|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/20/07 21:12
Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8vmdnQIFNe8zCmzbnZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>>> I read something very interesting in this month's Scientific American
>>>> last night:
>>> so you actually do that?
>>>
>>>> Athiests cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As
>>>> Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues
>>>> in the 1950's: "An anti-something movement displays a purely negative
>>>> attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate
>>>> diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight
>>>> for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, no
>>>> matter how bad it may be."
>>> and like most religious people, ludwig had no fucking clue and was a
>>> paranoid bastard. we atheists don't hold meetings to take over the world
>>> as you religious folk do. as a matter of fact, outside of not caring
>>> whether or not god exists without evidence, we really don't have enough
>>> in common to keep conversations that interesting...much less hang out on
>>> an ongoing basis.
>>>
>> First of all, we aren't trying to take over the world. But you are trying
>> to take over the world by destroying all religion. You're not doing it in
>> meetings - you're trying to take away our legal rights to practice our
>> religions.
>
> crusades aside, right? inquisition aside, right? missionaries aside, right?
> great commission aside, right? to tell you the truth, it is hard for me to
> distinguish the christian philosophy of propogation from the islamic. you
> know, the group you really love.
>
Let's see - crusades - taking back the Holy Land after the Turks invaded
and captured it. Inquisition - not the proudest moment in the Catholic
Church's history, I admit. But no longer practiced - we've gone beyond
that. Missionaries - yes, they do teach about religions. But they
don't force people to listen. They're happy when someone converts, but
do not force conversion on them. And they teach more than their
religion - they typically teach better farming practices, for instance.
And bring tools and such to villages which would not otherwise have them.
And no, when you get down to the basics, there isn't that much
difference between Christianity and Islam (I'm NOT talking about what
militant radicals call Islam - but the one in the Koran). We both
worship the same god - we call him God, they call him Allah. Our rites
are different, but we have similar concepts and morals.
> and exactly how are atheists trying to destroy your religion? by wanting to
> support a wall of separation between governmental concerns and religious
> ones? did you the czech people declared themselves as a nation, atheist,
> because of the shit catholics pulled by assasinating one of their own
> priests in that country? want the cite? point is, your religion does a
> pretty damn good job of destroying itself. why would it need help to that
> end?
>
By getting the government to deny us access to facilities our tax
dollars paid for, also. You don't want a wall - you want a prohibition.
A true separation of church and state means that the state will take NO
position on religion - either for or against. But you want them to take
a stand against religion.
> and, the last time i checked, atheists didn't orchistrate a grass-roots
> campain to control local politics by putting conservative atheists in
> representative seats of the republican party as an in-road to get their
> agenda not only heard but to get a president elected...twice. yeah, that
> would be the christians again. yes, i am involved in local politics and have
> held a seat at the RNC...surrounded by babble-thumpers. i'm not talking
> outta my ass.
>
So we wanted someone who shared our views and moral standards. What's
wrong with that? Unions do it with Democratic nominations all the time,
for instance.
>>> we have no movement outside of not allowing religion to permeate *every*
>>> sector of public domain. that is an action and far from diatribe.
>>>
>> If you had your way, there would be no religion. You've said so yourself.
>
> really? provide the quote then. perhaps you've crossed threads here. i find
> god a wholly uninteresting topic. as long as it stays out of the public
> sector, i don't think about him or you much at all.
>
You stated "I hope everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom that
God is irrelevant." So by your own words, you want there to be no religion.
>>> again, glad to find out you read. just wish you'd have read something
>>> that actually applied to what we've been talking about. did you just
>>> google and copy/paste the first thing you found that had the word
>>> "atheist" in it?
>>>
>> Not at all. Pick up the September, 2007 copy of Scientific American. It's
>> right in there.
>
> it probably is...and you provided proof that i could verify. wonderful!
>
> now pray-tell, how was that article germain to the topic at hand?
>
Among other things, it shows just how hopeless your "cause" truly is.
You might get laws passed, but by brining up religion you are providing
free marketing for it.
>>>>>>> I also profess no belief in leprechauns. Does that make me some kind
>>>>>>> of religious person?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leprechauns are not gods.
>>>>> neither is your god. until you can PROVE otherwise, then both
>>>>> leprechauns and god are equally almighty.
>>>>>
>>>> How can He be, when according to you there are not gods? Unfortunately
>>>> for you, the majority of the world disagrees with you. And when it
>>>> comes to the meanings of words, majority rules.
>>> 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.
