|
|
Posted by Shelly on 09/20/07 18:14
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MNidnSSe2MsZOW_bnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> No, I'm not asking for favorable status. And I said NOTHING about PUBLIC
> EXPENSE. I have NEVER, ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD said public money should
> be spent on religion.
If you dislay on public property, then you are using government money (as
they purchased the land).
> That's fine with me. Let all religions display, as long as it is in good
> taste - i.e. no nudity. Also, it is the government's job to decide
What about the "Anti-Christian" religion that says awful things about Jesus?
There are so many religions, surely someone can start that one? Is that in
"bad taste"? Why?
> what is offensive and what is not. They do it every day. Try walking
> down the street naked. You'll be arrested. That's the government
> deciding your nudity is offensive.
Only in a public place. I have every right to practice nudity if I want to
in a private place with the owner's permission. (No, I am not a nudist).
Likewise, you have every right to display you religion in a private place.
>
> As for Satanism, Wicca, etc., while I might find those symbols personally
> offensive, there is nothing in the symbols which goes against the morals
> of the community, so they should be allowed.
What about "Anti-Christianism"?
>> He didn't say what you are implying here. His position, and I paraphrase
>> here, "is that he hopes everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom
>> that God is irrelevent.". You, on the other hand, are implying that he
>> wants this to happen by fiat. He never even hinted at such a situation.
>>
>
> I never said he wanted it to happen by fiat. Don't put words in my mouth.
Look up the word "implying" in the dictionary and then we'll speak further
to this point. When you say he is refusing you the right to practice your
religion (your word, right?), well how is he doing that? By having the law
say so, that's how. Well, please also look up the "fiat".
>>>> it's a logical comparison. however and again, my *claim* is that there
>>>> is no objective evidence that god exists! get that through your
>>>> pea-sized brain! the logical conclusion would be that there is no god.
>>>>
>>> The *logical* conclusion is that there would be no way to know whether a
>>> god exists or not.
>>
>> 1 - The "scientific" statement is that the existence of god cannot be
>> proven.
>> 2 - The "logical" next step is that since there is no basis for such a
>> hypothesis, then it should be rejected until such time as some evidence
>> can be brought forth.
>>
>> That is what he is saying.
>>
>
> Since there is no proof one way or the other, there is no "next logical
> step", because any "next step" can be neither proven nor disproven.
Not so. Statement: Pigs can fly. Experiment: Toss a pig off a ledge and
it falls. Toss it many times and it never flies. Logic: Pigs can't fly.
Jerry: There is no proof against that one of those times in the future the
pig might fly, so there is no "next step" and the statement can neither be
proven nor disproven. What he is saying is that there is no logical basis
to accept the hypothesis of a god, so, logically he rejects it. He is NOT
saying the existence of god is disproven, only that there is no logical
basis for accepting it.
>
>>> You're trying to say leprechauns are gods. My statement is they are not
>>> recognized by society as gods. Not even the Irish believe they are.
>>
>> You totally misunderstand what he is saying.
>>
>
> No, I understand exactly what he's saying.
No.
>> He is not a hypocrite. He SAID he is going there for the social aspect.
>> It is a meeting place, after all. Look up the word "hypocrite". It
>> means saying one thing but doing the opposite. He SAYS he goes for the
>> social aspect but ignores the religious message as irrelevent. Where is
>> the hypocrisy? Where is he doing the opposite of what he says?
>>
>> Shelly
>
> He goes to church and tries to stay awake during the service. Does he
> tell his minster and friends he is an atheist and only goes there to
> socialize?
If it came up, I'm sure he would. If it already has come up, I'm sure he
has. Considering how strongly he has voiced his position, do you REALLY,
think he would keep silent -- especially when he plays golf with the pastor?
I think not!
In any case, you have no right to call him a hypocrite unless he tells you
he lied to the pastor about his atheism. That he goes for a reason other
than yours is totally irrelevent.
You may pay your taxes willingly because you believe our jackass president
is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I pay them for a myriad of
reasons, not the least of which is I would go to jail if I didn't -- and I
do so in spite of the stupid war that jackass is conducting. Does that make
me a hypocrite because I pay them even though I dislike a lot of what they
are doing, while you do so for the greater glory of the Bush legacy?
Shelly
Shelly
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|