"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cLidnf-zJcxnk27bnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:FP-dnd0s3qy1PG_bnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> And why should I have to "prove" my God exists to you - or anyone else?
>>> There is no fraud involved. I have stated my belief. You can choose to
>>> believe or not. It's up to you.
>>\
>> It depends upon what you said. If you said, "I believe God exists", the
>> you are correct that you don't have to prove anything to anyone because
>> it is a simple statement of faith. If you said "God exists", then the
>> onus of proof is upon you because that is a statement that you make as
>> fact. In that situation the burden of proof is not upon him to show the
>> non-existence (which is impossible), but upon you to support your
>> statement.
>>
>
> I never said "God exists". Point back to show me where I did.

notice he prefaces the statement with *IF*.

>>> Not to you, there isn't. And no, I'm not even going to try to provide
>>> any objective evidence to you - or anyone else. I have my beliefs, and
>>> that's good enough for me.
>>
>> Either there is objective proof or there isn't. He claims there isn't.
>> It is impossible to prove non-existence. All you need to do to show his
>> statement to be wrong is to produce a single instance of objective
>> evidence. Unless you can do that, (which you can't), his statement stands
>> undisputed.
>>
>
> No, his statement stands irrelevant. Something which cannot be proven nor
> disproven is such.

watch it jerry! you're starting to think like an atheist.

>>> I'm glad you finally admit it. But that is a direct contradiction to
>>> your previous statement: "sorry, religious people are in the *business*
>>> of converting."
>>>
>>> So a correct statement would be "sorry, religious people I'VE MET are in
>>> the *business* of converting." A big difference.
>>
>> As a point of fact, I will refute Steve's statement this time. The
>> official policy in Judaism is to DIScourage conversions, and it has been
>> the policy for at least a thousand years. See, Jerry, all it takes is
>> one instance to show the statement to be wrong.

yes, i should have been more concise with the object of my attentions.

> But I'm not trying to show him to be wrong. He's entitled to his opinion.

i'm confused. this all began because i wanted you to know that atheism is
not a religion. from there, you proceeded to try to prove me wrong. is the
above statement just in the context to shelly's comment here?

>>>> there should be no need for a situation that required an opt-out option
>>>> in the first place!
>>>>
>>> Sure. They all worship a god (or in some cases gods). It is a prayer
>>> to their god.
>>
>> And what of the atheists? They don't worship a god. Again, only one
>> instance is needed to disprove your statement. (...or are you saying "to
>> hell with the atheists"? :-) )
>>
>
> So, they can opt-out of any prayer. No problem.

i cannot believe you still don't concede the point! of what business is it
of the government to support any religion. my rights are completely left out
of your equation and shows a total lack of understanding, as shelly pointed
out earlier, of being the stand-out and the consequences that brings.

you never have answered us on satanic prayers being offered up before a
school's sporting events. i cannot believe that doesn't strike a chord with
you.

>>> And the world is full of opt-out situations every day. Every choice you
>>> make you can opt to go another way.
>>
>> For adults, that is one thing. For children it is quite another. Peer
>> pressure disappears to a large degree as we mature. Not so when we are
>> young. You are promoting cruely to children by your "opt-out choice".
>>
>
> No, children opt-out of things every day, also. What "cruelty" is there?

wow! that's just bullheaded. you don't get it yet?

>>> Let the state remain NEUTRAL in such matters. Neither promoting nor
>>> prohibiting.
>>
>> The greatest asset in our democracy is the protection of the rights of
>> the minority from the tyrrany of the majority. Majority governs, but it
>> must not rule (do you understand the distinction?) . That is what the
>> Bill of Rights and the rest of it is all about.
>>
>
> Yes, I do understand that.

then apply it to prayer in schools!