>
> oh no...that would be an 'alternative'. google that..."logic reason
> alternative". that should help you along since you apparently lack any kind
> of formal study in reason and logic.
>
Nope. Lack of proof does not imply lack of existence. But you can't
get that through your head.
> the conclusion should be that since the premise is without evidence, the
> premise is rejected. logically if the premise is god exists, the antithesis
> would be...yep. a state of his non-being was the original state of affairs
> before the notion of god was conceived.
>
No, the conclusion is that since there is no evidence for or against,
the premise is neither provable nor unprovable. Nothing more.
> since the notion, an attribute of god may be that his infinite nature is
> such that it cannot be known to man. that idea is an alternative. but, it is
> just as irrelevant as the original state, for anything said about god cannot
> be confirmed and everything said of god is equally valid...including the
> notion that if god honors/favors intellectual honesty, as atheists may
> postulate, then they have equal chances as anyone else, christian or
> whatever, to get eternal rewards for reasoning even to the point they have
> with their conclusions of god. and this is where pascals wager fails, for in
> its premise is exactly what i've just described. now you know, and you
> didn't even have to google.
>
That's very true. But believing in intellectual honesty with the hopes
of getting into paradise (however it's defined) but not believing in a
god isn't very honest, either.
>>> i see your logic...majority makes right. the majority of the world
>>> consists of underdeveloped countries still rolling the bones and
>>> believing in demonic possession! as for those countries with educational
>>> opportunities (as we have seen again with the evolution of man's thought
>>> sophistication), there is more critical thinking being applied to all the
>>> religious dogma and god is replaced with reason. good bye "god of the
>>> gaps".
>>>
>> When it comes to word definitions, yes, the majority does rule.
>
> and who was speaking about word definitions here? i'm experienced at this.
> what you've just done, so you don't have to google, is throw me a big, fat,
> juicy red herring. please avoid doing so since it makes you look childish,
> and as if you can't support yourself properly in debate.
>
We were talking about word definitions. You took it off on another
track, not me. Look back in the messages.
>>> now, what was your point...cuz you certainly have not made any with that
>>> remark.
>>>
>> 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.
>
> no, you simply stated that leprechauns are not gods. i left that in this
> post quoted above, in case you needed help recalling what you've said. it
> helps us to not look silly by saying things like, 'my statement is they are
> not recognized by society as gods'.
>
No, my statement was that society doesn't consider them gods.
> but, let's continue on in your line of rationale, shall we? what does it say
> to you that you have to rely on popular opinion to realize the god that you
> serve? what do you think is the cause of so much dispute between different
> religions and even within the same sects, such that a sect would split to
> become known as a denomination? perhaps that there is no evidence by which
> god can be known? if he does exist, why is he hiding? perhaps you/we are as
> irrelevant to him, then, as atheists find the question of his existence? if
> god cannot be known enough so as not to give cause for dispute over his
> attributes, sons, daughters, likes, dislikes, etc., what then, drives you
> christians to such certainty about 'the way'? faith? i don't want a debate
> from this one. i want to know your actual feelings about these questions.
>
I didn't say I relied on popular opinion. I said that society as a
whole recognizes my god, even if they don't believe in him. Just as I
recognize the gods of other religions, even though I don't believe in them.
And who said he's hiding? Not me. I see the effects of His work all
around me, every day. And my faith tells me I am not irrelevant to him.
And my faith tells me this is the way.
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> it is obvious to all that you don't care for anyone else's viewpoint.
>>>>> you don't even understand atheism enough to know what it is and is not
>>>>> (i.e. is not a religion). and, we could give two flying fucks what you
>>>>> believe. however, we at least have had an open mind enough to find out
>>>>> about not only your religion, but many others. you seem to feel
>>>>> comfortable using your asshole as blinders on the subject of religion.
>>>>> no wonder your opinion is so tunnel-visioned.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I do understand it. And I also understand that you hate it being
>>>> called a religion - because you are against all religions.
>>> i'm not against ANY religion. i go to church every sunday and blend in
>>> just like you, jerry. i suspect a surprising number of your flock are
>>> just like me, skeptical people in fancy suits just hoping no one asks,
>>> 'so, how's your walk with our lord jesus christ'. by the way, i fit in
>>> quite well and am close with my pastor...we golf every weekend. go
>>> figure.
>>>
>> So you're saying you're a hypocrite. You go to church but don't believe
>> in the teachings of the church. Ok.
