"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
news:zZQHi.3$W76.2@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
> news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>> 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. ;^)

Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers on
the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January 2009, he
is [bad] history.

--
Shelly

"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
news:0bRHi.6$W76.1@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "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?

No, and yes. Example:

Statgement: "I watched TV last night"
Denial: No you didn't.

Where is there something in unequivocably in evidence for having watched TV
last night? It is still a "denial".

OK, you can live with your definition from American Heritage. All my life,
we always referred to Websters, so I'll live with mine.

Shelly

>> 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
>
> I thought you might find that phrase amusing.

gave me pause to chuckle. ;^)

>> 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.
>
> Again from www.m-w.com
> Main Entry: dis·be·lief
> Pronunciation: "dis-b&-'lEf
> Function: noun
> : the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
>
> These says (in this context) the declarative that "there is no god", not
> "I haven't been convinced into believing that there is a god". It is not
> "rejecting the belief in a god". It is "rejecting the belief in a god
> because the existence is untrue". It is declarative, not passive. I
> don't have to present "proof" for you to reject. There is no proof.

which has no bearing on atheism or agnosticism, actually. but the act of
rejecting a notion does not constitute a religion. and, the biggest
difference between an atheist and and agnostic is what they do mentally
*after* the rejection.

an atheist only claims that there is no *evidence* that god and exists, then
draws a conclusion from there that one must not exist.

an agnostic, though not having evidence, may well reject the postulate
however not conclude that god does not exist as a result thereof. for him,
god's existence may be a possibility but could very well be unverifiable
because of the nature of our existence and the nature of his/hers.

is that understandable? and, i really don't care what i'm called. i just
hate religious people telling me what i believe without even know the
differences between what they are labling me. were i to be religious, i'd be
very concerned that my god(s) didn't care enough about me to even give the
slightest bit of objective perceptability of themselves. being logical and
loving to infer, i can only assume they/he/she/it is very disinterested in
me. likewise, if i cannot perceive a thing, if it has no intelligable impact
or influence on me, of what value should it be to me. obviously if i'm not
thinking of god, you know my response.


>>> 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
>
> I understand what you believe. I totally understand it. I was almost
> there once, myself. I am giving you the dictionary definition of the
> words atheist and agnostic. What you call atheist, is more properly
> classified encompassing both [dictionary] atheist and agnostic.

i hope you understand the point i was drawing out above. in the end, i
really don't care what i'm called as long as the lable isn't a barrier to
someone actually understanding or getting to know me.

>> 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
>
> I should by her flowers every now and again, now that you mention it.

as should we all...respective spouses...not yours specifically. ;^)

>> your car's driver seat, not even so much as evidence that he'd been
>> sleeping
>
> I have been married to my wife for over 44 years.

sorry...'shelly'...either assumption correct and you are in same sex
marriage...or, assumption incorrect and i should appologize. ;^)

my point however, was not lost hopefully.

>> 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
>
> I have NO evidence that God exists because there is none. I simply take
> it on faith after taking my logic to the point where I cannot go any
> further without invoking the supernatural. I don't presume to try to
> prove it, because it cannot be done.

finally! most christians say this or that is evidence, even so much so that
theirs is the correct interpretation of said this/that. what gets me though
is your lack of desire to prove it. if it cannot be proven, how can god(s)
hold us accountable for disbelief? especially when the consequences are so
dire? if i was made logical, he's got no one to blame for himself when i say
it is illogical to just believe. he's got no one to blame but himself since
he gives me no way to find him given the way i was 'created'. to me, that's
just fucking mean!


>> 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'?
>
> Nothing.
>
>> think carefully, because all things that have been pointed at throughout
>> history as 'there's your proof' have all been explained by science...even
>
> Yes.
>
>> down to the origin of the universe.
>
> ...err, with that last one there are theories -- and only that. I find
> even the "Big Bang" uncomfortable (and I am a scientist) because I then
> question "where did all that super-condensed matter come from in the first
> place". I guess the best definition of "God" is "that which is beyond
> mankind's ultimate understanding". No, I do not believe in an interactive
> God.

kind of like the question no intelligent design person will ask, or
answer...if complex things need to be created by a designer, then the
designer must be at least equally complex, who then created that
designer...and so on, and so on.

i can tell you that even though the origin of the universe *prior* to
singularity may well be unknowable, what happened afterward is completely
explainable...and any question answered by goddidit is wholly inadequate.
science doesn't give goddidit answered. but, i digress.

"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13evoir44bali44@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
> news:0bRHi.6$W76.1@newsfe12.lga...
>>
>> "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?
>
> No, and yes. Example:
>
> Statgement: "I watched TV last night"
> Denial: No you didn't.
>
> Where is there something in unequivocably in evidence for having watched
> TV last night? It is still a "denial".

good point. however, it is what is done after 'denial' that makes an atheist
or agnostic.

