Freedom loving patriotic ACLU to the rescue!!! [Archive]

Kingfish

08-13-2003, 08:19 PM

"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message news:bhesv40qg7@enews3.newsguy.com...
: Kingfish wrote:>>
:
:
: > "Jiggs McManus" <anon@cheshire.dyndns.dk> wrote in message
: > news:JMF3G6C737846.8662962963@anonymous.poster...
: > : (They attempt to desTroy freedom, the ACLU patches things up.)
: > :
: > : DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit
: > : Tuesday seeking to throw out a new Colorado law requiring teachers
and
: > : students to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
:
: > glad to see they aren't wasting their time with the HSA or PATRIOT acts
: > and they are doing something SO meaningfull such as this.
:
: > boy, they must feel great at the end of the day.
:
: > what a waste of time and hot air.
:
: Are we missing something here? Seems to me like an entire state government
: has forgotten that such a mandate across the board is already
: unconstitutioal. A certain person [madelaine o'hara]

good heavens. If there is a hell, she might be in charge.

what we have here is a guideline - because there is no penalty for not
saying the pledge. You can opt out because:
1. ya don't believe in it/personal reasons
2. you aren't a citizen
3. religeous objections

who woulden't that cover?

This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this country is
something we should stand behind.

already challenged the
: "one nation under god" phrase as being against keeping "church and state
: shall be seperate".

well, how about the prayer meetings that happen before EVERY session of
congress? There will NEVER be seperation of church and state - though we
can try to protect the peoples' right to worship. As long as we keep
electing people that believe in a higher power, there IS a connection. As
long as voters believe - there will be a connection.

: If it is true that a state government of today passed such a law, it would
: show that the state has as it's lawmakers idiots who don't know jack ****
: about fundamental law, let alone American history.

nope, it shows that our Colorado legislators are patriotic and want to offer
a time to those that wish to say the pledge.

:
: I would strongly tend to believe that the idea of the post was to be a
TROLL
: and apparently it found quite a few idiots to challenge it.

me a troll or the OP? not that I care what you think of me, really. Talk
about senseless battles.

Uncle Samuel

08-13-2003, 09:40 PM

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 02:07:03 GMT, "Kingfish"
<spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jiggs McManus" <anon@cheshire.dyndns.dk> wrote in messagenews:JMF3G6C737846.8662962963@anonymous.pos ter...: (They attempt to desTroy freedom, the ACLU patches things up.):: DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit: Tuesday seeking to throw out a new Colorado law requiring teachers and: students to say the Pledge of Allegiance.glad to see they aren't wasting their time with the HSA or PATRIOT acts andthey are doing something SO meaningfull such as this.boy, they must feel great at the end of the day.what a waste of time and hot air.

This is a cover post for the mental kid one, it's his legal team
polluting the jury pool is my guess.

Uncle Samuel

08-13-2003, 09:40 PM

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:19:06 GMT, "Kingfish"
<spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message news:bhesv40qg7@enews3.newsguy.com...: Kingfish wrote:>>::: > "Jiggs McManus" <anon@cheshire.dyndns.dk> wrote in message: > news:JMF3G6C737846.8662962963@anonymous.poster...: > : (They attempt to desTroy freedom, the ACLU patches things up.): > :: > : DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit: > : Tuesday seeking to throw out a new Colorado law requiring teachersand: > : students to say the Pledge of Allegiance.:: > glad to see they aren't wasting their time with the HSA or PATRIOT acts: > and they are doing something SO meaningfull such as this.:: > boy, they must feel great at the end of the day.:: > what a waste of time and hot air.:: Are we missing something here? Seems to me like an entire state government: has forgotten that such a mandate across the board is already: unconstitutioal. A certain person [madelaine o'hara]good heavens. If there is a hell, she might be in charge.what we have here is a guideline - because there is no penalty for notsaying the pledge. You can opt out because:1. ya don't believe in it/personal reasons2. you aren't a citizen3. religeous objectionswho woulden't that cover?This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this country issomething we should stand behind.already challenged the: "one nation under god" phrase as being against keeping "church and state: shall be seperate".well, how about the prayer meetings that happen before EVERY session ofcongress? There will NEVER be seperation of church and state - though wecan try to protect the peoples' right to worship. As long as we keepelecting people that believe in a higher power, there IS a connection. Aslong as voters believe - there will be a connection.: If it is true that a state government of today passed such a law, it would: show that the state has as it's lawmakers idiots who don't know jack ****: about fundamental law, let alone American history.nope, it shows that our Colorado legislators are patriotic and want to offera time to those that wish to say the pledge.:: I would strongly tend to believe that the idea of the post was to be aTROLL: and apparently it found quite a few idiots to challenge it.me a troll or the OP? not that I care what you think of me, really. Talkabout senseless battles.

