The Declaration's most famous sentence reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Even today, this inspirational language expresses a profound commitment to human equality.
This ideal of equality has certainly influenced the course of American history. Early women's rights activists at SENECA FALLS in 1848 modeled their "DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS" in precisely the same terms as the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," they said, "that all men and women are created equal." Similarly, the African-American anti-slavery activist DAVID WALKER challenged white Americans in 1829 to "See your Declaration Americans!!! Do you understand your own language?" Walker dared America to live up to its self-proclaimed ideals. If all men were created equal, then why was slavery legal? http://www.ushistory.org/us/13a.asp
This statement became the ultimate catalyst for the correction of many injustices that were prevalent at the time in which it was written.
Theism and belief in equal creation has been proven to have corrected many injustices whereas on the other hand evolution and atheism has served as the catalyst for greatest injustices and horrors in history.
I carefully chose my wording and used these terms--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty. I did not say that any particular religion should be state established and would be opposed to that--because that inevitably leads to another form of suppression. What I promoted is exactly what our founders promoted. Do you agree with the founding principles of our country--All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? You cannot form a society on an amoral foundation or you will have an amoral and immoral society.
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution. .
Name a society that is or was based on evolution?
Name a society that is or was based on atheism?
There have been societies that have represses religion, but that is not atheism.
Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".[1] Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[2]
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and Communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[3]
Friedrich Engels wrote of atheistic evolutionism and Communism: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered law of development of human history."[4]
In 1955, Chinese Communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists are atheists".[5] In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.[6] See also: China and atheism
In 2016, the International Business Times reported:
“ A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China — and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions.[7] ” In 2014, the New American website indicated:
“ The Communist Party of China (CPC) is letting its members know that the party’s official adherence to militant atheism has not changed; Party members are not allowed to be Christians, or to hold any other religious beliefs. That is the clear message sent by a top Party official in an editorial published on November 14 in the Global Times, the international version of People’s Daily, the official newspaper and mouthpiece of the CPC.[8]
1. Marx, Karl. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 3. New York. 2. Marx, Karl. Private Property and Communism, 1844. 3. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion, 1909. 4. Engels, Friedrich. "Karl Marx's Funeral", Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 467. 5. Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001. 6. China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism, New American, 2014 7. China's Communist Party Bans Believers, Doubles Down On Atheism 8. Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society, International Business Times
So nobody got it? Athens, 600BC, democracy was born. If they really were theists, by Zeus, they would've stayed with the royal monarchy model. Being educated men in a day when classics were taught the founding fathers would've known this.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion.
Published: Proletary, No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909. Published according to the text in Proletary. Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1973,Moscow, Volume 15, pp. 402-413. Translated: Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs. Transcription and Markup: R. Cymbala, B. Baggins, D. Walters, and K. Goins.
So nobody got it? Athens, 600BC, democracy was born. If they really were theists, by Zeus, they would've stayed with the royal monarchy model. Being educated men in a day when classics were taught the founding fathers would've known this.
If you want to play word games, what kind of republic?
Representative Republic with strictly limited voting franchise, i.e., limited to those who have a significant stake in the general well being of the nation rather than potential parasites.
First I am positive Russell Humphries knows a lot more about astronomy and astrophysics than you.
First of all, Russell Humphreys (you spelled it wrong) is not a real scientist. He is employed by the Creation Science Institute. I cannot find any peer reviewed research paper he has ever published. Nor any legitimate cientist not employed by the same bunch who agrees with thim. He's a quack.
Second, his theories have been refuted by legitimate scientists. You would not understand the basic reasons, except possibly the one easily refuted by JPL. You can read that one in Wikipedia.
JPL has real scientists. They don't believe in talking snakes either.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
Relying on fossils as evidence for the theory of evolution makes no sense, and never has.
The creation, and later discovery, of fossils are both random events. There can be no representative sample of a cross-section of fauna at the time, nor any idea of the population of a particular species extant at any particular time. A species might have numbered in the millions, but due to geographic location would leave no fossil trace.
For that reason, there can also be no certainty regarding any mutations that may have occurred within a species, even if similarities within specimens are found.
The only thing certain about a fossil, is that the fossilized specimen happened to be preserved, and later discovered.
Unusual, for a person to base their faith on such a random cascade of events.
Fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream. http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html
In order to create a fossil record that comes close to duplicating what we have--we need to bury the fossils rapidly in a watery environment before they decay. For this to happen on a large scale there needs to be a massive water catastrophe. Millions of years are not required for a massive fossil grave yard but a water catastrophe is. And there needs to be an event which shepherds the animals together into one location.
It was admitted that fossils are forming today--which is true with the right conditions--which certainly means we don't need millions of years to create fossils.
Explaining your misconceptions about fossils grows very tiresome. It's like explaining calculus to third grade kids. Why don't you take a few days off and visit a natural history museum? There is an excellent one in Pittsburgh and (I assume) in other large cities in your state as well.
Then you will know why there wasn't any world wide flood.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
This is precisely why evolution is a "theory" in the dictionary definition because it never has and never will demonstrate repeatedly the purely materialistic spontaneous generation of life or the simultaneous development of all 30+ fine tuned mechanisms required for life. If the hypothesis has no scientific way to get started (it isn't taking us anywhere scientific), it certainly cannot be demonstrated, and therefore it is relegated to the simple dictionary definition of (non-scientific) theory i.e. an unproven assumption. This is why we insist and will continue to insist on the typical dictionary definition because not only is it unproven ... it is also both unscientific and illogical.
Science isn't done on 'dictionary definitions' - dictionary meanings reflect the common usage of words, which may be used in multiple ways and have multiple meanings. So it's false to assign a meaning to something where it doesn't belong. That would be the fallacy of equivocation. The word 'theory' in science has a specific meaning.
These things go sideways pretty quickly. From my perspective Religion is not faith, faith is not something you can force on another , if you are feeling pressured from it , you either are not open at the time or the messanger is false Nothing explains human consciousness , our ability to examine ourselves . So how did thought begin? It is a fair question
Faith as defined as a belief held without the support of evidence is faith regardless of anyone's perspective.
Thought, as the evidence tells us, is an electrochemical activity of a brain, which can be altered chemically and with the application of current to brain regions....producing fear, love, anxiety, involuntary movements, etc, (Delgado, et al).
I already addressed the definition of faith as defined by the original Webster definition and the meaning of it in Greek--citing a lexicon. The faith you describe is an evolutionist's faith and not a biblical faith.
To have faith essentially means the hope of something being true without evidence. It may or may not be true, but there is no way to know until confirmed.
Keep common usage, multiple meanings in common usage, blanket usage and the fallacy of equivocation in mind.
b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
''faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. an unshakable faith in God credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent''
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews)
Webster's New World College Dictionary defines faith as "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence."
In other words, not visible, not tangible, no instrinsic evidence, just a virtue of hope or wishful thinking, that God will one day deliver on a promise.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
You are looking at this from a uniform uiformitarianistic view. Consider gravitational time dilation. A proven concept of science used daily. An astrophysicist wrote a book called 'Starlight and time. He has made predictions on what the space missions will discover. He has been correct in the scientific observations.
What a froolish thing to say!
I assume you are trying to use the slowing of time by gravity to explain how stars can appear older than otherwise. Well, it would take a very massive object.to do this meaningfully, more massive than anything in our galazy that would affect the lifetimes of stars more than a bitrsy bit. You aren't going to weasel out of the universe's real age--13,800,000,000 years rounded off--to pretend that it could b interpreted as only being 6,000 years old.
A few pages ago, BTW, you asked me what time scale I used to assert the Veil Nebula (and many other supernova remnants) is much older than 6,000 yfears. I do not have time to explain to you how astronomers figure out the age of stuff and you do not have the ability to understand it if I did. Suffice it to say it's "universally" understood. By astronomers.
And while we're at it, you claimed to have seen a video of some "scientist" who went to a creationist meeting and became converted. Can you tell us the name of said scientist, if one exists?
First I am positive Russell Humphries knows a lot more about astronomy and astrophysics than you. Read his book. Like I posted earlier, you are basing your age on uniformitarianism. If there is an Infinite Intelligent Energy Being certainly He knows more than you, including how to create a universe in its present condemned state. You can't answer the question about the time scale because you don't know. I agree the supernova remnants are older than 6,000 years. They are at least a thousand years older.
By the way, see if you can find out how many known novae and super novae there are. I bet you will not find more than about 300. That opinion is based on Adam sinning and God cursing the universe about 7,000 years ago.
Russell Humphries of The Institute for Creation Research??
Do you have a link to his peer reviewed journal article on this subject in the Journal Nature?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
