Posted by Steve on 09/20/07 23:58

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YOmdnb5TyrBUf2_bnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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.

you still seem to think that your dollars are more important than everyone
elses. i'll leave it at this, since you won't even think about what you're
suggesting...government should have nothing to do with religion.

if you feel that somehow descriminated against...fine. just know that EVERY
OTHER RELIGION is equally descriminated...either join hands and have a pitty
party (needlessly) or, feel like 'hey, everyone else gets to. why can't i.'
what a baby!

> 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.

oh, i do? no, i want them to have nothing to do with religion. why can't you
get that?

>> 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.

well...the past eight years, for starters. ;^)

i'd just reason that unions want to take control too. the religious and
unions, side-by-side. two of my f.a.v.o.r.i.t.e things! and both equally
useless.

>>>> 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.

no i didn't. check again.

>>>> 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 have no cause. and if the exposure (free market comment, i assume) let
more closet-atheists know there are more like them out there, that would be
a detriment to my "cause" (whatever the fuck that means)?

>>>>>>>> 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.

i never said it did, numb-skull. what i DID say, was that the most logical
conclusion (occam's razor) is that he does not. i'm *a*pathetic toward any
premises that have no evidence, and therefore consider them irrelevant. some
allow leway and say you just can't know, however that is not the most
logical course. but as i've seen, you are not strictly logical.

what it implies is lack of merit to your claim "god exists". before you made
the claim, i didn't know what god was or have any indication it existed. so
without evidence, the claim is irrelivant and i continue on as i had before
you made it.

got it?

>> 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.

every premise must not only be provable, it must be falsifiable.
evidence/proof gives merit to claims...not desires. at least that how the
educated in both the sciences and logic see things. but, then there's the
jerry stuckle way of seeing things. i'm not sure you'd enjoy having all of
us put our heads up your ass so that we could share your unique view.

>> 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.

good thing i'm intellectually honest then. if i hold the notion of god, the
core being of every religion, as irrelevant to anything in the universe,
what in the hell would make you think i'd hold subsequent theories about god
with anything else but the same. 'paradise' is a beach in hawaii. i go there
every other year. when i want to go, i buy a ticket and go. that's the only
'paradise' that is relevant for me to consider.

back to the point. you said 'that's very true.' does that mean you are
admitting that pascal's wager is false, and that by it's reasoning, atheists
and theologians alike have equal chances at the same rewards that (you say,
not me) are awaiting some of us? if so, i'm glad you've learned not to USE
IT any more. if not, i'd just cover my face and shake my head at you.

>>>> 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.

*i* took off? no, someone said leprechauns were gods after they assumed your
defintion of religion. that someone was not me. i just responded to your
daftness in reply to said someone - who was not me.

the thread is long here. i can't poke too much fun at you for getting lost
with who said what. but please, do try to stay up. otherwise, i'd begin to
think that you are deliberately trying to lie about what i say. especially
since you've done it twice now in this single post!

>>>> 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.

wow. not only confused about what *i* said, but now you're confused about
what you said. and i quote:

"Leprechauns are not Gods." cite: Message-ID:
<y8WdnX190JAOrG3bnZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@comcast.com>

and that is all you said. nothing that could make a person POSSIBLY mean,
SOCIETY doesn't CONSIDER them gods. realize that what you say and/or write
is what we have to go on. what was going on in your mind at the time your
hand betrayed you mind (as you'd have us believe), will never be known to
anyone but you...unless you write it.

but hell, it doesn't matter. you forget what you say anyway. your memory has
an inverse relationship to what was said and what you meant...especially
when pressed. ;^)

>> 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.

according to what you *SAID*, my (individual or even a small group of me's)
belief about leprechauns (actually someone elses belief) being gods is
INVALID because the rest of the majority didn't see eye to eye with me on
the matter. if popular opinion about what is and is not god is required for
you to believe things about him, you in fact do rely on it.

> 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.

no, you attribute what you see to him. you lack evidence to conclusively
link what you see with what you belive.

faith is fine. the only thing we've really argued about in this thread of
any importance is where faith is allowed to be practiced.


>>>>>>>> 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.

well, my church (and i assumed all) is there to welcome *everyone* so that
all may know god. how does one, exactly, practice religion? i could see
'practicing' rolling the bones, but other than the annual welches-n-cracker
rites, i don't see any need for 'practice'. lol. if you're catholic, i would
imagine that the accolytes would actually have to practice swinging their
smoke bombs down the aisle. but then again, they do that at every mass. they
probably got the hang of it really quickly. yeah, what is there to practice,
jerry? unless you think it requires practice to fulfill being a moral person
of good character. like the accolytes, we should have the hang of that as
adults and really have those skills encoded, don't you think?


