|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/19/07 20:08
Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:t5qdnWpWN-VEnWzbnZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:y8WdnUJ90JA_rW3bnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> "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!
>>>>>
>>>> Who cares what the Latin roots mean? It's today's current usage that
>>>> counts.
>>> you obviously don't. just goes to show...
>>>
>> No, I don't. Words change meanings over the years. Definitions which are
>> 2,000 years old and not in agreement with current usage are meaningful
>> only to those who are unsuccessfully trying to make a point.
>
> well then that wouldn't be me. latin and greek are used as a base for
> creating words even today. they are used *because* they're "dead" languages
> and are not going to change to fit modern use. as i said before, your s.a.t
> scores must have s.u.c.k.e.d.
>
Yes, they are used as a BASE. That does not mean the words maintain the
same meaning today.
A perfect example. In the 1800's and before, "Hello" was an exclamation
of surprise, not a greeting. It's meaning has changed.
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> And it results in a belief. Or, more accurately, a disbelief.
>>> negative. it is a fact that there is no observable evidence that god
>>> exists. the ramification of that fact requires no belief whatsoever.
>>>
>>>> 200 years ago there was no proof that microbes existed. 150 years ago
>>>> there was no proof that radio waves existed. 100 years ago there was no
>>>> proof that atoms existed. So by your logic, since there was no proof,
>>>> these things didn't exist.
>>> no, people theorized that they existed. then, they went about making the
>>> tools needed to *observe* them. now we see them all quite well.
>>> scientifically, before we could see them literally, there were still
>>> observable signs that they did in fact exist...we just didn't know what
>>> they'd look like...we had an idea of how they behaved well before then
>>> though.
>>>
>> No, people didn't even theorize these things existed back then. They had
>> no idea. A few people had "faith" they existed. But since faith isn't
>> proof, according to your logic they didn't exist.
>
> hmmm, they have indications (preliminary 'proofs') that these things
> existed. rather than just taking on 'faith' that they did, wanting to know
> if they were right in the first place, they *tested* the theories. they even
> built sophisticated tools to help them. science is not going to hinge
> results on 'faith'...and it was the lack thereof that lead to the discovery
> and better understanding of these things. darwin theorized a mechanism of
> replication long before we knew about genes, however he didn't willy-nilly
> that they existed (you just needed a pinch of faith to 'see' them) and
> focused himself on what he observed. now we have proof they do and we
> understand them to an unimaginable degree then when someone just suspected
> they existed. it is anti-take-it-on-faith and a lot of hard work that gives
> us meaninful, useful answers.
>
You mean the Egyptian Pharaohs had indications that any of these
existed? Or are you saying since they didn't have any indications,
none of these existed?
No, they had no indications these things existed. For instance, it
wasn't until Luigi Galvani and other physicists of his age started
playing around with electricity that they even knew electromagnetic
waves existed. There was no "preliminary proof" - in fact, it was a
huge surprise to Galvani that an electric current would deflect a
compass. And it wasn't until Marconi, Tesla and others actually
discovered electromagnetic waves could send information over great
distances.
The same with other discoveries. It doesn't mean these things didn't
exist before that time. Just that there was no proof.
However, by your "logic", the lack of proof they existed means they didn't.
>>>>> 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. ;^)
>>>>>
>>>> The scientific method deals with proving or disproving the existence of
>>>> something - a physical item, a behavior, etc. But according to the
>>>> scientific method, lack of proof one way or the other does not mean
>>>> something does or does not exist.
>>> ass backwards. religion claims god exists. logic and science demands
>>> proof. if no proof, the claim is not verified and by default, false or
>>> held without merit until such proof is provided. this is basic stuff,
>>> jerry. why is god the only theory you wouldn't apply such reason to? i'm
>>> hoping it's the only one anyway!
>>>
>> No, if there is no proof, the scientific method defines them as
>> "unproven". Period. It does not take a stand on whether something
>> "unproven" exists or does not exist. Don't try to twist it to your
>> meanings. It ain't gonna work.
>
> lol. i can see your eutopian headline now..."magical sky pixies exist!" and
> in the article, your version of scientists (creationists in lab coats) are
> quoted saying, "at first we didn't know what to make of it, but someone told
> us they were real and sure enough, we we looked through our eyes of faith,
> we could see them clear as day."