> OK, you can live with your definition from American Heritage. All my
> life, we always referred to Websters, so I'll live with mine.

i perfer not being labeled at all. ;^)

"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13evo8tqk97ip9c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
> news:zZQHi.3$W76.2@newsfe12.lga...
>>
>> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
>> news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>>> 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. ;^)
>
> Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers
> on the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January
> 2009, he is [bad] history.

as far as i can remember from history courses some time ago, there are two
circumstances underwhich a president can occupy his seat for more that eight
years (two-terms). first, is assumption of presidency via the demise of the
encumbant...i.e. assassination, and then being re-elected for his ensuing
term(s) for a total service time of 12 years. and, in the event of war a
president's term may be extended beyond either of those periods of time (8
and 12 years).

i may, however, no be recalling correctly on the latter. i'll have to check.
scary if true though.

"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
news:1PRHi.14$Wv3.12@newsfe06.lga...
>
> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
> news:13evo8tqk97ip9c@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:zZQHi.3$W76.2@newsfe12.lga...
>>>
>>> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> 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.
>>> ;^)
>>
>> Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers
>> on the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January
>> 2009, he is [bad] history.
>
> as far as i can remember from history courses some time ago, there are two
> circumstances underwhich a president can occupy his seat for more that
> eight years (two-terms). first, is assumption of presidency via the demise
> of the encumbant...i.e. assassination, and then being re-elected for his
> ensuing term(s) for a total service time of 12 years. and, in the event of
> war a president's term may be extended beyond either of those periods of
> time (8 and 12 years).

No! The limit is just less than 10 years. If he has more than half the
remaining term if the deceased president, then he can only be elected one
time (> 6 years). If less that half, then he can be elected twice (<10
years)
>
> i may, however, no be recalling correctly on the latter. i'll have to
> check. scary if true though.

I never heard of the war thing.

Here it is:

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than
twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as
President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was
elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than
once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of
President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not
prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as
President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from
holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder
of such term [vis: Truman].

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as
an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the
States by the Congress.

No mention of war.

--

Shelly (Sheldon)

"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13evsud22viks68@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
> news:1PRHi.14$Wv3.12@newsfe06.lga...
>>
>> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
>> news:13evo8tqk97ip9c@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
>>> news:zZQHi.3$W76.2@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>
>>>> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> 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.
>>>> ;^)
>>>
>>> Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers
>>> on the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January
>>> 2009, he is [bad] history.
>>
>> as far as i can remember from history courses some time ago, there are
>> two circumstances underwhich a president can occupy his seat for more
>> that eight years (two-terms). first, is assumption of presidency via the
>> demise of the encumbant...i.e. assassination, and then being re-elected
>> for his ensuing term(s) for a total service time of 12 years. and, in the
>> event of war a president's term may be extended beyond either of those
>> periods of time (8 and 12 years).
>
> No! The limit is just less than 10 years. If he has more than half the
> remaining term if the deceased president, then he can only be elected one
> time (> 6 years). If less that half, then he can be elected twice (<10
> years)

you're right...i knew that...my math sucks! i guess that's why i have a
computer do my number crunching. ;^)

>> i may, however, no be recalling correctly on the latter. i'll have to
>> check. scary if true though.
>
> I never heard of the war thing.

perhaps i heard it wrong. i'll have to look into where i did hear that. now
my interest is peaked.

cheers.

Steve wrote:
>> 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.
>

Which does not mean it is not a religion.

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

Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a belief.

> 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?
>

That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try
to convince me my opinion is wrong.

As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.

> '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.
>
>

And you have a belief in the lack of a god.

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

Shelly wrote:
> "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.
>

I'm not saying there has to be a mix of religion and politics. But I am
saying the President is also a citizen, and welcome to practice his beliefs.

Personally, I would rather have a President with certain moral values
which are taught by religion. He could be Christian (my belief),
Jewish, Muslim or any of a number of different religions which share
those same core values. I'm not saying I would not vote for an atheist,
but it is one of the things I take into consideration when looking at
candidates.

Not to say all people who are religious follow those values - take
Clinton for example - getting caught with his pants down (literally).
That is something that I, as a Christian, have never done and will never
do, and I find that behavior abhorrent. My values are higher than that.

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

Erwin Moller wrote:
> 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?
>

Yes, I do. It is a disbelief in a god, as Shelly pointed out from Websters.

> 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.
>

Fine, you're entitled to your 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.
>

This has nothing to do with Bush. And no, I really don't give a damn
what you think of Bush.

>
> 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
> ************************************************
>

And what does any of that have to do with whether atheism is a religion
or not? Absolutely nothing.

>
> 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.
>>



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

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> 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 agree. It's time to let our tolerance of those who won't let others
practice their own religion go the way of our tolerance of slavery.

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

Steve wrote:
> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
> news:13evo8tqk97ip9c@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:zZQHi.3$W76.2@newsfe12.lga...
>>> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> 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. ;^)
>> Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers
>> on the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January
>> 2009, he is [bad] history.
>
> as far as i can remember from history courses some time ago, there are two
> circumstances underwhich a president can occupy his seat for more that eight
> years (two-terms). first, is assumption of presidency via the demise of the
> encumbant...i.e. assassination, and then being re-elected for his ensuing
> term(s) for a total service time of 12 years. and, in the event of war a
> president's term may be extended beyond either of those periods of time (8
> and 12 years).
>

Incorrect. The 22nd Amendment states:

Sect. 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more
than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted
as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other
person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the
President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person
holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the
Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office
of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this
Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting
as President during the remainder of such term.