Another liberal ***-munch flames out, nice work KF!

Ken Smith

08-14-2003, 06:16 AM

Kingfish wrote:
"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message news:bhesv40qg7@enews3.newsguy.com... : Kingfish wrote:>> : > "Jiggs McManus" <anon@cheshire.dyndns.dk> wrote in message : > news:JMF3G6C737846.8662962963@anonymous.poster... : > : (They attempt to desTroy freedom, the ACLU patches things up.) : > : : > : DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit : > : Tuesday seeking to throw out a new Colorado law requiring teachers and : > : students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. : : > glad to see they aren't wasting their time with the HSA or PATRIOT acts : > and they are doing something SO meaningfull such as this. : : > boy, they must feel great at the end of the day. : : > what a waste of time and hot air. : : Are we missing something here? Seems to me like an entire state government : has forgotten that such a mandate across the board is already : unconstitutioal. A certain person [madelaine o'hara] good heavens. If there is a hell, she might be in charge. what we have here is a guideline - because there is no penalty for not saying the pledge. You can opt out because: 1. ya don't believe in it/personal reasons 2. you aren't a citizen 3. religeous objections who woulden't that cover?

Children who don't have the courage to stand for their convictions --
which, given the inexorable hand of peer pressure, are many.
This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this country is something we should stand behind.

Fine. Get rid of the "under God" part -- iow, restore the Pledge to the
original formulation -- and the State's legitimate objectives should be met.
: already challenged the : "one nation under god" phrase as being against keeping "church and state : shall be seperate". well, how about the prayer meetings that happen before EVERY session of congress?

The participants are adults who, according to SCOTUS, presumably are
not susceptible to religious indoctrination. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S.
at 792.
There will NEVER be seperation of church and state - though we can try to protect the peoples' right to worship.

Or *not* worship, as the case may be? Our Constitution protects the
rights of religious minorities because our Founding Fathers knew what it
is like to be part of a religious minority.
As long as we keep electing people that believe in a higher power, there IS a connection. As long as voters believe - there will be a connection. : If it is true that a state government of today passed such a law, it would : show that the state has as it's lawmakers idiots who don't know jack **** : about fundamental law, let alone American history. nope, it shows that our Colorado legislators are patriotic and want to offer a time to those that wish to say the pledge.

More like, Colorado's legislators are Republicans, and are pandering
to certain members of their constituency.

Theodore A. Kaldis

08-14-2003, 07:04 AM

Ken Smith wrote:
Kingfish wrote:
This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this country is something we should stand behind.
Fine. Get rid of the "under God" part

Ain't a-gonna happen. Messing with the pledge is like messing with mom, the
flag, and apple pie.
-- iow, restore the Pledge to the original formulation -- and the State's legitimate objectives should be met.