>
> either way, the claim that god exists is of religion and is then, religion's
> burden to prove. most of the christian philosophers and theologists concede
> that god can't be proven or even known. yet, you believe you can and that he
> somehow wants to know you...for his "benefit"? obsurd.
>
Again, just because it isn't "proven" to your liking that a god exists
(and may never be) doesn't mean a god doesn't exist.
>>> btw, you cannot disprove existence! to exist would mean there'd be
>>> *observable* evidence. atheists aren't dumb enough to want to disprove
>>> the existence of something. without evidence, there simply is no merit to
>>> the idea that god does exist...a proposition religion puts out. the basic
>>> argument is that if a thing exists, it should have signs of said
>>> existence. sorry, god does not.
>>>
>> Not in your eyes, it doesn't, anyway. But you're open to your opinion.
>
> tell me then, in your eyes, how one exactly goes about proving something
> doesn't exist when any objective evidence gathered would be a result of that
> thing existing. i know you're irrational when it comes to religion and fail
> to apply any logic to your beliefs (the only way religion can be digested
> anyway), but surely this monsterous delima didn't just pass under your radar
> undetected!
>
You can't prove non-existence. You can only prove existence. And I have
the proof I need to believe.
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>> That is a gross overgeneralization.
>>> well, that is the great commission, no? the catholic church has a litany
>>> of instances of making a buck...which is what pissed off martin luther.
>>> how many televangelists give more than they make? let me bring this
>>> home...what percent of your churches budget goes to endeavors outside of
>>> the church? yes, exclude its own operating expenses. now, think of how
>>> you worship. new and exciting, almost marketed, right? appealing to
>>> younger crowds, yes? whatever percentage you came up with, you cannot
>>> fund a thing if you aren't a going concern...and once going, that percent
>>> tends to be very small given the overall funding. churches tend to want
>>> to expand their complex's in stead of helping those in need.
>>>
>> A significant portion of my church's outside expenses involve helping
>> people who need it, regardless of race, color, creed, etc. But I'm sure
>> you'll try to claim we are trying to "convert" these people. We are not.
>
> i'm glad to hear your chuch is an exception. however, ALL CHRISTIANS are
> charged with the great commission. and yet you say you have nothing to do
> with 'converting' people!?!! did you miss that in sunday school?
>
If you really understood, that is more the norm than the exception.
Churches are good stewards.
>>> that is perhaps a *generalization*, but not gross. and either way, that
>>> is my opinion based on my experience.
>>>
>> Yes, it is. And it shows how little you really understand.
>
> then i 'misunderstood' it from birth till age 20 all through church, bible
> school, camp, christian universities...i suppose i missed it since i've
> always applied the same logical requirements of claims regardless of their
> 'sacred' status.
>
So you're basing your opinions on your experience as a younger person on
one (or a few) church(es) - and saying all (or at least the majority)
are the same. Hardly a representative sample, I would say.
>>> btw, ain't it neat how churches now give sermonettes about tithing? isn't
>>> it sad that most of those sermonetts are geared to 'what you get back
>>> from' rather than 'you should do this so that we can' kind of language.
>>>
>> btw, ain't it neat how many Californians (or you name the group) are
>> murders? I see something on the news all the time about people murdering
>> others out there. So all those people who haven't been killed must be
>> murders.
>
> and that relates how? the trend of non-denominal churches started in the
> 80's. living in texas, i had/have unparalleled access to them. these
> sermonettes abounded and i still hear them each sunday at the church i
> attend. none of that original comment was a generalization at all, nor
> exageration...statement of fact.
>
So, if you're an atheist, why do you even bother attending church? And
since you do admit you attend, maybe you're looking for the wrong things
in a church.
Sure, I hear these sermonettes, also. And it is how they need more
money for community outreach, etc.
> now how do you get from there to trying to contrive a logical analogy that
> doesn't even come close to fitting the statement i actually made?
>
Sure it does. You've visited a few churches and found they all ask for
money for various reasons. I pick up the newspaper and hear a lot of
news about Californians murdering each other. You say all churches are
that way. So by the same logic I can only assume all Californians are
that way.
>> This is exactly the type of gross overgeneralization you're (again)
>> making, and it shows just how little you really understand - despite what
>> you *think* you know.
>
> not a generalization nor exageration. statement of fact. in fact, i'll be
> happy to audio this sunday's and post it for you. i'm assured to a degree of
> 95% that it will contain the same content as it has for years, the only
> thing differing is the babble story that goes with it.
