"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WPOdnQclxN0-0m3bnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:jtOdnUMcBZMYY3LbnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> 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 Rights is just a bunch of ammendments - which can be repealed.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.
>>
>> but atheism is on the fence. it is a religion...but not. so therefore,
>> let's say they have substandard morals and tell them to fuck off when
>> they say seperation of church and state and want religious dogma removed
>> from public places and want prayer out of schools. yeah, they don't
>> count. tolerance only goes to 'full-blooded' 'american' religions.
>>
>> lol.
>
> I never said atheists had substandard morals. I said I am more
> comfortable that someone who shares my religion has similar morals.
>
> Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> And the 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
>
> Additionally, the 14th Amendment states: "...No State shall make or
> enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
> citizens of the United States;..."
>
> There is nothing in there about the "separation of Church and State". Nor
> is there anything stating the 10 Commandments (or anything else with
> religious connotations) cannot be displayed in a public building

well, apparently you don't study history. in all your searching, you just
skipped the obvious...the FIRST ammendment, part of the bill of rights. look
up the "establishment clause". from jefferson's letter to a baptist
congregation that described the clause as a "wall of seperation", we have an
entire embrace of that notion from the supreme court, to presidents, to
those other "supposedly christian" founding fathers. it echos not only in
this country but in others by other terms like disestablishmentarianism to
pluralism and the like.

since you seem to avoid reading anything not related to php or the babble,
that breaks down to "government sponsorship of any religion, bad",
"preventing someone from practicing their own religion, bad too".

school is now over. i can certainly suggest many more good historical reads.
i already mentioned the federalist papers, but i could throw in the
religious leaders' writing that affirmed the notions that religions need no
of the government to advance themselves...even to the point where the
governmental support thereof is a detriment. but hell, we haven't even
gotten into laissez-fair...which has nothing to do with lilith fair. and no,
it's not just about economics.

> There is a minority of atheists out there who want to stop me and anyone
> else with a professed belief in a god from practicing our religion.

we may want to shake your skull and say, hello, is anyone in there...but
alas, no, we couldn't care less what you believe or how you practice it.
we're just touchy about the state-religion-sponsorship-thingy that you
simply don't get - not the current problems, not the importance of
seperation, nor the history that went into our well documented need and
desire to have, in our government at least, the seperation of church and
state.

> That right there is against both the intent and the wording of the 1st
> Amendment.

what right there? the establishment clause is the compliment to the fact
that the government should not, likewise, infringe on your right to practice
your religion. you just forgot what the establishment part of that
ammendment says.

;^)

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WPOdnQYlxN2FzW3bnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also.
>>
>> Only to religious people.
>>
>
> And Websters...

i have an old copy of websters that is nothing like their current
definition. plus, every dictionary has a different definition of atheism. it
just means no one really understands what it is...except atheists. we don't
mind. we're only about 2% of the world's population. even so, that doesn't
make your snappy come-back, very snappy.

;^)

>> 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.
>>
>
> Not at all. I can conceive of those people. But, unlike them, I don't
> try to force them to practice my religion - but they want to prohibit me
> from practicing it.

wow. now would be the time for you to say what happened to you
*specifically* so we don't just discard such a statement as a generalized
blurt that is unfounded and meaningless.

you still haven't said how you reconsile your apparent aversion to
fulfilling the great commission. you may not actively tie us down, but
you're certainly supposed to tell us "the good news". btw, there is more
religious proliferation in public forums than atheists standing outside your
church's doors blocking your entrance on sunday morning. just who is forcing
whom?


>>> 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.
>>
>
> Wrong, again.

again...

a latin: without
theism latin: belief in god

i know you don't care about word origins, lexicons, or etymology in general
(your s.a.t scores must have s.u.c.k.e.d), however when there is a dispute
as the the modern interpretation of a word, the latin or greek roots are the
foundation of any definition. the one above is the simple raw data. you can
certainly appreciate at least that, being a programmer.


>>> 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.
>>
>
> No, you don't worship a god.

no, you don't know him well enough to say that. you must take him at his
word that he doesn't worship...anything. you keep acting like you are on
familiar terms with everyone. that's rather arrogant.

