|
|
Posted by Shelly on 09/21/07 02:57
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cLidnf-zJcxnk27bnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:FP-dnd0s3qy1PG_bnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> And why should I have to "prove" my God exists to you - or anyone else?
>>> There is no fraud involved. I have stated my belief. You can choose to
>>> believe or not. It's up to you.
>>\
>> It depends upon what you said. If you said, "I believe God exists", the
>> you are correct that you don't have to prove anything to anyone because
>> it is a simple statement of faith. If you said "God exists", then the
>> onus of proof is upon you because that is a statement that you make as
>> fact. In that situation the burden of proof is not upon him to show the
>> non-existence (which is impossible), but upon you to support your
>> statement.
>>
>
> I never said "God exists". Point back to show me where I did.
Jerry, please look up the word "if" in the dictionary. I quite myself now:
"If you said "God exists", ".
Please read what I write before objecting. I was trying to explain when
proof is needed and when it isn't. Reread the paragraph above that I wrote
and to which you objected. Hint: I **never** claimed you said "God
exists".
>
>>> Not to you, there isn't. And no, I'm not even going to try to provide
>>> any objective evidence to you - or anyone else. I have my beliefs, and
>>> that's good enough for me.
>>
>> Either there is objective proof or there isn't. He claims there isn't.
>> It is impossible to prove non-existence. All you need to do to show his
>> statement to be wrong is to produce a single instance of objective
>> evidence. Unless you can do that, (which you can't), his statement stands
>> undisputed.
>>
>
> No, his statement stands irrelevant. Something which cannot be proven nor
> disproven is such.
I reiterate, that unless you can show his statement to be false (by proving
the existence of God), then his statement stands undisputed. Irrelelvency
is irrelevent. Stay on the subject being discussed, not off on some
tangeant.
>
>>> I'm glad you finally admit it. But that is a direct contradiction to
>>> your previous statement: "sorry, religious people are in the *business*
>>> of converting."
>>>
>>> So a correct statement would be "sorry, religious people I'VE MET are in
>>> the *business* of converting." A big difference.
>>
>> As a point of fact, I will refute Steve's statement this time. The
>> official policy in Judaism is to DIScourage conversions, and it has been
>> the policy for at least a thousand years. See, Jerry, all it takes is
>> one instance to show the statement to be wrong.
>>
>
> But I'm not trying to show him to be wrong. He's entitled to his opinion.
Again, stay on the point being discussed. I was illustrating to you that
proving a categorical statement false require only a single exception. I
did that with Steve's statement of all religions want to convert. Staty on
target please.
>
>>>> there should be no need for a situation that required an opt-out option
>>>> in the first place!
>>>>
>>> Sure. They all worship a god (or in some cases gods). It is a prayer
>>> to their god.
>>
>> And what of the atheists? They don't worship a god. Again, only one
>> instance is needed to disprove your statement. (...or are you saying "to
>> hell with the atheists"? :-) )
>>
>
> So, they can opt-out of any prayer. No problem.
You TOTALLY miss the point. Please stay on target. The point is not
whether or not they have to pray. The point is that they have to be
subjected to a prayer session at all. You said it is OK because it is
non-denominational and, I quote you now, "They all worship a god (or in some
cases gods). ". I showed the exception falsifying your statement. That
means the "non-denominational prayer" is inappropriate. Your rational for
it has been totally debunked by my providing a single exception. Once
again, please stay on target for the point being discussed, not some other
tangeant.
>
>>> And the world is full of opt-out situations every day. Every choice you
>>> make you can opt to go another way.
>>
>> For adults, that is one thing. For children it is quite another. Peer
>> pressure disappears to a large degree as we mature. Not so when we are
>> young. You are promoting cruely to children by your "opt-out choice".
>>
>
> No, children opt-out of things every day, also. What "cruelty" is there?
I explained this to you at least once already. Forcing children to opt-out
puts them in the position of being the "oddball" and they become the object
of derision from their peers. (Refer to the post from Kaufman for just one
such example). Children can be very cruel that way. What you are doing is
enabling and even encouraging an environment that not only allows that
cruelty to take place, but helps create it. Hence, you are fostering
cruelty to children (who are not Christian).
>>> Let the state remain NEUTRAL in such matters. Neither promoting nor
>>> prohibiting.
>>
>> The greatest asset in our democracy is the protection of the rights of
>> the minority from the tyrrany of the majority. Majority governs, but it
>> must not rule (do you understand the distinction?) . That is what the
>> Bill of Rights and the rest of it is all about.
>>
>
> Yes, I do understand that.
I hope so, though your previous statements make me wonder.
>>>> you have equal access to practice your beliefs as anyone else. the
>>>> standard is the same. the laws are the same. if you feel the gov.
>>>> should favor you more, then you're more arrogant that i thought.
>>>>
>>> No, but YOU feel the government should favor YOU more. I just want the
>>> right to practice my religion. You want to refuse me that right - even
>>> though it is doing NO HARM to you.
>>
>> Jerry, please stop with this load of crap. NOONE IS REFUSING YOU THE
>> RIGHT TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION. PERIOD. We are merely saying you can't
>> do it on MY property nor at MY expense. That means not on public
>> property nor at public expense. You can do it all you want on PRIVATE
>> property and paid for by you.
>>
>
> Horse hockey. Atheists are trying to refuse me the right to practice my
> religion every day.
OK, I'm out of here after these posts that are currently unread by me. You
said this load of crap one to may times. Go diddle with your thoughts from
now own since you are incapable of listenting to a counter point of view.
