Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/19/07 10:56

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.


>>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

> 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.

>>>>> 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.


> 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.

> 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.

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.

>>> 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.

>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]