so they could be indoctrinated. Looks to me personally like there are many choices. Your god, many gods, no gods or some other god.

The belief in the existence of god is plain and simple a leap of faith. One has faith that their church, its clergy, and texts are revealing the truth.

Then why have you defended the inclusion of intelligent deign in science books in other posts within this forum?

Stevendedalus writes:

Just curious. What's his name and when did that take place?

I was thinking of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an atheist and also Jewish combined cases of Murray v. Curlett/Abington Township v. Schempp which helped abolish mandatory, unison prayer and Bible verse recitation in the public schools 

The legal and cultural battles over school prayer and related First Amendment issues go back to the Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the McCollum (1948) and Zorach (1952) cases.

In 1962, it was the Engel v. Vitale suit, which prohibited student recitation of a "nondenominational" prayer that led to the Murray v. Curlett case and a companion suit filed by the Schempp family. 

In 1963, the Supreme Court banned Bible readings, and in 1980 ordered public schools to remove the Ten Commandments from view. 

 

 

 

 

Of course you were. Might as well pull the atheist out of a long list of cases which have led to current law regarding religious prayer in schools. I wouldn't expect otherwise since that what many people and groups have done over the years. The man I was referring to was the lawyer in the Engel vs. Vitale case and his son was one of several litigants in the case.

Look at the list of cases. They involve mostly one religious sect vs. another. The bible reading cases involve disputes often based on the version of the bible used and prayer issues involve one religion vs. another. Some of them have nothing to do with prayer in school however they set precedent involving the separation of church and state cases. Some of these cases involve tax dollars used in the funding of parochial schools. 

 

Might as well. Michael Newdow comes next. He's a Jewish atheist that is bent on having the words  "Under God" removed from the pledge of Allegiance in schools. 

Yep, in 1962, we let the Supreme Court kick God and Christian prayer and principles out of school. Put Secular Humanism in its place. ANd what's that done for us?

SAT scores on tests that have been made easier....down. 

Teen Suicide up. 

Illegal drugs up. 

Criminal arrests of teens up. 

School killings of student upon student, student upon teachers up. 

Births to unmarried school girls up.

Abortion up.

Bullying up.

Teacher/student sex abuse up. 

Student depression up. 

The teachers who want to expound on controversial political opinions, teach the kids to sing pro-Obama ditties, provide prayer mats and prayer time for Muslim students, or teach homosexuality is normal, acceptable, even good and if there are any objections made, the comeback is "academic freedom". THat's what schools are for, but not for the Christian religion. 

........................

 

  

 

Maybe you should take a look around the world to see what statistics other countries have and then maybe you wouldn't agree with such naive uneducated conclusions as to what causes such problems. As a whole this country is very religious and we have more problems than many societies that are much less religious.

As it should be. In one breath you criticize not only every other religion in the world, but also countries that do teach religions in their schools...... then in the next you wonder why others criticize yours. This country was started because of people like you who wished to impose their religious beliefs on others. 

Of course he does in your book. He is just as much a zealot as you are, just from the other side of the spectrum. His cases generally fail because the constitution states giving no preference to any particular religion over others not religion vs. the lack thereof. The successful cases involved one religion vs. another. You seem to blame so much on the lack of religion even when it is one religious sect against another.

As usual you blame all the problems in the world on everyone else. So convenient and comfortable, yet often so untrue.

 

 

 

I don’t have a problem with theists either … but I am not going around the world promoting atheism and wouldn’t were it possible because I don’t care either. As one should expect, it is next to impossible to mix magic and science even under the best of conditions … and theism vs. atheism is not the best of conditions for sure. I have never even equivocated that someone else (anyone else) become an atheist, why should I? You are being silly about this nonsense in the last line don’t you think. If it spends it is good enough for me for sure but the stamp would look good in my collection, hahaha. In the real world, anything that opposes the RCC or CCC is by definition atheistic which puts me in with a lot of company … but surely the atheist are in control of something … aren’t they? Just think of all the different atheists who bay at night to other gods … what atheists are you even referring to here anyway prey tell? Are you really concerned with the inscriptions on our stuff, hehehe?

I don't have to look around the world to know what happened and what is happening in America as far as public education is concerned. 

Like it or not, agree or not, these are factual conclusions. direct results that followed taking God and Judeo-Christian principles out of schools and instituting Secular and Atheistic Humanism in its place. 

I'm a graduate of a superb public education during the 50s, the last generation whose educational philosophy complied with Judeo-Christian principles, ethics and values. Then, the big problems in school were talking in class, standing out of line, gum chewing, and so on.

Then, parents sent their kids to schools knowing that the school would respect, not challenge, ignore, or usurp their parental rights and authority. Then, discipline was taught and practiced. Then, educators taught patriotism , morals and character along with reading, writing, math and the sciences. We started and ended the day with a prayer. We respected our teachers, and were civil and decent to one another. Then, the primary function of education was teaching facts and subject matter, and schools were not human resource centers. 

I believe the difference between then and now, is because we were given ethical and moral standards. Both history and statistical evidence show that there was no student violence, toward other students and teachers, no police presence required in schools, no drug testing needed, no epidemic of students infected with  venereal diseases. Then, our schools weren't plagued with drug abuse, teen promiscuity, and pregnancies. Then, Students weren't stressed out, depressed or committing suicide. 

But with the cultural and sexual revolution of the early 60s, came the infusion of the principles of Secular and Atheistic Humanism into the curriculum of our schools. Humanistic educators believe the proper role for schools is to change, create or clarify student's values and since God was reduced to irrelevant, the only absolute truth is that there are no absolutes values...all is relative and what seems good to one is morally right and they can choose.  This is especially true in the area of kindergarten through 12th grade classroom sex instruction.   

