"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..

> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

....and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who doesn't
mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for information).

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>> But it seems that the same people who are stupid and irresponsible
>> enough to vote themselves a tax break when there's an outstanding and
>> past-due, mutli-generational debt to pay...
>
> Yea, and you know what? After that tax break, the economy improved, and
> federal tax revenue INCREASED. You need to go back to Economics 101.

I CLEP'd Eco101 and 102.
Where your logic fails is in your use of just ONE side of the economic
equation.

Just because you have a credit card with a really high limit, doesn't
mean you're rich.

Then there's the HUMAN cost.

Shelly wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>
> ....and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who doesn't
> mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for information).

Amen.
The moon is in the 6th sun and this is the sunset of the age of
theology. Unfortunately, the religious nuts won't go without a fight.

--
That's why all those US soldiers have to die tonight.

Shelly wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>
> ...and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who doesn't
> mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for information).
>
>

The Bill of Rights says nothing about whether the President may be
religious or not. All it says is that government can't pass laws
telling YOU how you must/must not worship.

In fact, the Bill of Rights doesn't even say you can't display the 10
Commandments in a courthouse. But the courts have expanded the first
amendment far beyond it's original purpose. The Federalist Papers by
Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison is quite interesting
reading. It should how far we have strayed from the original intent.

And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
"overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
I don't try to tell you the same.

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

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>
>> ....and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who
>> doesn't mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for
>> information).
>
> Amen.
> The moon is in the 6th sun and this is the sunset of the age of
> theology. Unfortunately, the religious nuts won't go without a fight.
>
> --
> That's why all those US soldiers have to die tonight.
>

And your religion will take over?

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

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>>> But it seems that the same people who are stupid and irresponsible
>>> enough to vote themselves a tax break when there's an outstanding and
>>> past-due, mutli-generational debt to pay...
>>
>> Yea, and you know what? After that tax break, the economy improved,
>> and federal tax revenue INCREASED. You need to go back to Economics 101.
>
> I CLEP'd Eco101 and 102.

Then you need to go back to school.

> Where your logic fails is in your use of just ONE side of the economic
> equation.
>

And which side is that, Sanders? It must be the same side every
recognized economics expert in the world is on, though, so I guess I'm
in good company.

> Just because you have a credit card with a really high limit, doesn't
> mean you're rich.
>

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

> Then there's the HUMAN cost.

Yes, there is the human cost. Poor people have more money to spend on
necessities, so they are living better. People with higher incomes have
more money for luxuries, so they're living better. And all this extra
buying is creating more jobs, lowering the unemployment rate, which
gives more people a chance to move up in the economic world, so they're
living better.

In fact, the only ones not living better are the socialists who want to
control the country by taking hard-earned money from those who earned it
and give that money to people who sit on their behinds all day and drink
beer.


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

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..

> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or atheism
itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to ask, what
scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with whatever
'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it indicate that
she may want to have with us? as there is no objective evidence, i can only
infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to do with us.

as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions that
atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad? mythra? zeus?
buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this is the most i've
ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing to do with afghanistan
or iraq, but everything to do with domestic policy inacted after 911...and
how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved and rallied under the banner
of 'god' in leu of ration thought - especially thought that is critical of
current events in light of history.

give me an atheist about now, please!

> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
> by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
> trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
proper dictionary definition.

atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

that's all. i resent the implication that i am religious. i'm no more
religious for my lack of belief in god that i am for my lack of belief in
the toothfairy.

at least when i lost my tooth as a child, there was proof of a
toothfairy...i always had a quarter under my pillow where my tooth had been!

Steve wrote:
>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
>> by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
>> trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>
> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
> proper dictionary definition.
>
> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
>
> that's all. i resent the implication that i am religious. i'm no more
> religious for my lack of belief in god that i am for my lack of belief in
> the toothfairy.
>
> at least when i lost my tooth as a child, there was proof of a
> toothfairy...i always had a quarter under my pillow where my tooth had been!
>
>

Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
"lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.

Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.

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

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>
> jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or atheism
> itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to ask, what
> scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with whatever
> 'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it indicate that
> she may want to have with us? as there is no objective evidence, i can only
> infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to do with us.
>

I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me. And
I feel sorry for you.

> as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions that
> atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad? mythra? zeus?
> buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this is the most i've
> ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing to do with afghanistan
> or iraq, but everything to do with domestic policy inacted after 911...and
> how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved and rallied under the banner
> of 'god' in leu of ration thought - especially thought that is critical of
> current events in light of history.
>
> give me an atheist about now, please!
>
>

I don't care what you believe in. However, when you try to impose your
religion on me, the President or anyone else, I draw the line.

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

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6Z6dnZEIv9iJMnLbnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>
>> ...and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who doesn't
>> mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for information).
>
> The Bill of Rights says nothing about whether the President may be
> religious or not. All it says is that government can't pass laws telling
> YOU how you must/must not worship.
>
> In fact, the Bill of Rights doesn't even say you can't display the 10
> Commandments in a courthouse. But the courts have expanded the first
> amendment far beyond it's original purpose. The Federalist Papers by
> Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison is quite interesting
> reading. It should how far we have strayed from the original intent.
>
> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
> by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
> trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>
> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and I
> worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and I
> don't try to tell you the same.

Exactly! I don't give a damn whether the president is religious or not.
That is exactly my point. I just don't want him to mix religion with
politics. And, yes, atheism is also sort of a religion. It is the belief
that there is no god. It doesn't matter to me what anyone in office
believes about God, just so long as it doesn't enter the political
considerations. That is what I have against the "Christian Wrong". If they
want to confine their religious beliefs to their churches and to how they
conduct their morality for themselves, that is great. When they try to
impose those beliefs or what they consider their morality on me, that is
where I draw the line. That was why I have always been against Blue Laws,
why I am for a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body
[until viability] (BTW, I am male. My name is Sheldon), and why I am
against ANY funding for ANY ***private*** school -- parochial or secular,
vouchers or otherwise.

My entry into this was when you said "Hey, I'd much rather have a
God-fearing President than an atheist.". I disagree -- not that I would
rather have an atheist than a "God-fearing" man as President; just that I
think that the distinction should be irrelevent when it comes to carrying
out the duties of the Presidency OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL OFFICE.

A little note to you Jerry: This country is the one country that has in its
founding document a separation of religion and politics. It is also the one
western nation that has the highest attendence rate at
church/sysnagogue/mosque and has the most religious buildings per capita.
This is even above such Christian countries as Italy (Catholic), France
(Catholic) and Britain (Church of England). What does that imply to you
about the need to impose religion via politics?

--
Shelly

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>
>> ...and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who
>> doesn't mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for
>> information).
>>
>
> The Bill of Rights says nothing about whether the President may be
> religious or not. All it says is that government can't pass laws
> telling YOU how you must/must not worship.
>
> In fact, the Bill of Rights doesn't even say you can't display the 10
> Commandments in a courthouse. But the courts have expanded the first
> amendment far beyond it's original purpose. The Federalist Papers by
> Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison is quite interesting
> reading. It should how far we have strayed from the original intent.
>
> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
> atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

Atheism is a religion?
Do you actually have any clue?

Please Jerry: I read this whole thread (my bad) and came to the
conclusion you better stick with PHP.
You can speak with some authority on PHP, but your worldview....
It is dangerous singleminded dribble in my humble opinion.

You showed (again) why most well thinking people in this world feel
sorry for Americans who must live in the same country ruled by religious
conservative antiscientific fundamentalists.
I am sick of Bush and his clan, as is the whole free world.

But I guess you simply don't give a damn, so Bushlike.


A few quotes for you:
************************************************
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never
give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).
************************************************


************************************************
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed
myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more ful then churches."