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cuadnVL5QPJvyW3bnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:296dnbsuHfXCnW3bnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> 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.
>>
>> I KNEW IT...I CALLED IT...I TOLD YOU IT WAS COMING!!!
>>
>> PASCAL'S WAGER !!!
>>
>> and no, we have exactly the SAME changes of being right. you really
>> should research theology more before committing one of the most basic,
>> stupid, and flawed logical arguments passed throughout history. (as jerry
>> now beings to google, red in the face from embarrassment once he sees
>> what the fuck he just did).
>>
>
> Not at all. If there is no god, my religion is neither ing or hurting
> me. However, if there is a god, you have no chance of being right because
> you never entered the lottery. OTOH, I could have picked 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?
>>
>> practice all you want, but don't ask me to pay for it with the taxes used
>> to propogate it in public. go off to church and do that shit in
>> private...not in the public sector. the harm is that a cross on a
>> mountainside, if paid with public funds, is favoring and sponsoring
>> religion. do you ever read? how about the federalist papers? madison?
>> what harm? fucking get a clue!
>>
>> if you want to pray in school, go ahead. the problem is when a person
>> paid by the state says, 'now it is time to pray'. surely you're not that
>> stupid!
>
> I never said you had to pay for it with your taxes. But also notice there
> is NOTHING in the Constitution saying Congress or the States can or cannot
> spend money regarding religion - or even sponsor a religion. That has
> strictly been an "interpretation" of the courts. All it says that
> Congress and the States cannot force any person to practice any religion.
> Now that does not mean I disagree with this interpretation.
>
> But obviously you have not read the Federalist Papers. You don't have a
> clue what Madison said.
>
> As for someone offering a non-denominational prayer in school - no, I
> don't see anything wrong with it, as long as people can opt out if they
> choose. What are you afraid of - your children might actually learn
> something you don't believe in?

jerry, i am a student of history. i've done my homework. you keep leaving
out, or ignoring completely, the establishment clause of the first
ammendment.

and of course you see nothing wrong with prayer in school! you're a fucking
christian!!! the only thing i'm afraid of is that we have a religious zealot
in office and people like you are backing him...and you don't see a thing
wrong with prayer in school or governmental sponsorship of religion.

what would you be afraid of if your kid's school required them to say the
morning islamic prayer? the point is, that whatever i want my children to
believe about god is (or should be) up to me to provide, not the state.
funny how the only things a child learns in school are the essential things
that will them get through life...religion is not part of that.

btw, wtf does a prayer sound like...the one where no religion gets offended?
"non-demoninational"...you've still got your
asshole-tunnel-vision-christian-perspective goggles on, i see. lol. did you
mean the non-denominational zen buhdists? the non-denominational hindus? the
non-denominational wiccans? i couldn't be laughing harder!

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:y8WdnXx90JCRr23bnZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
>>> belief.
>>
>> A "belief" does not a religion make. A belief, couple with religious
>> dogma and practices makes a religion.
>>
>
> Ceremonies and rites do not make a religion. A belief (or lack thereof)
> in a higher power is what determines religion.

Sorry, no. That is just a theological stand, not a religion. It is that
stand COUPLED WITH the dogma and practices that make up a religion.

Shelly

"Shelly" <sheldonlg@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13f0pp8toueg969@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:y8WdnXx90JCRr23bnZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> Shelly wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
>>>> belief.
>>>
>>> A "belief" does not a religion make. A belief, couple with religious
>>> dogma and practices makes a religion.
>>>
>>
>> Ceremonies and rites do not make a religion. A belief (or lack thereof)
>> in a higher power is what determines religion.
>
> Sorry, no. That is just a theological stand, not a religion. It is that
> stand COUPLED WITH the dogma and practices that make up a religion.
>
> Shelly


Your karma just ran over my dogma

"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
news:suYHi.72$i83.56@newsfe05.lga...
> i guess i should at least give you credit, given this thread's length, for
> not pulling a godwin at this point. if you're not done with this thread
> yet, i may have just predicted your next post...unless you're googling now
> to avert another blunder. ;^)

Please no. Let's keep H the hell out of here.

Shelly

"Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:tGWHi.5948$FO2.2564@newssvr14.news.prodigy.ne t...
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
>
>>> 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.
>
> He's just trying to get a rise out of you.
> It seems that most of the folks of good character, but bad judgment have
> abandoned Bush. The few who remain on Bush's side, do so anonymously and
> out of bad character.

I never "abandoned" him. I never wanted him in the first place! I hated
his father who was responsible for my son being put in harm's way over the
price of oil -- oh yeah, free Kuwait. Anyone who believes that can make a
religion out of believing in the tooth fairy. IK also "read his father's
lips".