The state's "legitmate objectives" are founded upon God's Law. Remove God,
and the state no longer has any legitimate objectives, but only the self-
serving personal objectives of the politicians who run it.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Richard

08-14-2003, 08:10 AM

Kingfish wrote:>>

"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message news:bhesv40qg7@enews3.newsguy.com... : Kingfish wrote:>> : : : > "Jiggs McManus" <anon@cheshire.dyndns.dk> wrote in message : > news:JMF3G6C737846.8662962963@anonymous.poster... : > : (They attempt to desTroy freedom, the ACLU patches things up.) : > : : > : DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit : > : Tuesday seeking to throw out a new Colorado law requiring teachers and : > : students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. : : > glad to see they aren't wasting their time with the HSA or PATRIOT acts : > and they are doing something SO meaningfull such as this. : : > boy, they must feel great at the end of the day. : : > what a waste of time and hot air. : : Are we missing something here? Seems to me like an entire state government : has forgotten that such a mandate across the board is already : unconstitutioal. A certain person [madelaine o'hara]
good heavens. If there is a hell, she might be in charge.
what we have here is a guideline - because there is no penalty for not saying the pledge. You can opt out because: 1. ya don't believe in it/personal reasons 2. you aren't a citizen 3. religeous objections
who woulden't that cover?
This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this country is something we should stand behind.

already challenged the : "one nation under god" phrase as being against keeping "church and state : shall be seperate".
well, how about the prayer meetings that happen before EVERY session of congress? There will NEVER be seperation of church and state - though we can try to protect the peoples' right to worship. As long as we keep electing people that believe in a higher power, there IS a connection. As long as voters believe - there will be a connection.

If I'm not mistaken, that so called prayer session has been challenged and
defeated, where it may be a tradition, at least they did not absolutely
demand and require the participants to participate.
: If it is true that a state government of today passed such a law, it would : show that the state has as it's lawmakers idiots who don't know jack **** : about fundamental law, let alone American history.
nope, it shows that our Colorado legislators are patriotic and want to offer a time to those that wish to say the pledge.

yeah sure thing, wave the flag then trample on it. the state can not pass a
law when a previous similar law has already been terminated by the supreme
court.
"We're going to deny blacks the right to vote."
So they pass the law and nobody notices?
: : I would strongly tend to believe that the idea of the [ORGINAL] post
was to be a TROLL : and apparently it found quite a few idiots to challenge it.
me a troll or the OP? not that I care what you think of me, really. Talk about senseless battles.

Kingfish

08-14-2003, 08:45 AM

"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message
news:bhg8rq02c9r@enews3.newsguy.com...
: Kingfish wrote:>>
:
:
: > "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message
: > news:bhesv40qg7@enews3.newsguy.com... : Kingfish wrote:>>
: > :
: > :
: > : > "Jiggs McManus" <anon@cheshire.dyndns.dk> wrote in message
: > : > news:JMF3G6C737846.8662962963@anonymous.poster...
: > : > : (They attempt to desTroy freedom, the ACLU patches things up.)
: > : > :
: > : > : DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal
: > lawsuit : > : Tuesday seeking to throw out a new Colorado law
requiring
: > teachers and
: > : > : students to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
: > :
: > : > glad to see they aren't wasting their time with the HSA or PATRIOT
: > acts : > and they are doing something SO meaningfull such as this.
: > :
: > : > boy, they must feel great at the end of the day.
: > :
: > : > what a waste of time and hot air.
: > :
: > : Are we missing something here? Seems to me like an entire state
: > government : has forgotten that such a mandate across the board is
: > already : unconstitutioal. A certain person [madelaine o'hara]
:
: > good heavens. If there is a hell, she might be in charge.
:
: > what we have here is a guideline - because there is no penalty for not
: > saying the pledge. You can opt out because:
: > 1. ya don't believe in it/personal reasons
: > 2. you aren't a citizen
: > 3. religeous objections
:
: > who woulden't that cover?
:
: > This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this
country
: > is something we should stand behind.
:
:
: > already challenged the
: > : "one nation under god" phrase as being against keeping "church and
: > state : shall be seperate".
:
: > well, how about the prayer meetings that happen before EVERY session of
: > congress? There will NEVER be seperation of church and state - though
we
: > can try to protect the peoples' right to worship. As long as we keep
: > electing people that believe in a higher power, there IS a connection.
: > As long as voters believe - there will be a connection.
:
: If I'm not mistaken, that so called prayer session has been challenged and
: defeated, where it may be a tradition, at least they did not absolutely
: demand and require the participants to participate.

nor does the pledge "law" damand, require, or penalize non-participants.

anyone can opt out - that just kills your arguement.