> I'm not trying to do it on YOUR PROPERTY. Nor am I trying to do it at
> YOUR EXPENSE. But you need to remember that I PAID FOR THAT PUBLIC
> PROPERTY, TOO, AND IT GIVES ME RIGHTS.
And I would then have the right to put up signs denisgrating Jesus in all
sorts of foul language because "I PAID FOR THAT PUBLIC PROPERTY, TOO, AND IT
GIVES ME RIGHTS.". Jerry, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater just
because you bought a ticket and have freedom of speech. You would be
infringing on MY rights and you not allowed to do that, just as I am not
allowed to infringe upon yours. The solution then, to any rational person,
is to practice your religion on property that I have no interest in.
>
>> Why are you dense here? We have told you this how many times now? Yet,
>> you insist on repeating this bullshit. Are you blinded? pig-headed? or
>> just plain too damn stupid to understand? Over the years I had thought
>> more of your intelligence than that you can't grasp the meaning of the
>> simple statement that has been made to you over and over and over and
>> over ad infinitum.
>>
>
> Yes, why are you being so dense? I have never said it should be at state
> expense. But you REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS TO
> ACCESS TO PUBLIC PROPERTY THAT YOU DO.
You have EXACTLY the same rights as I do. You can't put your religious
displays on public property and I can't put mine. EXACTLY the same.
>> I've had it. Unless you can show how we are REFUSING YOU THE RIGHT TO
>> PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION, and not come up with the stupidity you have
>> presented, I will bow out and let you live on in your ignorance.
>>
>
> I HAVE. BUT IT'S ASSHOLES LIKE YOU WHO REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
Putz.
> YES, I'M A LOT MORE THAN PISSED OFF NOW. YOU'VE PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH,
> ACCUSED ME OF WANTING TO DO THINGS I NEVER SAID I WANTED TO DO, AND A
> WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER BULLSHIT.
You simply cannot read what I wrote. You put up the strawman and then
attack it. I never put words in your mouth. Read what I wrote and tell me
then when I put words in your mouth. Don't edit things like when I say "If
you said such and such" by leaving off the "if" and coming up with "you said
such and such". That is what you mentally did when you attacked me early in
this post for putting words in your mouth.
>
> IT'S PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE TRYING TO TWIST THE CONSTITUTION, BILL OF
> RIGHTS AND THE COURTS OF THIS COUNTRY TO MAKE IT NOT A RELIGION NEUTRAL
> COUNTRY, BUT AN ATHEISTIC ONE.
Bullshit. That is the only comment that you deserve on that statement.
> AND MY LAST WORDS ARE, FUCK OFF, ASSHOLE. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET BY
> ACCUSING ME OF THINGS I NEVER SAID.
Wow. Temper, temper. Now a challenge. Show me where I accused you of
such.
>>>>> 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?
>>>> i don't know. you tell me. what if he's leading your kid in a prayer to
>>>> satan? what would your problem be with that? what, are you afraid your
>>>> children will start asking questions about something you don't believe
>>>> in?
>>>>
>>>> don't be moronic.
>>> You're the one who wants it banned, not me. And a non-denominational
>>> prayer, by definition, is one towards no specific god. So he can't be
>>> praying to Satan - it would not be non-denominational.
>>>
>>> Don't be moronic.
>>
>> Once you mention "god" in a positive sense, it is no longer
>> "non-denominational". That is because you have already excluded
>> atheists. Again, all that is needed is ONE instance to refute the
>> statement.
>>
>
> Not true. As I said. If you don't want to participate, no one is holding
> a gun to your head.
Explained already, but obviously you are too dense to understand or, more
accurately, unable to read properly.
> BUT ASSHOLE, YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT SIMPLE CONCEPT. YOU'VE GOT YOUR
> HEAD SO FAR UP YOUR ASS YOU HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT THAT I HAVE RIGHTS, ALSO.
Putz.
>
>> How about "Let us all reflect upon what a great country we live in, wish
>> for the health of our family and friends, be thankful for the
>> opportunities presented to each one of us, and hope for a future of peace
>> and happiness"? Would you, Jerry, call that a prayer (no mention of God
>> or pray or giving thanks)? Would you, Steve? And Steve, isn't this sort
>> of what you think about when the rest of your church is "praying"? I
>> know that this is what I think of every time I hear the national anthem.
>>
>> Shelly
>
> HOW ABOUT YOU GO AND FLUSH YOURSELF DOWN THE TOILET AND SAVE THE REST OF
> THE WORLD A LOT OF TROUBLE.
Tantrums? When logic fails it is "Fuck off".
> Yes, I've gone overboard on this one. But quite frankly, I'M TIRED OF
> YOUR CLAIMS THAT I SAID THINGS I DIDN'T SAY. SO I'M RESORTING TO YOUR
> LEVEL - WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY ONE YOU UNDERSTAND.
One more time, READ what I wrote and then show me where I claim you said
something that you didn't. Remember first, though, to go to the dictionary
and look up that big two letter word "if".
>
> SO UNLESS YOU CAN APOLOGIZE, QUITE ACCUSING ME OF THINGS I DIDN'T SAY, AND
> ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE RIGHTS, ALSO, FUCK OFF, MORON.
I have absolutely NO need to apologize since I did not do what you say I
did. I think, though, that you severely need to look in a mirror and
reflect upon your childish antics.
Shelly
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|