As bad as I thought senior was, junior was worse. He put us into a
depression in my home state of Massachusetts. For the first time in forty
years I couldn't find work. He sent over three thousand Americans to be
killed for nothing. His administration is riddled with scandals, corruption
and no-bid contracts to cronies. And, if all that weren't bad enough, he is
trying to trample the constitution with his un-patriot act. (Denial of
habeus corpus, illegal search and siezure, etc. all in the name of "homeland
security" and "war on terror"). Also, his stacked Supreme Court and
governor brother ed steal the election for him the first time around.
Then, of course, I seriously doubt he has even a 100 IQ. He can't even
pronounce "nuclear".

Shelly

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WPOdnQYlxN2FzW3bnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Not at all. I can conceive of those people. But, unlike them, I don't
> try to force them to practice my religion - but they want to prohibit me
> from practicing it.

You keep repeating this ridiculous canard. Once and for all explain to me
how stopping the government from spending MY tax money to support the
practice of YOUR religion is STOPPING you from practicing your religion.

You can practice your religion on any PRIVATE property that allows you to do
so and you can make any statement you wish in a public place concerning
religion -- just not at PUBLICLY paid for events. Those are paid for by
people like ME who do not practice YOUR religion.

Here is one for you to ponder. Suppose I held YOUR position and want the
state to sponsor MY religion with YOUR tax dollars on PUBLIC property and,
suppose further, that MY religion was Satanism (it isn't, but lets say yes
just for the sake of argument). How would you feel about that one? What
right have you to stop me from teaching Satanism in schools? (Remember, I
am using YOUR arguments against you). Rememer, too, that Satanism is a
religion. It is devil worship.

So, Jerry, answer that one!

Shelly

"Shelly" <sheldonlg@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13f0qggag9upgcc@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
> news:tGWHi.5948$FO2.2564@newssvr14.news.prodigy.ne t...
>> Shelly wrote:
>>> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> He's just trying to get a rise out of you.
>> It seems that most of the folks of good character, but bad judgment have
>> abandoned Bush. The few who remain on Bush's side, do so anonymously and
>> out of bad character.
>
> I never "abandoned" him. I never wanted him in the first place! I hated
> his father who was responsible for my son being put in harm's way over the
> price of oil -- oh yeah, free Kuwait. Anyone who believes that can make a
> religion out of believing in the tooth fairy. IK also "read his father's
> lips".
>
> As bad as I thought senior was, junior was worse. He put us into a
> depression in my home state of Massachusetts. For the first time in forty
> years I couldn't find work. He sent over three thousand Americans to be
> killed for nothing. His administration is riddled with scandals,
> corruption and no-bid contracts to cronies. And, if all that weren't bad
> enough, he is trying to trample the constitution with his un-patriot act.
> (Denial of habeus corpus, illegal search and siezure, etc. all in the name
> of "homeland security" and "war on terror"). Also, his stacked Supreme
> Court and governor brother ed steal the election for him the first
> time around. Then, of course, I seriously doubt he has even a 100 IQ. He
> can't even pronounce "nuclear".

hey, that's "nooquelor" to we texans! and, iq 100 is just below the norm of
115...you giving him that much credit?

"Shelly" <sheldonlg@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13f0rm2g9rcs0fb@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:WPOdnQYlxN2FzW3bnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Not at all. I can conceive of those people. But, unlike them, I don't
>> try to force them to practice my religion - but they want to prohibit me
>> from practicing it.
>
> You keep repeating this ridiculous canard. Once and for all explain to me
> how stopping the government from spending MY tax money to support the
> practice of YOUR religion is STOPPING you from practicing your religion.
>
> You can practice your religion on any PRIVATE property that allows you to
> do so and you can make any statement you wish in a public place concerning
> religion -- just not at PUBLICLY paid for events. Those are paid for by
> people like ME who do not practice YOUR religion.
>
> Here is one for you to ponder. Suppose I held YOUR position and want the
> state to sponsor MY religion with YOUR tax dollars on PUBLIC property and,
> suppose further, that MY religion was Satanism (it isn't, but lets say yes
> just for the sake of argument). How would you feel about that one? What
> right have you to stop me from teaching Satanism in schools? (Remember, I
> am using YOUR arguments against you). Rememer, too, that Satanism is a
> religion. It is devil worship.
>
> So, Jerry, answer that one!

i predict..."well that just ain't amuruhkun! that satan fella is bad news.
he goes 'round possessun people and such whatnot!"

> 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

hey shelly, i just caught that first definition. i particularly like the
part where i'm associated with wickedness. ;^)

chat with you later.

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:msOdnYNUlZJZLXLbnZ2dnUVZ_tCrnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> 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.

uhhhh...hummmm (trying not to laugh).

well, our friend alan and most other economists like levitt and company,
clearly see two sides to manipulating and predicting ecomonomic states.
being that you're such an expert (really holding it in now) on the matter, i
find it a bit odd that you don't know that sanders is talking about the
supply side rather than the demand side...duely recognizing that either is
typically and respectively the sole target of republicans and democrats.

me thinks the 'side' your standing on now is the one where the crickets can
clearly be heard chirping.