Sect. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of
its submission to the States by the Congress.


There is no exclusion for war.

> i may, however, no be recalling correctly on the latter. i'll have to check.
> scary if true though.
>
>


--
==================
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: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)
>

Whatever. It's my belief. However, you can be assured if there is a
God, you will be in the wrong. At least I have a chance of practicing
the "correct" religion.

>>> 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?
>
>

You're the one setting the double standard - not allowing me to practice
my religion. What harm does a cross on a mountainside do to you if you
don't believe in any god? It's just a couple of pieces of wood, after
all. Or if I want to pray in school, why is it your right to say I can't?

--
==================
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:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Which does not mean it is not a religion.

so that means it does?! come one jerry, you're more logical than that!


>> tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists
>> observe? where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that
>> resembles anything religious?
>>
>
> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
> belief.

i 'believe' i *observe no evidence* that would allow me to *logically* lead
to me to a conclusion that god exists.

that is a PROCESS and not a belief. it is called scientific method. i'm sure
your response will be that science, too, is a religion. just a prediction.
;^)


>> 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?
>>
>
> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try to
> convince me my opinion is wrong.

sorry, religious people are in the *business* of converting. as for opinion?
we cannot both be right. and as you have NO evidence to support that there
is a god, the logical conclusion that should be drawn is that there, in
fact, is none. further, that our notions of god(s) evolve over time to match
our changing sophistication of thought is more proof for the idea that man
created god rather than vice versa. so much the case is this, that we have
nietche proclaiming that 'god is dead'!

> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
> screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.

well, you have proof that something respondse to you. what you infer about
that is up to you. however, you have *objective* evidence from which you can
draw such conclusions.

this is something no one can do for god. subjective evidence is as
interpretationally valid as the delusions of an insane person.

>> '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.
>
> And you have a belief in the lack of a god.

negative ghost rider,

i have drawn the conclusion that god does not exist because there is NO
objective evidence that he does. one is a conclusion and the other, fact.
there is no belief in that equation.

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jtOdnUEcBZMqYXLbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Shelly wrote:
>> "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.
>>
>
> I'm not saying there has to be a mix of religion and politics. But I am
> saying the President is also a citizen, and welcome to practice his
> beliefs.
>
> Personally, I would rather have a President with certain moral values
> which are taught by religion. He could be Christian (my belief), Jewish,
> Muslim or any of a number of different religions which share those same
> core values. I'm not saying I would not vote for an atheist, but it is
> one of the things I take into consideration when looking at candidates.
>
> Not to say all people who are religious follow those values - take Clinton
> for example - getting caught with his pants down (literally). That is
> something that I, as a Christian, have never done and will never do, and I
> find that behavior abhorrent. My values are higher than that.

you are, intentionally or not, saying that atheists have no morals...or ones
that are substandard to religious orthodoxy. what a crock of shit!

if anything, i realize as an atheist that i don't get the luxury of an
afterlife, that my meaning is limited to this lifetime and what things i
engage in here and now. i have probably an even more profound sense of the
precious nature of life than do you, since i'm not getting another shot at
it...ever. my 'meaning' in life is found by ing others. that's it. it's
that simple. tell me that is something counter to ANY religion. if i base
all of my decisions on that singular premise, then i've met the core
requirements of ALL religions...and without any need of a god or gods as
impetous to do so.

take you pompous head out of your agitated sphinter, you close-minded,
superiority complexed bastard.

..oO(Steve)

>i have drawn the conclusion that god does not exist because there is NO
>objective evidence that he does. [...]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and
without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could
not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by
your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that" and promply vanishes in
a puff of logic.

SCNR
Micha

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>
> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also.

Only to religious people.

To atheists it is merely sidelining religion as irrelevant and getting
on with the job.

This is conveniently
> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom".

This is conveniently overlooked by those who cannot concieve of a person
who believes in nothing other than his sensory apparatus and what it
tells him.

> But many
> atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>

They can't. Atheism by definition is the absence of religion.

> 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.
>

I don't worship.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 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.
>
It isn't.


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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Which does not mean it is not a religion.
>
>> tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists
>> observe? where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that
>> resembles anything religious?
>>
>
> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
> belief.
>

No. I profess no belief in god.
That is not a belief.

It is the absence of one.

I also profess no belief in leprechauns. Does that make me some kind of
religious person?

In fact there are thousands of things I do not believe, up to and
including that GW Bush is the reincarnation of Immelda Markos.

Like my non belief in god, the are simply not worth mentioning.

What religious people do not like at all, is that to an atheist, the
issue of whether god exists or not is simply irrelevant. Uninteresting
in the highest degree. Its useless to believe or disbelieve. It has
little objective effect either way.




>> 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?
>>
>
> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try
> to convince me my opinion is wrong.
>
> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
> screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.
>

Thats your problem, not mine.


>> '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.
>>
>
> And you have a belief in the lack of a god.
>

No, simply no belief in its existence. And no need to have or not have
the belief.