>> 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?

well, none of that is name-calling, is it? i called you on it every time you
committed a fallicy. it marks the spot. this statement is me getting
frustrated with seeing you hurl so many. it would be a different story if
what i said were not true...or if i had said it in a less than flat manner -
as i did above.

>> 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.

hint, all things done by all people are for their own purposes. it is built
into us since life began. it springs from survival. saying you go to church
strictly for the purposes of someone else would be lying.

now listen jerry. if i started the first 20+ years of my life believing in
christ whole-heartedly, exactly how closed do you think my mind would have
to be for me to consider atheisism? really jerry! do you think i don't have
family that would be drastically impacted by my conclusions? would i do it
for my health?

oh, and for a person to be willing to believe, they must *close* their
mind...a lot. otherwise, they'd have to apply the same critical thinking to
religion as they do now with the other aspects of their lives. eyes of
faith. reason and logic won't get a person to convert because religion is
illogical.

>>
>>>>> 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.

he, he, he. you've admittedly not kept up with philosophy - one of your less
attactive things to study - in some 30 years, don't have a good grasp of
other religions, don't at all understand what an irrelevant question is
god's existence to an atheist - much less what that term means, you have no
formal debate or logic training under your belt (other than computer logic
maybe), and yet you believe *yourself* the best to judge who is and who is
not logical? hint: logic is a process. when you believe something on faith
alone, you and logic have parted ways.

let's review. the whole descartes thing. you 'member. ok. so. reality as we
know it must be confirmed through third-party observation. that way, though
our individual senses may lie, there is a better chance of certainty that
was is known/experienced is 'real'. even though i can only logically posit
'i am' instead of 'i *think*, therefore i am' (which requires third-party
observation 'member), i can only epistimologically proceed by this means -
lest i consider that 'i am' only and all else a sham.

having said that, we require a third-party for that (i'd hardly think that
herb would count ;^). otherwise, i can assure you that your senses are
indeed, fooling you.

>>>>>>>>>> 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.

well bring it on home then, cuz i've got no idea what you've said nor the
inclination to try and figure it out. to me, they are two independent
thoughts that have no relation. you start the second sentence with 'but'...i
can only say that ties the two ideas together through grammerical
conjunction and not by another means.

>>> 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.

no bells? i was dreading that.

> But you refuse to see the similarity.

because there is none. it does not apply to the point of that discussion.

> And there is no evidence indicating that any notion of you throughout his
> history that you exist.

that is right!!! so from that perspective, i am IRRELEVANT. there is not
objective PROOF (the whole fucking point being made) that i exist to anyone
else but me - lest i wouldn't have been inclined to consider whether or not
i did. and since the only thing that can logically be known is that 'I AM',
we can only truly be aware of our own existence.

the point again.

POSIT -> NO PROOF -> POSIT IRRELEVANT
POSIT -> PROOF -> SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AND VALIDATE

that's the way it goes. there is and was, no other point being made except
some non sequitur analogy you feel so pressing to communicate that you don't
adress the original before moving on. even enough to just say 'lets table
that for now, this *seperate* point ties in and heres how'.

>>>>>> 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.

just not study any of it? it is obvious that you are wholly unfamiliar with
the idioms, classical analogies, or even quips unique to philosophy. you
don't expect me to take your 'love' to mean something that matriculated into
action, right? you 'love' it enough that you study it on your own? jerry!
christ almighty!!! you didn't even know the 'first case'. you thought i was
being trite thinking i was smarter than descartes when i regurgitated it to
you, for gawd's sake! you haven't even studied enough to make it into a 101
level course!

'love' apparently requires no action by your use of the word. no wonder you
are comfortable with a god of inaction whom is said to 'love' you!

i tell my loved ones 'i love you', but that has no comparable impact as when
i *show* them i do.

>>>>>> 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.

nope. everything said was true. the word you are looking for is 'sarcasm.'

>>>> 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.

well jerry, it is hard to resist in this case. while you need to check the
definition of 'ad-homoym', i certainly am taking delight in merely *pointing
out* the fact that you belittled sanders (as much as i can't stand the guy)
by saying he needed to learn econ. you then go and prove you don't know
supply/demand in econ. in response to sanders demonstrating that he did.
that's all fact. want the cite? no...you're trying to forget it.

why do i keep bringing it up? because in all the time i've read your posts.
when you are absolutely wrong, you don't admit it. couple that with how
resolute your convictions are in your 'right-ness', and you've got the
makings of an asshole. (that, would be a certified ad-homonym).

> 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.

and why am i not surprised to see this course of action? well, that would be
your escape route from having to own up to your blunder. if this is where
you want to leave it, fine.

[Back to original message]