(now letting loose the supressed hilarity)

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cuadnVL5QPJvyW3bnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:296dnbsuHfXCnW3bnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> 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.
>>
>> I KNEW IT...I CALLED IT...I TOLD YOU IT WAS COMING!!!
>>
>> PASCAL'S WAGER !!!
>>
>> and no, we have exactly the SAME changes of being right. you really
>> should research theology more before committing one of the most basic,
>> stupid, and flawed logical arguments passed throughout history. (as jerry
>> now beings to google, red in the face from embarrassment once he sees
>> what the fuck he just did).
>>
>
> Not at all. If there is no god, my religion is neither ing or hurting
> me. However, if there is a god, you have no chance of being right because
> you never entered the lottery. OTOH, I could have picked the "correct"
> religion.

perhaps you didn't google the wager. the logic is explained quite clearly
and how the odds are equal for all players, those who believe and those who
don't even participate.

were i a betting man though, i'd go with a babylonian religion...you know,
the pagan ones. a ton of christian traditions originate with those. hell,
the story of noah is the retelling of the babylonian saga of gilgamesh - and
i can give you the specific archeological cite for that one! that's about 2K
BCE and a few centuries before genesis. and genesis' plagurism is almost
word for word with gilgamesh in more than just several places. either so
much for the babble being god's word...or, god was pagan too and 'inspired'
both accounts (changing the names to protect the innocent i'm sure). but i
digress...if i went the babylonian route, i'd double my chances of being
right. nah, i'd understand the flaws inherent in pascal's wager and wouldn't
be foolish enough to use it. plus, i'd have looked it up if i didn't know
what the fuck it was before bullishly saying 'not at all' whilst continuing
to place the bet!

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Michael Fesser wrote:
>
>> "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that" and promply vanishes in
>> a puff of logic.
>
> My absolute favorite scene from the four books of that trilogy is the
> final one, the one that according to the timeline, actually happened first.
>
> It's the scene where the folks from the "second" ship (the one that
> launched first) have already crashed on Earth.
>
> The military fellow decides to go explore the other continent, and when
> he does, he finds no life. But being a good Republican-type, he
> declares war on that land - for pre-emptive defense.
>
> In case civilization ever does spring up there, after his pre-emptive
> strike, they'll think twice about attacking.

My fav too! :P
Gongaflingi or something they called themself in those days.
They filled it up with 'the middleman', being haircutters, in-house
decorators, lawyers, etc.

Oh my, do I miss Douglas. :-(

Regards,
Erwin Moller

>
> --
>
> My second favorite scene, in light of our current situation, is when
> they decide upon tree leafs as the standard for currency - instantly
> making everyone of them fabulously wealthy, although it does also cause
> the prices to skyrocket.

Shelly wrote:

>
> Scientifically speaking, there is no experimental evidence for the existence
> of a god. It is a pure faith statement to assert the existence of god. You
> can hold your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it scientifically
> without foundation. (Reminder: I, personally, believe in the existence of
> God as a matter of faith)
>
Scientifically speaking there is no experimental evidence for the
existence of any noumenous concept, that goes from God right down to
electrons.

At best these are ideas dreamed up by people that:-

- produce a simplified picture of what's going on and
- do NOT CONFLICT with experimental evidence.
- do something useful by way of prediction and
- are not excessively complicated (Occams razor)

Now if you ditch all science, God is indeed a very useful and simplified
description of what is going on. Sadly the ways of god passeth mans
understanding blah blah, which gives God essentially no predictive power
as a concept whatsoever. So religions fail on step 3 as being
scientifically meaningful.

They pass all the other criteria though.,

- Some big authority doing it all for purposes of is own, is indeed a
nice simple answer to everything.
- you can't prove it ain't so, so there is no conflict with evidence.
- It about as simple as it needs to be to get into the brains of very
simple people. "Its just like a Big Daddy in the Sky"

You can even argue that it has psychological significance: It makes
people feel better about themselves and the shit life deals them.

However it fails miserably in a scientific context to predict anything
with any accuracy at all, which is why we use computers to calculate
e.g. airframe stresses, not prayer wheels.

God is not something for science to attempt to disprove: That can't be
done since no one really knows what they are trying to disprove. Science
merely says that God is a useless concept in doing what science sets out
to do, which in the end boils down to predicting the future.

