|
|
Posted by Shelly on 09/21/07 03:04
This is to Steve:
It's not Godwin, but I this is close enough to count. Game over.
This reminds me of a story I heard once. A European visitor to China a
couple of hundred years ago saw two men arguing and yelling at each other so
violently that he was sure a fight would break out and that one or the other
would pull a knife and kill the other. Yet, even though this went on a very
long time, nothing violent happened and finally it ended. The man asked his
guide "why did they not get into a physical fight?". The answer he got was
that the first one to throw a punch was deemed the loser.
Read this post by Jerry, especially the second half.
Shelly
"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.
>
>>> 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'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.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> 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?
>
>>> 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.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> AND MY LAST WORDS ARE, FUCK OFF, ASSHOLE. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET BY
> ACCUSING ME OF THINGS I NEVER SAID.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> SO UNLESS YOU CAN APOLOGIZE, QUITE ACCUSING ME OF THINGS I DIDN'T SAY, AND
> ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE RIGHTS, ALSO, FUCK OFF, MORON.
>
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstucklex@attglobal.net
> ==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|