>
> no, i go to church to get what i need and/or want. the same as any other
> person there. had you noticed "hoping no one asks, 'so, how's your walk with
> our lord jesus christ'", you'd have (or should have) sensed my apprehension
> is based on my anticipation of answering that question honestly. if i'd have
> planned on lying about it, i wouldn't care what they'd ask me.
>
The church is there to practice religion. You don't believe in that
religion, so you're using the church for your own benefits. Even worse.
> you go ahead with your ad-homonyms. you've already wracked up enough points
> on red herrings and strawmen. might as well run the gamut of logical
> fallicies.
>
Not at all. You're the one who doesn't understand simple things like
the scientific method. And read back - who's putting out the
ad-homonyms - like this one?
> hey, ot for a second...i really do recommend you read "crimes against
> logic". that'd help you avoid those little monsters you've been hurling.
>
> btw, am i to assume your logic to mean that all who attend church walk in
> through the doors knowing and believing the teachings of that church, and
> anyone who does not is a hypocrite? i could only see that working if you
> prep'ed visitors outside of the church where they'd only be admitted if they
> believed what was just prescribed for them...oh they could go in, but people
> would all scowl and such, hissing 'hypocrite, hypocrite, nah, nah'. roflmao.
>
Or they are at least open-minded enough to want to learn about the
teachings. But if they go knowing they don't believe and are not
willing to open their minds, then yes, they are being hypocritical. Or
using the church for their own purposes.
>
>>>> I refer you to von Mises above.
>>> i refer you to 'get a fucking clue'.
>>>
>> Looks like I have more of a clue than you do.
>
> not on anything we've discussed in this thread. you have thrown a litany of
> logical fallicies in leu of a good defense of your position in just about
> every reply you make. i think you assume too much about yourself.
>
Nope. Every one of my arguments has been logical - to a logical person,
which.
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a problem at all.
>>>>> if you can't infer the inputs given to your senses, then you do have a
>>>>> problem. the hallmark trait of humanity is the ability to infer meaning
>>>>> and purpose. if you need god for that, fine. if you can't figure out
>>>>> the source of the letters you're reading, god ain't going to help you
>>>>> with that. as for what is 'real' and what is not, i fear - given your
>>>>> lack of study on the rest of theology and philosophy - you are
>>>>> ill-equipped to have a meaningful discussion. which begs the question,
>>>>> why did you try and vent the conversation in that direction?
>>>>>
>>>> Not at all. I can infer meaning and purpose just fine. But I can't see
>>>> you, I can't touch you - IOW, I have no proof you exist. Characters on
>>>> a screen are not "proof".
>>> they may not be proof of me, but that was not the point anyway. the point
>>> is, for the third time, that it is proof of something. whatever
>>> conclusions you make by observing the proof is a function of scientific
>>> method.
>>>
>> The universe exists. But since there is no proof of god, there is no god.
>> It's all random noise.
>
> wtf? surely you aren't 'god of the gaps'-ing me, right?! are you saying the
> universe can only exist if god does...that he created it?! ohhh, let's go
> there...please, proceed.
>
No, I'm just making a logical extension to what you say.
>> Likewise, the characters on my screen are proof something exists. It
>> could be random noise, but there is no proof that a person exists.
>
> which doesn't matter. you still haven't gotten the point throughout 6
> threads! the proof points to *something* RE-FUCKING-GARDLESS of what that
> something is. it could be purple juicy fruit gum for all i care! THE POINT:
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT ANY NOTION OF ANY GOD DEFINED BY MAN
> THROUGHOUT HIS HISTORY OF CREATING GODS EXISTS!!! NO PROOF THAT *SOMETHING*
> EXISTS.
>
> are we done with that one yet? did a bell finally go 'ding' in your skull?
>
Not at all. But you refuse to see the similarity. And there is no
evidence indicating that any notion of you throughout his history that
you exist.
>>>>> as for what is 'real', even descartes was wrong. thinking is an
>>>>> activity that must be observed and confirmed. since all inputs could be
>>>>> deceptions of our senses, we can only say that 'i am'...else we
>>>>> wouldn't care to ponder the question in the first place. it is not 'i
>>>>> think, therefore i am'. his logic was good, just not taken far enough.
>>>>>
>>>> Oh, so now you great philosopher, also? ROFLMAO.
>>> no, oh noobie-to-philosophy. you should have recognized that i just
>>> regurgitated the classical adaptation to descartes 'i think' reduction.
>>> man, you should read more and speak less until you actually get up to
>>> speed with theological and philisophical points of consideration and
>>> contention. did you even go to college, or just something like ITT tech.?