=> Vox Populi ©

08-14-2003, 09:46 AM

"Kingfish" <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a9C_a.28$vX5.25@news.randori.com... "Jiggs McManus" <anon@cheshire.dyndns.dk> wrote in message news:JMF3G6C737846.8662962963@anonymous.poster... : (They attempt to desTroy freedom, the ACLU patches things up.) : : DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit : Tuesday seeking to throw out a new Colorado law requiring teachers and : students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. glad to see they aren't wasting their time with the HSA or PATRIOT acts and they are doing something SO meaningfull such as this. boy, they must feel great at the end of the day. what a waste of time and hot air.

Still playing the blithering moron, eh StinkFish?

If millions of U$ children weren't brainwashed and indoctrinated with
this dogmatic crap, they wouldn't grow up to be jackbooted goose-stepping
fascist scumbag civilians/politicians who support and create such
un-American obscenities as the HSA and the (un)Patriot Acts ...

--
"We must respect the other fellow's religion,
but only in the sense and to the extent that
we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful
and his children smart."
- H.L. Mencken

Steve Gombosi

08-14-2003, 03:10 PM

In article <a9C_a.28$vX5.25@news.randori.com>,
Kingfish <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:"Jiggs McManus" <anon@cheshire.dyndns.dk> wrote in messagenews:JMF3G6C737846.8662962963@anonymous.pos ter...: (They attempt to desTroy freedom, the ACLU patches things up.):: DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit: Tuesday seeking to throw out a new Colorado law requiring teachers and: students to say the Pledge of Allegiance.glad to see they aren't wasting their time with the HSA or PATRIOT acts andthey are doing something SO meaningfull such as this.

The ACLU has filed several actions against both HSA and the Patriot
Act, was instrumental in getting DARPA's TIA program defunded, and
has lobbied strongly against Patriot II.

What have you done?

Steve

Uncle Samuel

08-14-2003, 09:33 PM

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:04:21 GMT, "hofffam" <hoffman@optonline.net>
wrote:
In defence of the ACLU,

There is no "defence" {sic} for those leftist swine, they'd run
Charles Manson for Pope if they had their way. Get real.

Uncle Samuel

08-14-2003, 09:33 PM

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:36:34 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:3F3B96D0.426711B3@worldnet.att.net... Ken Smith wrote: Kingfish wrote:> This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this country> is something we should stand behind. Fine. Get rid of the "under God" part Ain't a-gonna happen. Messing with the pledge is like messing with mom, the flag, and apple pie.Funny, they "messed with it" when they added the supercilious "gaawd" part,and 'murrrrricans mess with their moms (MILF sites anyone?) and (French) ApplePie(American Pie) all the time too ...Hell, they willingly desecrate and decimate their beloved Constitution asthe drop of a hat ... -- iow, restore the Pledge to the original formulation -- and the State's legitimate objectives should be met. The state's "legitmate objectives" are founded upon God's Law.Bull****. There is no "god" you blithering ignoramus.

How can you prove that?

Ken Smith

08-15-2003, 05:09 AM

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: Kingfish wrote: This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this country is something we should stand behind. Fine. Get rid of the "under God" part Ain't a-gonna happen. Messing with the pledge is like messing with mom, the flag, and apple pie.

It was "messed with" in the Fifties. Why not change it back to the
original?
-- iow, restore the Pledge to the original formulation -- and the State's legitimate objectives should be met. The state's "legitmate objectives" are founded upon God's Law. Remove God, and the state no longer has any legitimate objectives, but only the self- serving personal objectives of the politicians who run it.