Science sets out with on a priori assumption: That there is a
correlation of a permanent (time invariant) and causal nature between
phenomena (Laws of Nature). Insofar as that assumption allows it to
reduct with varying degrees of accuracy the phenomena in question, we
hold that the assumption is so far extremely valid and powerful. We do
not BELIEVE it to be true: It is always there, open to question. We
merely note that it *works* as a basis for scientific investigations..

You may say that Laws of Nature = Gods Will, and cry triumph...but
science is not interested in semantics, or why an old bearded gent who
wrote on stone tablets now seems to be a whizz at multidimensional
tensor calculus..Science is "NOT INTERESTED" in God, because as a
concept it is too woolly and ill defined to be anything more than a
comfort blanket.

Ti be an atheist is not to deny God, it is to merely pass the whole mess
off as *irrelevant* and *useless* in the pursuit of all but
anthropological data and theorems.

And to note how upset Believers are, by people who don't believe in
AANYTHING. Far more so than by people who believe in the Wrong Thing (TM).

At least with the Wrong Thing, you still have a person who might be
persuaded to Believe in the Right Thing. Someone who doesn't believe in
ANYTHING, is immune.

This is what scares the pants off the fundamentalists: not, as they
avow, that science and atheism are merely different *religions*. Its the
fact that they ignore religion as irrelevant altogether.

Its like walking into a bar where there is a big baseball game going on
on the TV, and the drunks jostle you and yell 'which team d'ya support
buddy?' and you mutter 'I don't do baseball'

You are likely to get beaten up by BOTH sets of supporters. Your reply
introduces the ghastly possibility that what they are doing with such
intensity and ferocity, is possibly completely irrelevant and
meaningless. No one likes to feel that way.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>
> ROFLMAO! I couldn't begin to list the things he screwed up.
>

Well he didn't screw up the economy to the point where the dollar is in
free fall, and the end of the mighty dollar is in sight, along with any
semblance of honour and dignity and respect for America the SuperPower.

Frankly., if a sleazy blow job on the office carpet is the price for
retaining world status and respect I'd go with the blow job anyday.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> So you profess a belief in no god. A disbelief is also a belief.

Only a fundamentalist can say that.

And it isn't true.

You really don't understand anything abut faith and belief, do you?

It is not a disbelief. It is simply absence of belief.

Having faith in nothing, is not the same as not having faith in anything.

YOU are saying that $GOD=NULL; is a statement in *my program*.

I am telling you that there is no $GOD variable to be found anywhere in it.

Which surprises you, because you assumed that it came with the whole
language. I am telling you it doesn't.


>
>> I also profess no belief in leprechauns. Does that make me some kind
>> of religious person?
>>
>
> Leprechauns are not gods.
>

How do you know that?

>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> I really don't care one way or the other what you think. Your religious
> views are your own. Just don't infringe on my right to believe as I
> choose.
>

I don't have any religious views, Jerry. That is the whole point.
I live a life in which religion *of my own* simply DOES NOT FEATURE.

Days and weeks go by without me even thinking abut religion. And dare I
say it, its the better for it.



>>> 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.
>
> Same idea, different words.
>

Not at all.

An act of disbelief is an act.

Simply not believing in the first place is not an act. Its the absence
of an act.



>

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> I also profess no belief in leprechauns. Does that make me some kind
>> of religious person?
>
> I just knew that with all this religious backlash, eventually the on e
> true god - the Leprechauns - would be the ones to suffer.
>
> Now I'll *never* get my pot-o-gold!
At least leprechauns could allegedly do something in the hereandnow, as
opposed to the hereafter,from which no one has ever brought back a
travelogue...;-)

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>>
>> I don't worship.
>>
>
> No, you don't worship a god.
>
No, I don't worship. Period.

I admit there was a girl once...but that is another story, and just goes
to show how wrong you can be when you do the worship bit.

Thats probably why the smart priests had the congregations worshipping
god. Keeps em out of trouble. If they are so to speak 'worship-prone'

The secret of adulthood is to not BE worship prone.

"When I became a man, I put away childish things".


:-)

Shelly wrote:
> Remember, too, that Satanism is a
> religion. It is devil worship.
>

Hmm. As one who has studied it quite extensively, it probably isn't, you
know.

But thats history for you.
And Hollywood.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Not at all. If there is no god, my religion is neither ing or
> hurting me. However, if there is a god, you have no chance of being
> right because you never entered the lottery. OTOH, I could have picked
> the "correct" religion.


"If there is no parachute..my belief in one is neither ing me
or...ARRRGGHH!! SHIT!"

Told you not to trust anything without testing it first, Jerry.