Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/21/07 00:21

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
==================

[Back to original message]