That's ludicrous! The Declaration of Independence was at essence
a mutual defense pact.

Humans congregate in societies for protection -- these days, mostly
for protection against other humans.

The State's "legitimate objectives" are to establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure basic human liberties to ourselves and
our heirs. The State doesn't *need* your god or his law to do that.
Deists call it "the social contract."

=> Vox Populi ©

08-15-2003, 08:01 AM

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:o9oojv8mu2r11h3emlbf0c83uucrjtr7s3@4ax.com... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:36:34 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote:"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:3F3B96D0.426711B3@worldnet.att.net... Ken Smith wrote: > Kingfish wrote: >> This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this country >> is something we should stand behind. > Fine. Get rid of the "under God" part Ain't a-gonna happen. Messing with the pledge is like messing with mom,
the flag, and apple pie.Funny, they "messed with it" when they added the supercilious "gaawd" part,and 'murrrrricans mess with their moms (MILF sites anyone?) and (French)
ApplePie(American Pie) all the time too ...Hell, they willingly desecrate and decimate their beloved Constitution asthe drop of a hat ... > -- iow, restore the Pledge to the original formulation -- and the State's > legitimate objectives should be met. The state's "legitmate objectives" are founded upon God's Law.Bull****. There is no "god" you blithering ignoramus. How can you prove that?

Easy numbnuts. Your lack of proof, or even probable evidence, that a "god"
exists is all the proof one needs.

--
"This would be the best of all possible worlds,
if there were no religions in it."
- John Adams

=> Vox Populi ©

08-15-2003, 08:09 AM

"Ralph Jones" <ralph295@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:c7gojvg32i0uho95iu07cgls7cbf226od0@4ax.com... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:38:12 GMT, "Kingfish" <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:"Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in messagenews:3F3B8BF1.1DAA0B6@concentric.net...: Kingfish wrote::: > "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in messagenews:bhesv40qg7@enews3.newsguy.com...: > : Kingfish wrote:>>: > : > "Jiggs McManus" <anon@cheshire.dyndns.dk> wrote in message: > : > news:JMF3G6C737846.8662962963@anonymous.poster...: > : > : (They attempt to desTroy freedom, the ACLU patches things up.): > : > :: > : > : DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federallawsuit: > : > : Tuesday seeking to throw out a new Colorado law requiringteachers and: > : > : students to say the Pledge of Allegiance.: > :: > : > glad to see they aren't wasting their time with the HSA or PATRIOTacts: > : > and they are doing something SO meaningfull such as this.: > :: > : > boy, they must feel great at the end of the day.: > :: > : > what a waste of time and hot air.: > :: > : Are we missing something here? Seems to me like an entire stategovernment: > : has forgotten that such a mandate across the board is already: > : unconstitutioal. A certain person [madelaine o'hara]: >: > good heavens. If there is a hell, she might be in charge.: >: > what we have here is a guideline - because there is no penalty for not: > saying the pledge. You can opt out because:: > 1. ya don't believe in it/personal reasons: > 2. you aren't a citizen: > 3. religeous objections: >: > who woulden't that cover?:: Children who don't have the courage to stand for their convictions --: which, given the inexorable hand of peer pressure, are many.oh no! Parents can stand up for them as well - ie "I don't want my child toparticipate. We object for ideological reasons.":: > This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this countryis: > something we should stand behind.:: Fine. Get rid of the "under God" part -- iow, restore the Pledge to the: original formulation -- and the State's legitimate objectives should bemet.Children can skip that line or skip the entire thing. YOU would force YOURlack of belief on others. Yeah, right...like when I was in school and Jews weren't forced to say the Lord's Prayer.

Uhhh. And the Lord's Prayer would offend a Jew exactly how?
They jhad the option of standing respectfully with their mouths shut while kids stared at them.