>>>> you have equal access to practice your beliefs as anyone else. the
>>>> standard is the same. the laws are the same. if you feel the gov.
>>>> should favor you more, then you're more arrogant that i thought.
>>>>
>>> No, but YOU feel the government should favor YOU more. I just want the
>>> right to practice my religion. You want to refuse me that right - even
>>> though it is doing NO HARM to you.
>>
>> Jerry, please stop with this load of crap. NOONE IS REFUSING YOU THE
>> RIGHT TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION. PERIOD. We are merely saying you can't
>> do it on MY property nor at MY expense. That means not on public
>> property nor at public expense. You can do it all you want on PRIVATE
>> property and paid for by you.
>>
>
> Horse hockey. Atheists are trying to refuse me the right to practice my
> religion every day.

that's nonsense. i want names, i want dates...something to verify this. you
keep saying it but have only said, since your church burned down you weren't
allowed to conduct religious meetings on public property (i.e. a public
school).

if the government is to remain neutral on religious matters, it certainly
doesn't behoove them to invite one into its house, so to speak.

every day, eh? give us something we can verify, please.

> I'm not trying to do it on YOUR PROPERTY. Nor am I trying to do it at
> YOUR EXPENSE. But you need to remember that I PAID FOR THAT PUBLIC
> PROPERTY, TOO, AND IT GIVES ME RIGHTS.
>
>> Why are you dense here? We have told you this how many times now? Yet,
>> you insist on repeating this bullshit. Are you blinded? pig-headed? or
>> just plain too damn stupid to understand? Over the years I had thought
>> more of your intelligence than that you can't grasp the meaning of the
>> simple statement that has been made to you over and over and over and
>> over ad infinitum.
>>
>
> Yes, why are you being so dense? I have never said it should be at state
> expense. But you REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS TO
> ACCESS TO PUBLIC PROPERTY THAT YOU DO.

it is NOT ABOUT THE MONEY!!! it implicitly endorses a religion whether
consideration is involved or not. I ACKNOWLEDGE that you and i have equal
rights to public property. i ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE that in order to maintain a
wall of seperation, RELIGION should not be on any public venue. doesn't
matter if it is for free or for rent!

>> I've had it. Unless you can show how we are REFUSING YOU THE RIGHT TO
>> PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION, and not come up with the stupidity you have
>> presented, I will bow out and let you live on in your ignorance.
>>
>
> I HAVE. BUT IT'S ASSHOLES LIKE YOU WHO REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
>
> YES, I'M A LOT MORE THAN PISSED OFF NOW. YOU'VE PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH,
> ACCUSED ME OF WANTING TO DO THINGS I NEVER SAID I WANTED TO DO, AND A
> WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER BULLSHIT.
>
> IT'S PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE TRYING TO TWIST THE CONSTITUTION, BILL OF
> RIGHTS AND THE COURTS OF THIS COUNTRY TO MAKE IT NOT A RELIGION NEUTRAL
> COUNTRY, BUT AN ATHEISTIC ONE.

how can you be religion neutral and invite a religion into your home, yet
remain to be seen as neutral?

> AND MY LAST WORDS ARE, FUCK OFF, ASSHOLE. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET BY
> ACCUSING ME OF THINGS I NEVER SAID.

i see him still repeating what he has been saying over and over again.
you've repeated yourself as many times. shelly has not introduced anything
into your pie hole.

>>>>> After all - what harm does it do to you that a coach offers a prayer
>>>>> before a big game? Are you afraid your children will start asking
>>>>> questions about something you don't believe in?
>>>> i don't know. you tell me. what if he's leading your kid in a prayer to
>>>> satan? what would your problem be with that? what, are you afraid your
>>>> children will start asking questions about something you don't believe
>>>> in?
>>>>
>>>> don't be moronic.
>>> You're the one who wants it banned, not me. And a non-denominational
>>> prayer, by definition, is one towards no specific god. So he can't be
>>> praying to Satan - it would not be non-denominational.
>>>
>>> Don't be moronic.
>>
>> Once you mention "god" in a positive sense, it is no longer
>> "non-denominational". That is because you have already excluded
>> atheists. Again, all that is needed is ONE instance to refute the
>> statement.
>>
>
> Not true. As I said. If you don't want to participate, no one is holding
> a gun to your head.

it's not about participating. it's the gawd damned priciple. IT EXCLUDES
SOMEONE and shows favor to someone else.