-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor
************************************************


************************************************
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions,
Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find
religion encumbered with in these days?"

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no
religion in it."

-John Adams, U.S. President, Founding Father of the United States
************************************************


Erwin


>
> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
> I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
> I don't try to tell you the same.
>

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
> I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
> I don't try to tell you the same.

The Constitution also only counted black people as 3/5 of a human.

The genius of the constitution is that it's ammendable, and the Bill of
Rights is just a bunch of ammendments - which can be repealed.

It's time to let our tolerance of religious extremism go the way of our
tolerance of slavery.

--
If 9/11 taught us nothing else, it's that religious zealots are
/everybody's/ mortal enemy.

"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
news:gfPHi.28$zy3.22@newsfe02.lga...
>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
>> by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
>> trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>
> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
> proper dictionary definition.
>
> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From www.m-w.com

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
no deity

To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
"disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix "doctrine"
with theology you have "religion".

The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone. Everyone
is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it into
politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in the USA
**BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.

--
Shelly

"Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:ZVPHi.50834$Um6.17124@newssvr12.news.prodigy. net...
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and I
>> worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and I
>> don't try to tell you the same.
>
> The Constitution also only counted black people as 3/5 of a human.
>
> The genius of the constitution is that it's ammendable, and the Bill of
> Rights is just a bunch of ammendments - which can be repealed.
>
> It's time to let our tolerance of religious extremism go the way of our
> tolerance of slavery.
>
> --
> If 9/11 taught us nothing else, it's that religious zealots are
> /everybody's/ mortal enemy.

I LOVE that last statement. Down with the Unpatriot Act! Next year it is
"So long Bush, it's not been good to know ya".

--
Shelly

> Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
> "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.
>
> Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.

negative, ghost rider.

'a' latin: without
'theism' latin: belief in god(s)

try websters instead of your own opinion.

tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists observe?
where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that resembles anything
religious?

as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe that
god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa clause or
the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this critical
observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a asanta-clausian?

'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a religion
make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would be the start
of religion.

"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13evgmn96rktr44@corp.supernews.com...

>And, yes, atheism is also sort of a religion. It is the belief that there
>is no god.

lol. at least you say 'sort' of religion. ;^)

let me just say this, shelly. if someone told me that i was going to die
tomorrow, i'd want proof. until i had it, i would be a fool to believe
it...right? further, if the source of that information was a doctor, he'd
have proof. not only that, i could take that proof and show it to another
doctor. they'd probably come to the same conclusion if the proof was
irrefutable. other than that, they may just bicker about my expiration date.

with religion, it's a whole different ballgame. i can take 'subjective'
evidence for god (there is no objective evidence) and take it not only to
different clergy, different people within the same denomination, to
different groups and cultures. each would have a different take on what that
evidence suggests. that's the nature of subjective evidence and is the
reality of religion. where there objective evidence for the existence of
god, we'd indeed have one god viewed by all people the same way. since we
don't, we see notions of gods evolving as man's intellect grows...from many
people-like gods to a single god...from controlling everything good and bad
to being credited with only good and all bad being the spawn of an evil
entity - satan.

if i have no evidence by which i can test the theory that god exists, how
can i prove he does. and in logic courses in college, isn't the onus - the
burden of proof - on those making the claim? is the rejection, due to lack
of evidence, of a claim a religion? i don't think so.

why do religious people find it necessary to deem lack of belief in god
equal to a religion? what does that get them? if you were to try and
pursuade or convert me to another line of thought, you'd have alienated me
by not understanding me and worse, incorrectly presuming that you did.

