Post your favorite quotes!

originally posted by: Maxmars

originally posted by: livinglight108
2A suggests we have the duty to be members of militias. It's not usually considered however what if people do not have the right to fail to understand the bill of rights? What if it is people's moral obligation to understand why self-defense using fire-arms is critical as a last line of preservation/defense of freedom?

I don't want to spoil this great thread full of the most quotable quotes ATS can muster, but I need to point out that the general acceptance that the maladies that could befall our national (notional?) sovereignty as new "Americans" was avoidable by accepting that an armed population could never be completely oppressed, isn't the same as 'engendering a duty.'

The framers were careful to avoid the creation of such burdens on citizens. I agree that can be inferred but disagree that it constitutes an implicit duty.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

I'd make the case for my view-point by observing what happens to people post disarmament.

This is why I make such bold claim though I entirely see what you're saying.

delete

I know I said I wouldn't post one of my own quotes, but I am afraid I have to break one of my own rules, I hope you people don't mind.

"For me, meek does not mean weak - for me, meek means people which are heart-centered" - Me

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell

originally posted by: SkyAngel
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - Albert Einstein

Well, since you started with Einstein: “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” Similarly, nationalism is well described by the psalmist’s expression, “the pestilence causing adversities.” (Psalm 91:3) A century ago, French writer Guy de Maupassant said that “the egg from which wars are hatched” is patriotism, which he called “a kind of religion.” In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion says that patriotism’s cousin, nationalism, “has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world.” Back in 1946, British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Patriotism . . . has very largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the Western World.”

In a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

But coming back to Einstein, and continuing with another famous scientist:

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

On the subject of evolutionary philosophies (the "lineage" spoken of is referring to an ancestral evolutionary lineage):

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117; Henry Gee is a British paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and senior editor of the scientific journal Nature.

On to the related subject of the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life", a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" (I have to add a bit more context so I'll be quoting from an article, I'll bold the relevant quote):

QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

...

What do many scientists claim?
Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They feel that in some such location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubblelike structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these “simple” original cells.

Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1

1. How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

Coming back to the story of biological evolution and in particular the claims regarding common descent. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations​—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—​can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.

The main problem with this myth is what Dr. Lönnig has described as the law of recurrent variation, regarding that subject, he lists a number of quotes on his website (between brackets is mine, except for the Christian Schwabe quote):

All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.

William R. Fix

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruitflies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories. [One way that scientists classify all living things is by a seven-step system in which each step is more specific than the one before it. Step one is kingdom, the broadest category. Then come the categories phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. So a higher category than species is genus.]

Richard B. Goldschmidt

Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

Pierre-Paul Grassé

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.

Lynn Margulis

Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.L.; vgl. Diskussion]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.

Christian Schwabe

Source: W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation (Law of recurrent Variation)

“The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.” (Paul at 2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

Ezek. 18:4: “Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.”

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

“Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”—Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35.

“The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454.

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·kheʹ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·kheʹ and neʹphesh (the Hebrew word rendered “soul”), as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

“The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.”—Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

“The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.

originally posted by: SkyAngel

"For me, meek does not mean weak - for me, meek means people which are heart-centered" - Me

A synonym for meek is mild-tempered.

“Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.”​—Matthew 5:5.

Although Jesus promised his disciples that he would “prepare a place” for them in heaven, he indicated that the righteous do not automatically go there. (John 3:13; 14:2, 3) Did he not pray that God’s will take place “as in heaven, also upon earth”? (Matthew 6:9, 10) In reality, one of two destinies awaits the righteous.

The majority of good people will live forever on earth​—not in heaven.

originally posted by: SkyAngel
"Politics is pointless if it does nothing to enhance the beauty of our lives." - Howard Zinn

At some point below I'm going to have to elaborate a bit more on the quotations (also to tie the quotation at the end back into the quotations at the beginning)...

“Politics cannot begin to put the connecting tissue back in society. It is ill-equipped to reconstruct traditional moral beliefs. The best policies cannot recover courtship or marriage, make fathers responsible for their children, restore shock or shame where it once existed . . . The vast majority of moral problems that trouble us cannot be eradicated by law.” - a former U.S. government aide

Paul Weyrich, coiner of the term “moral majority,” wrote in the magazine Christianity Today: “Even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important.” He also wrote: “The culture is becoming an ever-wider sewer. We are caught up in a cultural collapse of historic proportions, a collapse so great that it simply overwhelms politics.”