>
Again, you're basing your statements on a very limited number of
churches that you selected for one reason or another. Hardly a
representative sample on many grounds.
>>>>> 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'!
>>>>>
>>>> Faulty logic.
>>> now is where you support *how* that logic is faulty. nietche describes
>>> exactly what i summerized. now you think you're prepared to take on
>>> nietche? go right ahead, the laugh will do me good.
>>>
>> Lack of evidence that something exists is NOT proof that it does not
>> exist. Faulty logic.
>
> it is an indication. further indications as pointed out by nietche (which
> you must have never read) such as the apparent evolution of god cooinciding
> with man's changes in sophistication of thought, just make your claim that
> one does (all the while never producing a shred of evidence in the whole of
> human-kind) seem laughable. nietche akins it to god being a "god of the
> gaps" in human understanding, and that as science fills those gaps with
> actual knowledge, god looses a home. 'god is dead' just means that he's
> about to turn up homeless.
>
No, according to the scientific method, it is not an indication of
presence or absence.
> nothing faulty there. remember, we are not trying to *prove* god exists. we
> are DEMANDING that you either put up or shut up...actually, we just want you
> put up...we couldn't care less what you delude yourself with - as long as we
> aren't funding it.
>
And quite frankly, I don't care what you're "demanding". If you choose
to not believe, that is your free choice. I have no onus to prove a god
exists to you.
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> I have proof that letters appear on my screen. Period. Nothing more,
>>>> nothing less. I have no idea what the source of those characters are.
>>> not the point. the point is, that those letters are in direct response to
>>> you. what you make of it means nothing to me...it's just that your point
>>> sucks. those letters are *objective* evidence of SOMETHING! we have
>>> NOTHING for the case of god. get it now?
>>>
>> No, that is the point. They could very well be created by random noise at
>> the subatomic level. There is no "proof" that you exist. Therefore,
>> according to your logic, you do not.
>
> don't be an idiot. the proof indicates that SOMETHING exists whether it is
> me or random noise, there is something you can observe and scientifically
> conclude what that source is!
>
> and since that is your strawman rather than my logic, it doesn't merit
> anyone's time.
>
Sure, and from my perspective, it could be random noise. There is
nothing to prove otherwise.
>>>>> 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.
>>>> That's fine. That's your opinion. But do not try to convince me that
>>>> you are right and I am wrong. And don't try to stop me from practicing
>>>> my religion.
>>> make a deal with you. you stop thinking its ok for your religion to be
>>> practiced in publically sponsored venues such as court houses, schools,
>>> parks, etc. and i'll stop bitching about you trying to ram yours down my
>>> throat. as for what you do in your home or church or anywhere else not
>>> *sponsored* by the state, i couldn't care less how deeply deluded you
>>> care to take your mental depravity.
>> I'm not trying to ram my religion down your throat. But you are trying to
>> stop me from practicing my religion. It's zealots like you that the Bill
>> of Rights was designed to protect us against. Unfortunately, that
>> original intent has been lost over the years.
>
> oh but you are whenever your schools make time to pray - your coaches
> specifically praying to christ before sporting events - your courts making
> you swear oaths on a book of lies (only recently has an option been
> given)...not forcing your religion! poppy-cock!
>
Note I said "Non-Denominational", with opt-out for those who want it.
And while I have no problem with swearing on a bible, I know there are
those who do. And I have no problem with them taking an oath on another
book or even their wallet if they want.
> the bill of rights has been interpreted consistently on this issue since
> williams (a protestant theologean) first postulated that religion sponsored
> by government is not a religion of any kind of merit, that religion can
> stand on its own and further, that government endorsement of religion
> actually hinders its advancement. thomas jefferson interpreted the
> establishment clause as a 'wall of seperation', president tyler shared the
> same sentiment...in fact, never in our history has a president contradicted
> the idea of the seperation of church and state and the supreme court has
> always held to that very same idea. this in not a recent 'misunderstanding',
> this is a consistent *understanding* of the problems establishment and an
> unwaivering commitment to not repeat history.
>
> whatever you want to say about that is fine. you obviously only see things
> your way regardless of your lack of studies on any topic thus far discussed.
>
>
I never said there should not be separation of church and state. But
when the state says I can't practice my religion in certain
circumstances, that separation is gone.
After all - what harm does it do to you that a coach offers a prayer
before a big game? Are you afraid your children will start asking
questions about something you don't believe in?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|