Today, any objective person can only conclude that the staggeringly high numbers and instances of these pathologies in our student population are causalties of Humanist classroom sex instruction. 

 

No, not true. As a whole our country is very irreligious. Our culture says it all. That we are steeped in the culture of death.

 

No, that is what some religiously indoctrinated are told to think by their "authorities" whether that be their church leaders or political propagandists, etc. Some choose to believe it and others don't. Most people I know and that includes many religious folk believe that the causes and solutions to these problems are revealed through science and education not religious dogma. Do you not believe in the medical sciences? Obviously you give no bearing to the social sciences. Do you honestly believe that taking prayer out of schools causes depression and suicide?

You know absolutely nothing about secular humanism.

 

 

Lula posts:

It's called having empirical knowledge of that time. Anyone who went to public school during the 50s received a superb, classical education backed with Judeo-Christian principles, ethics and morals culture.  Ask anyone who went to school back then and they will agree with what I'm saying.

THEN.....A radio or TV station was in danger of losing its operating license if it permitted swear words..as we have discussed.prayer and Bible reading was permitted. It was safe for children to walk to and from their neighborhood schools. There was no drug problem, no "X" rated or R-rated movies. There were no co-ed dorms on college campuses or in Armed Force barracks, no abortions, no open homosexuality, no HIV/AIDS. Then sex was a personal word, homosexual was an unheard of word, and abortion was an illegal word. Then the concept of instutionalizing 13 years of sex instruction as a legitimate subject in grades K-12 seemed utterly absurd given that no one of the generations before us ever had to attend school to learn the role of sex in human life. Oh, I could go on and on.  

THEN came the 60s, social, cultural and sexual revolutions and America changed, little by little America's culture changed.  People under 50 have a hard time comprehending these changes. They've never known an America other than the one with all these appalling pathologies listed above.

So, Yes. Absolutely yes ---taking prayer and Christian moral principles out of schools and replacing that with secular and atheist Humanism causes all these pathologies listed above. It doesn't take a racket scientist to figure out that in order to instill new humanistic, "anything goes", amoral values, the old-fashioned, repressive moralistic values, especially those acquired at home or Church must be questioned and weaned.

The principles of Secular Humanism as outlined in the 2nd Humanist Manifesto were to be applied in the sex ed curriculum using the ultimate apparatus called "Values clarification" and "situational ethics". In order to instill new humanist values teachers have to disrespect parental authority and constitutional liberty and remove the emphasis of teaching traditional, moral values.

Anyway, we know for sure that schools pushing Secular and Atheistic Humanism aren't providing the same education we received back THEN. Education has been dumbed down, high school graduates can't read, and today they can't even write longhand (cursive). Little Johnny can't read so well either, but he sure knows all about role playing activities, and putting on condoms for so called "safe sex". Eight year old Susie can't rattle off her times tables, but in the area of values education, she's come to the understanding that human sexuality has all the moral equivalency of going to the bathroom.  

Ha, ha, ha.

https://forums.joeuser.com/167151

Check out this blog from 2007! I connect the dots for you.

 

 

 

My point is lulu that you seem to think secular humanism has no system of values, morals, or ethics when in fact it does. The difference is that secular humanists do not form their ethical beliefs from a a single book or religious authority. Overall many of my values are exactly the same as yours and exactly the same as many christian values. Many of my values have been formed from reading the bible and studying various religions and their texts. Where my values generally differ is in areas where science, or reality, or personal experiences challenge religious traditions. Personally I don't consider myself a secular humanist because some of my values do come from bible folklore for example. I am simply an individual who from a very early age has learned that questioning  self-proclaimed authorities can often lead to better answers and solutions to the problems that we encounter in life.

You often use information from biased, partisan,factually incorrect,politically motivated websites in your posts to form some terribly off the wall ideas about how the rest of the world is at war with you and your religion. Maybe one day you will realize that there is this huge propaganda machine using you and your religion as pawns in a huge chess game called politics.

I've already shown you that in the 50s religion and politics got along jolly well. No problem with those two spheres of authority.

It seems to me that the secular and atheistic humanists are using the political sphere to drive the Church and Christianity out of the arenas of education, the public square and life in general.

 

 

It's true. The world is at war with Christians and Christianity.

Here's the latest in the war against Christmas  ...calling the Christmas tree, well, a Christmas tree. 

Rhode Island governor gets rid of capitol 'Christmas' tree

November 30, 2011

Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee does not like a Christmas tree being called a Christmas tree. So he is changing it. According to FoX News,  Gov. Chafee has said the Christmas tree in the State House Rotunda in Providence, as of this year, will be called a "holiday" tree.

Thus the War on Christmas continues. Those like Gov. Chafee don't like the fact that the Christmas tree is identified with the Christian faith.

But Rep. Doreen Costa, called the governor a "Grinch."

She has decided to erect her own Christmas tree - at the State House. And she plans on lighting it on Dec. 6 - the same day Chafee plans to host the official "holiday" tree lighting event.

"We're going to sing Christmas carols and drink hot chocolate," she said. "And I'm going to make a sign - Christmas tree lighting to the right and holiday tree to the left. We'll see who gets the crowd."

This is ridiculous and a slap in the face to the Christian community in Rhode Island. Everyone knows trees displayed at the Capitol in December are to celebrate Christmas, a special holiday in the life of Rhode Island and in the life of our country.