Fact is, and the Constitution mandates, that they had
no obligation to respect any of your superstitious bull****,
nor were they require to remain silent, they could have begun
chanting in ancient Hebrew if they liked.

rj

--
"This would be the best of all possible worlds,
if there were no religions in it."
- John Adams

=> Vox Populi ©

08-15-2003, 08:10 AM

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:c2oojvouktebp351e1rncbll66ms8effp8@4ax.com... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:04:21 GMT, "hofffam" <hoffman@optonline.net> wrote:In defence of the ACLU, There is no "defence" {sic} for those leftist swine, they'd run Charles Manson for Pope if they had their way. Get real.

Charlie would make a fine Pope ... wouldn't be the most murderous
of the historical Popes, nor the craziest ... but then again, Charlie
don't Surf!

--
"Man is a Religious Animal.
He is the only Religious Animal.
He is the only animal that has
the True Religion- several of them.
He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself
and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight."
- Mark Twain

Chas Clements

08-15-2003, 08:52 AM

"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote Easy numbnuts. Your lack of proof, or even probable evidence, that a "god" exists is all the proof one needs.

Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler
explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.
Considering the ordering of the Universe out of Chaos, my own answer is that
there is.
Of course, it denies people the comfort of thinking that their existence is
limited, but it can't be helped.

Chas

Daniel Packman

08-15-2003, 11:15 AM

In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>,
Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simplerexplanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.
.....

I prefer a more practical approach:
If you enjoy believing, then do so.

--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu

towelie

08-15-2003, 12:02 PM

Daniel Packman wrote: In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>, Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote: Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not. .... I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.

It's still a delusion. If I believe pink elephants are flying over my house
and 2+2=5, it doesn't make it so.

Believing in something just because you want to is lying to yourself.

--
aa #2133
apatriot #19

=> Vox Populi ©

08-15-2003, 12:05 PM

"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:bhj80o$usj$1@news.ucar.edu... In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>, Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simplerexplanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not. .... I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.

As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs to
any effect on other people ...

--
"We must respect the other fellow's religion,
but only in the sense and to the extent that
we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful
and his children smart."
- H.L. Mencken

Daniel Packman

08-15-2003, 12:09 PM

In article <bhjaoc$6346$1@ID-138129.news.uni-berlin.de>,
towelie <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:Daniel Packman wrote: In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>, Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not. ....
I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.
It's still a delusion. If I believe pink elephants are flying over my houseand 2+2=5, it doesn't make it so.

Of course it doesn't "make it so". That is irrelevant.
Believing in something just because you want to is lying to yourself.

Perhaps. I prefer to look at other people's religions as a black
box. It doesn't matter much what theology is inside. But does it
make them nicer and happier? Now if they start designing bridges
with the belief that 2+2=5, then we have a problem.

--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu

Jeremy Harmon

08-15-2003, 12:46 PM

"Kingfish" <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JcD_a.34$vX5.24@news.randori.com... "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message
news:bhesv40qg7@enews3.newsguy.com... : Kingfish wrote:>>
: If it is true that a state government of today passed such a law, it
would : show that the state has as it's lawmakers idiots who don't know jack
**** : about fundamental law, let alone American history. nope, it shows that our Colorado legislators are patriotic and want to
offer a time to those that wish to say the pledge.

Oh please! You mean these same conservative stern-brows that *****, whine
and moan about schools spending time to do anything outside of teaching
reading, writing and arithmetic wanna take up valuable knowledge gorging
time in order to initiate kids into the rites of red-blooded American,
bleary-eyed, *conservative* flag-thumping. And let's not use semantics to
obscure a point KF. They are not *offering* a time to those that wish to
say the pledge (they don't need to offer that, there's plenty of time
available for each individual to choose to do whatever they hell they want
with), they are *mandating* that those without some excuse for not doing so,
stand up, place their hands over their heart, and take an oath that their
conservative leaders have chosen for them. Question: Do you think people
who weep when they see the flag tend to be more liberal or more
conservative? Think this mandatory indoctrination time might just have
something to do with hedging the ideological bets, as it were?