Columnist and author Cal Thomas revealed what he viewed as a fundamental flaw in trying to elevate society through politics: “Real change comes heart by heart, not election by election, because our primary problems are not economic and political but moral and spiritual.”

But how do you resolve moral and spiritual problems in a world where there are no absolutes, where people decide for themselves what is right and wrong? Many believe that truth is relative​—in other words, that what is true to one person may be untrue to another, so that both may be “right.” This belief is so widespread that there is a word for it​—“relativism.”

Questioning the idea of absolute truth is hardly a new phenomena though. When Jesus was standing before Pilate as a condemned criminal, he explained that the reason for this​—indeed, the very reason that he had come to the earth and undertaken his ministry—​came down to one thing: truth. “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world,” he said, “that I should bear witness to the truth.”​—John 18:37.

Pilate’s reply was a memorable question: “What is truth?” (John 18:38) Did he really want an answer? Probably not. Jesus was the kind of man who could answer any question asked of him in sincerity, but he did not answer Pilate. And the Bible says that after asking his question, Pilate walked straight out of the audience chamber. The Roman governor likely asked the question in cynical disbelief, as if to say, “Truth? What is that? There is no such thing!” (According to Bible scholar R. C. H. Lenski, Pilate’s “tone is that of an indifferent worldling who by his question intends to say that anything in the nature of religious truth is a useless speculation.”)

Pilate’s skeptical view of truth is not uncommon today and he was hardly the first person to question the idea of absolute truth. Some ancient Greek philosophers made the teaching of such doubts virtually their life’s work! Five centuries before Pilate, Parmenides (who has been considered the father of European metaphysics) held that real knowledge was unattainable. Democritus, hailed as “the greatest of ancient philosophers,” asserted: “Truth is buried deep. . . . We know nothing for certain.” Perhaps the most revered of them all, Socrates, said that all that he really knew was that he knew nothing.

This assault on the idea that truth can be known has continued down to our day. Some philosophers, for instance, say that since knowledge reaches us through our senses, which can be deceived, no knowledge is verifiably true. French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes decided to examine all the things he thought he knew for certain. He discarded all but one truth that he deemed incontrovertible: “Cogito ergo sum,” or, “I think, therefore I am.”

Relativism is not limited to philosophers. It is taught by religious leaders, indoctrinated in schools, and spread by the media. Episcopal bishop John S. Spong said a few years ago: “We must . . . move from thinking we have the truth and others must come to our point of view to the realization that ultimate truth is beyond the grasp of all of us.” Spong’s relativism, like that of so many clergymen today, is quick to drop the Bible’s moral teachings in favor of a philosophy of “to each his own.” For example, in an effort to make homosexuals feel more “comfortable” in the Episcopal Church, Spong wrote a book claiming that the apostle Paul was a homosexual!

In many lands the school systems seem to engender a similar type of thinking. Allan Bloom wrote in his book The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” Bloom found that if he challenged his students’ conviction on this matter, they would react with astonishment, “as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4.”

The same thinking is promoted in countless other ways. For instance, TV and newspaper reporters often seem more interested in entertaining their viewers than in getting at the truth of a story. Some news programs have even doctored or faked film footage in order to make it appear more dramatic. And in entertainment a stronger attack is mounted on truth. The values and moral truths that our parents and grandparents lived by are widely viewed as obsolete and are often held up to outright ridicule.

Of course, some might argue that much of this relativism represents open-mindedness and therefore has a positive impact on human society. Does it really, though?

In his book The Art of Thinking, Professor V. R. Ruggiero expresses his surprise that even intelligent people sometimes say that truth is relative. He reasons: “If everyone makes his own truth, then no person’s idea can be better than another’s. All must be equal. And if all ideas are equal, what is the point in researching any subject? Why dig in the ground for answers to archeological questions? Why probe the causes of tension in the Middle East? Why search for a cancer cure? Why explore the galaxy? These activities make sense only if some answers are better than others, if truth is something separate from, and unaffected by, individual perspectives.”