> BUT ASSHOLE, YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT SIMPLE CONCEPT. YOU'VE GOT YOUR
> HEAD SO FAR UP YOUR ASS YOU HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT THAT I HAVE RIGHTS, ALSO.

no, we're clear on what rights you have. forget that you keep mentioning
that. what i'd like to see is you acknowledge that others do to. it would be
grand if you could actually try to consider that your rights and someone
elses are equal. futher, that the government should try to accomodate
everyone's rights. and, where religion is concerned, the best way for it to
do that is to let it remain a private endeavor rather than playing host to
it.

>> How about "Let us all reflect upon what a great country we live in, wish
>> for the health of our family and friends, be thankful for the
>> opportunities presented to each one of us, and hope for a future of peace
>> and happiness"? Would you, Jerry, call that a prayer (no mention of God
>> or pray or giving thanks)? Would you, Steve? And Steve, isn't this sort
>> of what you think about when the rest of your church is "praying"? I
>> know that this is what I think of every time I hear the national anthem.
>>
>> Shelly
>
> HOW ABOUT YOU GO AND FLUSH YOURSELF DOWN THE TOILET AND SAVE THE REST OF
> THE WORLD A LOT OF TROUBLE.
>
> Yes, I've gone overboard on this one. But quite frankly, I'M TIRED OF
> YOUR CLAIMS THAT I SAID THINGS I DIDN'T SAY. SO I'M RESORTING TO YOUR
> LEVEL - WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY ONE YOU UNDERSTAND.
>
> SO UNLESS YOU CAN APOLOGIZE, QUITE ACCUSING ME OF THINGS I DIDN'T SAY, AND
> ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE RIGHTS, ALSO, FUCK OFF, MORON.

jerry, please be specific about what it is he's saying for you. i just don't
see it, having review his and your dialogs.

"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
news:gVHIi.214$d02.33@newsfe05.lga...
> jerry, please be specific about what it is he's saying for you. i just
> don't see it, having review his and your dialogs.

Steve, fuh-ged-a-bowd-it.

Shelly
..

"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13f6d8d61da5u2e@corp.supernews.com...
> This is to Steve:
> It's not Godwin, but I this is close enough to count. Game over.

man! i think he must have googled it. i lead one conversation right to the
brink by comparison of the 'its only one country, oh its only one more, ah
those are unimportant countries' to describe the slippery slope. he didn't
take the bait. i had to be careful with my wording not to do one myself.

did you see the prediction of pascal's wager...followed by pascal's wager? i
chuckled at that one. i forgot to claim my five pounds though...should be
ten since i called it before hand. ;^)

> This reminds me of a story I heard once. A European visitor to China a
> couple of hundred years ago saw two men arguing and yelling at each other
> so violently that he was sure a fight would break out and that one or the
> other would pull a knife and kill the other. Yet, even though this went
> on a very long time, nothing violent happened and finally it ended. The
> man asked his guide "why did they not get into a physical fight?". The
> answer he got was that the first one to throw a punch was deemed the
> loser.
>
> Read this post by Jerry, especially the second half.

oh, i've been following along. i thought i had over-responded a couple of
times - and even sort of apologized in another thread for it, inclusive of
my love of the f-bomb. i about blew a gasket from disbelief! i've NEVER seen
him that riled. i may seem to talk passionately about this subject and get
bent out of shape, but in no way am i emotionally tied to a discussion of
theory and opinion! you are either right and you are successful at
demonstrating that you are, or you couldn't get your point across, or, you
are not so right as you first thought.

there's either got to be something else going on with him, or he's tired of
hearing us disagree with him and he's flustered. i don't know. i hope he can
leave those sentiments in this thread. i'd hate to killfile jerry if he
reacts this way in other threads even though we'll probably never speak of
this subject again.

btw, i haven't forgotten to do the 'email-you-and-i-get-new-address-for-you'
for job opportunities either. just been busy. i stop and come here for light
reading before it's heads-down for a few more hours.

regards,

me

"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13f6jsfr5u4hu9b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
> news:gVHIi.214$d02.33@newsfe05.lga...
>> jerry, please be specific about what it is he's saying for you. i just
>> don't see it, having review his and your dialogs.
>
> Steve, fuh-ged-a-bowd-it.

ah well.

cheers

Shelly wrote:
> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
> news:gVHIi.214$d02.33@newsfe05.lga...
>> jerry, please be specific about what it is he's saying for you. i just
>> don't see it, having review his and your dialogs.
>
> Steve, fuh-ged-a-bowd-it.
>
Indeed. This thread isn't about religion: It's about Jerry.