Jeremy

Jeremy Harmon

08-15-2003, 01:14 PM

"Kingfish" <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m9N_a.314$vX5.13@news.randori.com... "Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message news:3F3B8BF1.1DAA0B6@concentric.net...
: More like, Colorado's legislators are Republicans, and are pandering : to certain members of their constituency. well, the are representing their constituency well as a majority of Coloradoans are in favor of this bill and the current version of the
pledge. I wonder why the Republicans are doing SO WELL across the country and the democrats are losing so much ground?

Probably the same reason Jerry Springer does SO WELL across the country,
while NPR has to beg for money. There is a reason that the Lowest Common
Denominator is called the **lowest** **common** denominator...and I suspect
it's the same reason you were alluding to.

Jeremy

Jeremy Harmon

08-15-2003, 01:22 PM

"hofffam" <hoffman@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9qO_a.68836$_R5.25271398@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv. net... Even now, that public sentiment has changed regarding PATRIOT Act, it's still going to be a tough fight.... but it would have been a losing battle if we tried to attack this law right after it was passed.

It does sunset in 2005, so their may not even be any need to take it to
court (though I would like to see that happen so a precedent is set).

Jeremy

Uncle Samuel

08-15-2003, 01:25 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:10:44 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in messagenews:c2oojvouktebp351e1rncbll66ms8effp8@4ax .com... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:04:21 GMT, "hofffam" <hoffman@optonline.net> wrote:In defence of the ACLU, There is no "defence" {sic} for those leftist swine, they'd run Charles Manson for Pope if they had their way. Get real.Charlie would make a fine Pope ... wouldn't be the most murderousof the historical Popes, nor the craziest ... but then again, Charliedon't Surf!

Heh, well not upright anyway...

Uncle Samuel

08-15-2003, 01:25 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:01:31 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in messagenews:o9oojv8mu2r11h3emlbf0c83uucrjtr7s3@4ax .com... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:36:34 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote:"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:3F3B96D0.426711B3@worldnet.att.net...> Ken Smith wrote:>> > Kingfish wrote:>> >> This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this country> >> is something we should stand behind.>> > Fine. Get rid of the "under God" part>> Ain't a-gonna happen. Messing with the pledge is like messing with mom,the> flag, and apple pie.Funny, they "messed with it" when they added the supercilious "gaawd" part,and 'murrrrricans mess with their moms (MILF sites anyone?) and (French)ApplePie(American Pie) all the time too ...Hell, they willingly desecrate and decimate their beloved Constitution asthe drop of a hat ...>> > -- iow, restore the Pledge to the original formulation -- and the State's> > legitimate objectives should be met.>> The state's "legitmate objectives" are founded upon God's Law.Bull****. There is no "god" you blithering ignoramus. How can you prove that?Easy numbnuts.

OK then, let's see ya have a go at it!
Your lack of proof, or even probable evidence, that a "god"exists is all the proof one needs.

Can't prove a negative with another (perceived) negative,
sorry...bzzznt!

Try again.

Uncle Samuel

08-15-2003, 01:25 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:15:52 +0000 (UTC), pack@eos.ucar.edu (Daniel
Packman) wrote:
In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>,Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simplerexplanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.....I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.

Sure. works for Santa too!

Uncle Samuel

08-15-2003, 01:25 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:02:36 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote: In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>, Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote: Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not. .... I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.It's still a delusion.

But you can't PROVE that!
If I believe pink elephants are flying over my houseand 2+2=5, it doesn't make it so.Believing in something just because you want to is lying to yourself.

They used to say that to Mets fans pre-'69.

Who knew?