In fact, no one really believes that there is no truth. When it comes to physical realities, such as medicine, mathematics, or the laws of physics, even the staunchest relativist will believe that some things are true. Who of us would dare to ride in an airplane if we did not think that the laws of aerodynamics were absolute truths? Verifiable truths do exist; they surround us, and we stake our lives on them.

It is in the moral realm, though, where the errors of relativism are most apparent, for it is here that such thinking has done the most harm. The Encyclopedia Americana makes this point: “It has been seriously doubted whether knowledge, or known truth, is humanly attainable . . . It is certain, however, that whenever the twin ideals of truth and knowledge are rejected as visionary or harmful, human society decays.”

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
“Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.”​—Matthew 5:5.

Although Jesus promised his disciples that he would “prepare a place” for them in heaven, he indicated that the righteous do not automatically go there. (John 3:13; 14:2, 3) Did he not pray that God’s will take place “as in heaven, also upon earth”? (Matthew 6:9, 10) In reality, one of two destinies awaits the righteous.

The majority of good people will live forever on earth​—not in heaven.

Psalm 37:29:

The righteous will possess the earth,

And they will live forever on it.

Forgot to quote that one in regards to that final statement. I thought Matthew 5:5 on its own was already clear enough, but that's because I'm more familiar with what it says regarding living forever on earth at Ps 37:29. Since I just remembered most people aren't, I figured I'd include it this time since Matthew 5:5 doesn't include the remark about living forever.

originally posted by: JefeFeesh
a reply to: AOx6179

That's a good one that sounds similar to this:

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” – Abe Lincoln

Proverbs 17:28:

Even a fool who keeps silent will be considered wise,

And the one who seals his lips, discerning.

originally posted by: livinglight108

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." We all know who said this.

“Evolution is a fact.” This is the standard confession of faith that assures the scientific community of your orthodoxy. And for public consumption, the claim is often added: ‘It has been proved so often that there is no longer a need to repeat the proof.’ Very convenient, especially since the evolutionist has no proof to repeat. Yet, for years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.”

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.”

“Propaganda will not lead to success unless a fundamental principle is considered with continually sharp attention: it has to confine itself to little and to repeat this eternally. Here, too, persistency, as in so many other things in this world, is the first and the most important condition for success. . . . The masses . . . will lend their memories only to the thousandfold repetition of the most simple ideas. A change must never alter the content of what is being brought forth by propaganda, but in the end it always has to say the same. Thus the slogan has to be illuminated from various sides, but the end of every reflection has always and again to be the slogan itself.”​—Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.

This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

Excerpts from Gould's essay follow:

Darwin’s lifework was “establishing the fact of evolution.” “The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun).” By the time of Darwin’s death, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.” Gould spoke of it as “secure fact” and “the fact of transmutation.” “Evolution is also a fact of nature.” “Evolution is as well established as any scientific fact.” “Our confidence in the fact of evolution rests upon copious data.” He speaks of biologists’ agreement “about the fact of evolution.” “Theologians haven’t been troubled by the fact of evolution.” “I know hundreds of scientists who share a conviction about the fact of evolution.”

At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Other examples from others using the techniques highlighted in the Hitler quotation:

“As to the fact of evolution there is universal assent.”​—Limitations of Science, 1933.

“Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”​—The Biological Basis of Human Freedom, 1956.

“The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact.”​—Julian Huxley, 1959.

“All reputable biologists have agreed that the evolution of life on the earth is an established fact.”​—Biology for You, 1963.

“Anyone who is exposed to the evidence supporting evolution must recognize it as an historical fact.”​—The New Orleans Times-​Picayune, 1964.

“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority.”​—James D. Watson, 1965.

“Evolution has, by now, the status of fact.”​—Science on Trial, 1983.

“What we do have is incontrovertible proof of the fact of evolution.”​—Ashley Montagu, 1984.

Regarding this supposed “incontrovertible proof”, here are some further details for those who are willing to consider how incontrovertible this supposed “proof” really is:

Evolution—Myths and Facts
Is It a Fact? (Awake!—1981)
If Not a Fact, What Is It?
What Does Fit the Facts?

"It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions." - Mark Twain