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nNqdnZZZKfElX3LbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>
>> jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or atheism
>> itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to ask, what
>> scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with whatever
>> 'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it indicate
>> that she may want to have with us? as there is no objective evidence, i
>> can only infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to do with us.
>>
>
> I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me. And I
> feel sorry for you.

oh my!

i can see the romanticism in the idea of the things hoped for. that is the
nature of humanity. however, to afix that to a god-figure and create a
regiment of though/belief about that concept - one that rules your life and
had such a huge and not always pleasant mark on the history of others
lives - without proof or indications that say you seem to be correct...that
is just scary!

why is it that most rational people who go through their lives applying
critical thinking to all aspects of their lives, negate or forbid themselves
from doing the same with this one, special case - god? that is wholly beyond
me!

you go ahead and feel sorry for me. i hope you are serving the 'right' one,
cuz all of the major religions now are quite exclusive in membership with
eternal damnation for not joining. (he pauses to think...i wonder if jerry
is going to come back with the good ol' pascal wager at this point...then
chuckles to self)

>> as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions
>> that atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad?
>> mythra? zeus? buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this
>> is the most i've ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing to
>> do with afghanistan or iraq, but everything to do with domestic policy
>> inacted after 911...and how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved
>> and rallied under the banner of 'god' in leu of ration thought -
>> especially thought that is critical of current events in light of
>> history.
>>
>> give me an atheist about now, please!
>
> I don't care what you believe in. However, when you try to impose your
> religion on me, the President or anyone else, I draw the line.

and the world shudders.

why are christians so eager to say that but gaffaw when atheists, for the
exact same reason, want to remove religious icons from mountainsides in
california, or edicts greeting patrons of public places, or pray in schools?
why is there a double standard?

Steve, I know that atheists like to claim that it is "lack of belief", but
go to websters at www.m-w.com. It specifically states that it is "disbelief
in the existence of deity". What you call "atheism" is really
"agnosticism". Again, from Websters:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from
gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political
agnostics>

For the record, I used to be an agnostic, but then moved to deist and
finally went back to associating with my birth religion. Yes, there is no
objective proor, nor even ANY proof in the belief in a god. It is totally a
matter of faith, and totally unscientific.

--
Shelly

"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
news:urQHi.35$zy3.32@newsfe02.lga...
>
> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
> news:13evgmn96rktr44@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>And, yes, atheism is also sort of a religion. It is the belief that there
>>is no god.
>
> lol. at least you say 'sort' of religion. ;^)
>
> let me just say this, shelly. if someone told me that i was going to die
> tomorrow, i'd want proof. until i had it, i would be a fool to believe
> it...right? further, if the source of that information was a doctor, he'd
> have proof. not only that, i could take that proof and show it to another
> doctor. they'd probably come to the same conclusion if the proof was
> irrefutable. other than that, they may just bicker about my expiration
> date.
>
> with religion, it's a whole different ballgame. i can take 'subjective'
> evidence for god (there is no objective evidence) and take it not only to
> different clergy, different people within the same denomination, to
> different groups and cultures. each would have a different take on what
> that evidence suggests. that's the nature of subjective evidence and is
> the reality of religion. where there objective evidence for the existence
> of god, we'd indeed have one god viewed by all people the same way. since
> we don't, we see notions of gods evolving as man's intellect grows...from
> many people-like gods to a single god...from controlling everything good
> and bad to being credited with only good and all bad being the spawn of an
> evil entity - satan.
>
> if i have no evidence by which i can test the theory that god exists, how
> can i prove he does. and in logic courses in college, isn't the onus - the
> burden of proof - on those making the claim? is the rejection, due to lack
> of evidence, of a claim a religion? i don't think so.
>
> why do religious people find it necessary to deem lack of belief in god
> equal to a religion? what does that get them? if you were to try and
> pursuade or convert me to another line of thought, you'd have alienated me
> by not understanding me and worse, incorrectly presuming that you did.
>
>

For the record, while I believe in God, to this very day I leave out the
"under God" when I say the pledge. I was in high school when Eisenhower
pushed that through and I resented its insertion even then. At that time I
was much more active in my religion than I am now, but was I more concerned
with the First Amendment. I have seen what has happened to religious
minorities throughout history when the state had an "official religion".