>>>
>> Don't worry, I went to college. I just didn't remember the classical
>> adaptation. It's been over 30 years, and philosophy wasn't one of my
>> favorite courses back then.
>
> and i see your appetites remain the same even after 30 years.
>
Nope, I've grown to love philosophy.
>>>>> if that's where you wanted the conversation to go, sorry, you win. all
>>>>> may very well be an illusion. now, where does that get us? epistimology
>>>>> doesn't get us very far down the road.
>>>>>
>>>> Glad you finally admit it.
>>> 'finally'? that was the first mention. i never countered it. it is long
>>> considered to be the best, the *first case*, from which we understand all
>>> things. shit, you never did go to a philosophy class did you.
>>>
>>> jerry, stick to PHP...at least in that context, you are right more than
>>> you are wrong...but in either case, you've done your homework.
>>>
>> Looks like I've done a lot more homework than you have.
>
> because you don't know what the "first case" argument in philosophy is? or
> is it because you are adept at committing basic fallicies in logic that you
> should have been taught in college? or, have you just fucking red herringed
> me AGAIN in double whammy fashion? (ad-homonym + red herring).
>
ROFLMAO! More ad-homonyms.
>>> as for you 'understanding' of other pov's. it is clear that when viewing
>>> them, you are merely looking at them rather than actually *taking* the
>>> pov in order to understand it...an the goggles of christianity never came
>>> off when you were looking at it. i imagine the whole time you considered
>>> another pov, racing through your mind was, 'how could anyone believe this
>>> bullshit?'
>>>
>> No, I understand your point of view. I don't happen to agree with it, is
>> all. And you really shouldn't try to guess what other people think. You
>> are so wrong.
>
> wow. i'm 'so wrong'. you are entirely comfortable with stating the way
> things 'are' yet never providing any evidence of support. not only is that
> arrogant, it's just childish...as in, am not...are too...am not... i believe
> you are well above your paygrade when discussing theology and philosophy.
> (notice, stated as opinion even though plenty of evidence of support abounds
> in this thread, justifying a more direct assurtion of the same).
>
>>>>>>>>> '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.
>>>>>> Same idea, different words.
>>>>> no, it's not just symantics. the fact that you don't get it, just means
>>>>> you don't get it. you can't "i'm right no matter what you say" your way
>>>>> out of this one, jerry.
>>>>>
>>>> Oh, I get it, alright.
>>>>
>>>>> if that's the way you chose to play it, then i'll just say my admitted
>>>>> generalization about church being a *business* is not a generalization
>>>>> at all. in fact, it is true. and, i'll use your words: "Try to deny it
>>>>> all you want. It won't work."
>>>>>
>>>> How little you know.
>>>>
>>>> Of course churches need to make money - they have bills to pay, also.
>>>> And as a whole, they contribute more back to the community than all Red
>>>> Crosses, Salvation Armies and the like do together. But churches are
>>>> not businesses - even the Federal government agrees with that.
>>> no, check your budget. how much of your funding specifically ends up in
>>> your community. the bulk, your accountant will tell you (outside of
>>> operating expenses, that i already said we not consider, you moron), goes
>>> to your denominations' headquarters with other large chuncks of change
>>> going to your denominations support of their missions - which are not
>>> local by any means...all the while, fulfilling the great commission i
>>> might add. surprisingly little actually goes back to the community that
>>> you were meant to serve.
>>>
>> I am familiar with the budget. We get a full accounting annually,
>> including how much goes where. But you have no idea where my church
>> spends its money.
>
> never said i did. i said you should check it.
>
>>>>> see how stupid that makes me sound? that's rhetorical and supposed to
>>>>> get you to substitue the word "me" with "you"...since you're having
>>>>> problems in this thread thinking logically.
>>>> Yep, it shows just how little you understand even the definition of a
>>>> "business".
>>> lol. is that like your economics blunder of not knowing the two sides of
>>> the economic equation - aside from the fact you didn't even know there
>>> WERE two sides? roflmfao
>> Not at all. Economics was one of my favorite courses.
>
> right up until they discussed supply-side and demand-side manipulation
> apparently. lol. how do you account for that lil' slip up with sanders? i
> was busting a gut over you and 'one of your favorite courses.' all the
> moreso since you told him he needed more school'n in econ. rolfmao...again.
> chortle.
>
>
This has degraded to where you follow one ad-homonym attack with
another. The sure sign that you don't have anything to argue.
I'm outta here. I don't argue with idiots. And yes, that is an
ad-homonym. Get me an intelligent person and I'll be glad to debate this.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|