Wednesday, August 12, 2015

We do know what dead people thought!!!

We do know what they thought because they wrote a lot.
Quite often I find myself quoting the founding fathers or other dead people.  Recently I did this while debating with a friend of mine who happens to be a liberal and an atheist.  I essentially was explaining to her that belief in God is integral to any functioning society, and the founding fathers knew this.

She argued that there is no way I could know what the founding fathers were thinking.  She said there are many times people like me (meaning God fearing conservatives) say that they know what people of the past were thinking, and that this is not possible. Her exact words were:  "But, you shouldn't claim that dead people believed things that you can't personally witness."

To this I said: "Isn't that the purpose of writing, to share what you witness?"

Thomas Jefferson was a founding father, and we have many copies of things he wrote while he was alive, and it is through these writings that we know what he thought on various issues. It's often believed that he did not believe in God. Whether this is true or not does not matter.  

Jefferson and John Adams wrote many letters back and forth, and in many of these letters they discussed the importance of religion.  They discussed how the young United States could not afford to keep up a military, and therefore they were concerned that the nation would be able to prevent people from committing crimes that might destroy the nation from within.  

By their review of history, they believed that no nation could exist without people who were fearful of a greater power.  They believed that nations that feared God and the Devil were able to keep their people under control.  

It was for this reason the founding fathers believed it was essential for America to be a Christian Nation. It was for this reason the Ten Commandments are etched on the walls where the Senate meets.  It's for this reason "In God We Trust" is engraved on coins.  

This strategy worked, thus holding the nation together through some really defenseless and tough times early on it its existence.  This strategy worked until the 1960s, when progressives started to break down the infrastructure of this nation, first and foremost by their efforts to extricate God from schools and God from Government.  

My point here is that we do too know what dead people thought, especially when these dead people wrote their thoughts and opinions when they were alive.  

However, despite her claims that there is no way I could know what dead people thought, she wrote: "Einstein found the Bible 'childish, primitive.'  

So, while I can't say that dead people believed things, she did the same thing.  So obviously, either she has been reading the writings of Einstein, a dead person, or she somehow knows what a dead person thinks.  Yet since she doesn't believe in God, nor angels, then how is it that she can possibly speak with dead people? 

So I come back with this: "Einstein believed in God, and said that he sees no reason why God and science cannot co-exist. He said, 'Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.'

Rush Limbaugh once said that liberalism is the cowardly choice, because all you have to do to be a liberal is say you care for something or someone, and come up with a solution that someone else pays for.  Then when someone criticizes your idea, you attack them with vitriol such as: "You are an idiot, Nazi, child hater, women hater, homophobe, racist."  Sometimes they say nice things like, "You are not being nice."

In this case, such vitriol came out as, "You can't possibly know what dead people thought." In other words, she had no argument to refute what I said, so she attacked my words.  She did this even though what she said was untrue, made no sense, and was hypocritical.    

I'm used to this, as this is what usually happens when you debate someone who has no facts to back up their opinion.  That's how these discussions usually go.  This is what I'm used to, considering I like to challenge people with facts and logic.  Sometimes though, as was the case here, continuing the discussion wasn't worth my time. 

My point here is not to criticize my friend's comments. My point is that I often like to quote the founding fathers to prove a point that my liberal friends have no counter argument for.  So, instead of citing facts, they attack me with vitriol like, "There's no way you can possibly know what dead people thought.  

Quite the contrary: "You can know what dead people thought."