Now we all know that Jerry has issues, and roughly what they are, and
the rest we can guess.

> Shelly
> .
>
>

Herb wrote:
> On Sep 16, 10:13 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>>> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>>>> ROFLMAO! You really are a sucker, you know that?
>>> I don't have a problem with that.
>>>> And this is a perfect example. Yep, he has more credibility than an
>>>> anonymous post on a website by an organization known for their lies.
>>>> Especially when they were not part of the conversations involved, and
>>>> Sean was.
>>> So a little conservative wannabe has more credibility than half of the
>>> Web and many big organizations? Tell me why! Maybe it's just because he
>>> has the same opinions as you? So he simply _must_ be right, because you
>>> don't allow any other opinions?
>>> Micha
>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>> You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.
>
> you are arguing with a bunch of emotional idiots, Jerry.
>

It's funny. After my posts last night I told a forum member I've been
conversing with on email that someone would claim a Godwin on that.

And they didn't let me down.

When you look back through the threads, it's amazing how illogical they
are, and how "their rights" are more important than "my rights".

I don't mind a good debate. However, in this case too many statements I
made were ignored - either not responded to or the subject was changed,
because they didn't have a response. And too many times I've been
accused of saying things I never said. But not ONCE did they correct
their accusation or apologize for it.

Enough is enough. It's obvious these guys have nothing to stand on, so
they try to twist anything they can to meet their needs.

They can claim a "win". Quite frankly, I don't give a damn.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Herb wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 10:13 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>>>> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>>>>> ROFLMAO! You really are a sucker, you know that?
>>>> I don't have a problem with that.
>>>>> And this is a perfect example. Yep, he has more credibility than an
>>>>> anonymous post on a website by an organization known for their lies.
>>>>> Especially when they were not part of the conversations involved, and
>>>>> Sean was.
>>>> So a little conservative wannabe has more credibility than half of the
>>>> Web and many big organizations? Tell me why! Maybe it's just because he
>>>> has the same opinions as you? So he simply _must_ be right, because you
>>>> don't allow any other opinions?
>>>> Micha
>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>
>>> You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.
>>
>> you are arguing with a bunch of emotional idiots, Jerry.
>>
>
> It's funny. After my posts last night I told a forum member I've been
> conversing with on email that someone would claim a Godwin on that.
>
> And they didn't let me down.
>
> When you look back through the threads, it's amazing how illogical they
> are, and how "their rights" are more important than "my rights".
>
If you had achieved adulkhood, you would have realised that like God,
Rights are just another fiction.

Its all in yer mind Jerry. This feeing tat somewhere Out There is a
Authority that you can appeal to that is Fair and Just.

Those of us with crap dads who died early labour under no such
paternalistic illusions. Grow up Jerry. There is no Big Daddy, and such
rights as exist are *agreed upon* by fallible human beings out of mutual
and occasionally enlightened self interest.



> I don't mind a good debate. However, in this case too many statements I
> made were ignored - either not responded to or the subject was changed,
> because they didn't have a response.

Mostly by you.

You have ignored my last thre posts of some depth.

And too many times I've been
> accused of saying things I never said. But not ONCE did they correct
> their accusation or apologize for it.
>

This is pure projection Jerry. The only person guilty of ALL of the
above is you. One concludes that you are either deliberately trolling,
or are in fact in need of some counselling.


> Enough is enough. It's obvious these guys have nothing to stand on, so
> they try to twist anything they can to meet their needs.
>
> They can claim a "win". Quite frankly, I don't give a damn.
>

Who was trying to win anything, but you?

Its not important to anyone else.

Its important to you that God exists. Its irrelevant to me. It's merely
and excuse to write out some philosophical ideas I am working on, in
between scads of dull PHP.

Go away and repair your ego: Its obvious you can't live without it.
That's OK too. The only real loser on that front is you, but if you are
that weak, maybe its for the best.