Posted by Steve on 09/20/07 05:43

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hJedneINt947A2zbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:WPOdnQYlxN2FzW3bnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also.
>>>> Only to religious people.
>>>>
>>> And Websters...
>>
>> i have an old copy of websters that is nothing like their current
>> definition. plus, every dictionary has a different definition of atheism.
>> it just means no one really understands what it is...except atheists. we
>> don't mind. we're only about 2% of the world's population. even so, that
>> doesn't make your snappy come-back, very snappy.
>>
>> ;^)
>>
>
> Gee, word meanings change. Maybe you should get a copy which has been
> published this century. Or at least last century.
>
>>>> To atheists it is merely sidelining religion as irrelevant and getting
>>>> on with the job.
>>>>
>>>> This is conveniently
>>>>> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom".
>>>> This is conveniently overlooked by those who cannot concieve of a
>>>> person who believes in nothing other than his sensory apparatus and
>>>> what it tells him.
>>>>
>>> Not at all. I can conceive of those people. But, unlike them, I don't
>>> try to force them to practice my religion - but they want to prohibit me
>>> from practicing it.
>>
>> wow. now would be the time for you to say what happened to you
>> *specifically* so we don't just discard such a statement as a generalized
>> blurt that is unfounded and meaningless.
>>
>> you still haven't said how you reconsile your apparent aversion to
>> fulfilling the great commission. you may not actively tie us down, but
>> you're certainly supposed to tell us "the good news". btw, there is more
>> religious proliferation in public forums than atheists standing outside
>> your church's doors blocking your entrance on sunday morning. just who is
>> forcing whom?
>>
>
> Those who won't let me pray on school grounds, for instance. A perfect
> example - when I lived in Raleigh (NC), our church had a fire (old
> wiring). For a while we rented a junior high gymnasium for our Sunday
> services while the church was being renovated. Then an atheist group
> threatened to sue the country Board of Education for allowing a religious
> group to meet on school property.
>
> This was a publicly owned building, and open to any other group willing to
> pay the same rent we did. But even though we were members of the public
> and payed the taxes to build the building, we were barred from using it
> during non-school hours, when no one else was around, because we were
> holding a religious function.

jerry, my church meets in an elementary school. and while i see no problems
with that argument (especially because you'd actually be paying rent thereby
allowing my taxes to work somewhere else) if equal access is afforded. it is
quite a different proposal than most situations...in that the main themes
are seperation and equal access. this instead of seperation and endorsement.
everyone who comes to church in such a situation is doing so of their own
volition.

much different is the actual endorsement of religion given the genre of
examples we've given you. all of that said though, i likewise understand the
reaction that was received. i'd be more lax about it, but i can see fighting
for the principle of the matter. that's a worthy cause. not only that, i'd
rather have an over-reaction by *any* group of protesters since it would
reinforce the walls of seperation rather than letting gray areas creep into
the mix. remember, its a slippery slope.

>>>>> But many atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of
>>>>> the country.
>>>>>
>>>> They can't. Atheism by definition is the absence of religion.
>>>>
>>> Wrong, again.
>>
>> again...
>>
>> a latin: without
>> theism latin: belief in god
>>
>> i know you don't care about word origins, lexicons, or etymology in
>> general (your s.a.t scores must have s.u.c.k.e.d), however when there is
>> a dispute as the the modern interpretation of a word, the latin or greek
>> roots are the foundation of any definition. the one above is the simple
>> raw data. you can certainly appreciate at least that, being a programmer.
>>
>
> Nope. Word origins don't mean anything other than where the words came
> from. Current usage is what counts.

you missed the point again. however at this point, i can predict how many
threads it would take for me to bring it home to you, given this thread's
history...and i'll tell you now...it just aint worth it. ;^)

>>>>> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way
>>>>> and I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot
>>>>> do, and I don't try to tell you the same.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't worship.
>>>>
>>> No, you don't worship a god.
>>
>> no, you don't know him well enough to say that. you must take him at his
>> word that he doesn't worship...anything. you keep acting like you are on
>> familiar terms with everyone. that's rather arrogant.
>
> I was just more specific about it. If he doesn't worship anything, then
> the logical conclusion is that he doesn't worship a god, either.

jerry! you aren't dumb!!! you expect us to swollow that bullshit?!!! you
could have just as easily said he doesn't worship dog shit, were that the
true case. you obviously didn't just intend to *just* be more specific about
it!

[Back to original message]