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Shelly

"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13evj2pqislbh1e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
> news:gfPHi.28$zy3.22@newsfe02.lga...
>>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
>>> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
>>> atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>>
>> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
>> proper dictionary definition.
>>
>> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
>
> Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From
> www.m-w.com
>
> Main Entry: athe·ism
> Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
> godless, from a- + theos god
> 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
> 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
> no deity
>
> To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
> "disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix "doctrine"
> with theology you have "religion".

sorry. to disbelieve something means that there is in fact something in
evidence to believe, and that one is simply not making the same conclusion
with that information. 'give the devil his due'...lol. present evidence of
god and then perhaps i might start 'disbelieving' it. until then, your case
is not ready to present and there is nothing for me to disbelieve.

> The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
> Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
> with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone.
> Everyone is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it
> into politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in the
> USA **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.

which i don't argue. what i do not like in the least is either of you
presuming to know what i believe, even to the point that you feel
comfortable that you can cast labels out. i'm not at all religious. i'm
logical. further, there is no religion in the studies of sciences of old
that i don't believe any longer because of the evidences discovered by
modern sciences. i simply don't think about god because there is no reason
to. i understand that religious people can believe in god but go about their
day in the same way - not thinking of god - however, don't confuse their
lack of commitment in their own beliefs with my lack of merit given to the
notion of god(s) without evidence. god simply doesn't interest me. whatever
evidence you have for him, it certainly should be infered that she has the
same interest level in humanity.

shelly, if your spouse showed you the same level of interest as god - no
flowers from time to time, no 'hope you have a good day at work' note in
your car's driver seat, not even so much as evidence that he'd been sleeping
next to you that night (sheets crinckled and turned back) - would you assume
that he loved you and wanted a relationship with you that warranted your
lifetime commitment? again, what evidence is there that god exists? you have
faith, sure...but that is subjective. what in the natural world in which i'm
engaged, what can i point at and say 'that is god', 'there's your proof'?
think carefully, because all things that have been pointed at throughout
history as 'there's your proof' have all been explained by science...even
down to the origin of the universe.

"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
> news:ZVPHi.50834$Um6.17124@newssvr12.news.prodigy. net...
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
>>> I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
>>> I don't try to tell you the same.
>>
>> The Constitution also only counted black people as 3/5 of a human.
>>
>> The genius of the constitution is that it's ammendable, and the Bill of
>> Rights is just a bunch of ammendments - which can be repealed.
>>
>> It's time to let our tolerance of religious extremism go the way of our
>> tolerance of slavery.
>>
>> --
>> If 9/11 taught us nothing else, it's that religious zealots are
>> /everybody's/ mortal enemy.
>
> I LOVE that last statement. Down with the Unpatriot Act! Next year it is
> "So long Bush, it's not been good to know ya".

unless we go to war. in which case, he cannot be removed from office. ;^)

"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13evm5v1at70h21@corp.supernews.com...
> Steve, I know that atheists like to claim that it is "lack of belief", but
> go to websters at www.m-w.com. It specifically states that it is
> "disbelief in the existence of deity". What you call "atheism" is really
> "agnosticism". Again, from Websters:

negative, ghost rider.

i am without belief in god. remember your latin. i am without belief in god.
whatever you want to call that, that's what i am. i see no evidence for god,
and in such a state, i cannot be agnostic. i do not allow for the
possibility of god's existence due to lack of evidence. agnostics believe
that god could possibly exist, we just cannot know for sure. that is NOT me.

i don't know where i'm losing you here, shelly. perhaps we have different
versions of websters. perhaps as she aged, meriam couldn't herself
either and started using disbelief - which means there is evidence there is
something in which to believe...a gross presumption. try other dictionaries.
they all differ. hell, dictionary.com definition shows many sources. here's
what i love seeing...it shows complete lack of understanding which is why we
are having this discourse.

american heritage:

disbelief or denial of the existence of god or gods.

right next to:

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

doesn't denial mean there is unequivically something in evidence for me to
deny? are you getting my point?