Uncle Samuel

08-15-2003, 01:26 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:19:29 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in messagenews:bhjb5j$v7b$1@news.ucar.edu... In article <bhjaoc$6346$1@ID-138129.news.uni-berlin.de>, towelie <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:Daniel Packman wrote:> In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>,> Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:>> Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler>> explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.> ....> I prefer a more practical approach:> If you enjoy believing, then do so.It's still a delusion. If I believe pink elephants are flying over my houseand 2+2=5, it doesn't make it so. Of course it doesn't "make it so". That is irrelevant.Not quite.Believing in something just because you want to is lying to yourself. Perhaps. I prefer to look at other people's religions as a black box. It doesn't matter much what theology is inside. But does it make them nicer and happier? Now if they start designing bridges with the belief that 2+2=5, then we have a problem.Or if they start passing laws, rules, regulations, restrictions and othersocietal constructs based on 2+2=5 ...?If you encourage a delusion, actively or through blind acquiescence,you are bear the burden of the outcome when these deluded miscreantsstart projecting their mental illness as normative ...

Especially if it has such mental illness rules as the 10 Commandments,
right?

Uncle Samuel

08-15-2003, 01:26 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:05:26 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in messagenews:bhj80o$usj$1@news.ucar.edu... In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>, Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simplerexplanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not. .... I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs toany effect on other people ...

Any deleterious effect...

Hoffman

08-15-2003, 01:36 PM

samuel> There is no "defence" {sic} for those leftist swine
---------------------------------------
Hoffman replies:
Accepting for a moment, the incorrect american useage
of "leftist and rightist" (no such thing).....In what way
do you consider the ACLU a "leftist" group. In modern
american jargon, they would most certainly lean
much more towards the "right" of the spectrum.
Perhaps your confusing "religious conservative values"
with association with the "rigfht wing." It's not.

"Right wing" beliefs, accepting american useage of the
term, requires multiple factors; perhaps the least
of which is religious conservatism.... which many 'right
wing' atheists such as myself might say is completely irrelevant
to the issue. In America, we seperate politics and religion
and hence being right wing has little of anything to do with
a person or organizations stance on religion.

Last time I check, the ACLU does not actively promote
socialist economics, so they fail the left wing criteria on
this grounds too... so again, they are right wing on economics.

It has been my observation over the course of 10+ years or
more on the Internet, that with rare exception of some smart
and well informed people who truly keep up with the issues,
99.9+ percent of the people who refer to the ACLU
as a "leftist group" (the Internet is filled with such
statements), are people who's opinions clearly reak of
ever-so-obvious religious bias. These peoples motivation for
calling the ACLU "leftist" really amounts to little more
than low-brow cheap rhetoric name calling to smear
any person or group who disagrees with religion.

It's been my observation that only religiously biased persons
think that the term "conservative" and "right wing" are
equivelant terms, and also we observe that only religiously
biased individuals think the term "conservative" (or "political
conservatism") is equivelant to "religious conservatism." Clearly,
the two things have little to do with each other.

towelie

08-15-2003, 02:35 PM

Uncle Samuel wrote: On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:02:36 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: Daniel Packman wrote: In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>, Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:> Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a> simpler explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not. .... I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so. It's still a delusion. But you can't PROVE that!

The burden of proof is upon the believer, not the unbeliever. So you're
right, I can't prove it, because it's not my place to prove a negative. And
you can't prove it's not a delusion.
If I believe pink elephants are flying over my house and 2+2=5, it doesn't make it so. Believing in something just because you want to is lying to yourself. They used to say that to Mets fans pre-'69.

So? I believe the Chiefs have a chance this year, as I did last year, but I
don't believe they are definitely going to the Super Bowl. In fact, I
believe there's a very small chance they will make it. If any Mets fans
believed 100% that they were going to the World Series in any given year,
then they were deluding themselves. Just because they eventually went to
the World Series is irrelevant. Had I "believed" in the Tampa Bay Bucs were
going to the Super Bowl starting with their inception in 1976, I would have
been deluding myself, even though they eventually did go to and win the
Super Bowl. Your analogy is like a colander: it doesn't hold water.

--
aa #2133
apatriot #19

Theodore A. Kaldis

08-15-2003, 02:44 PM

"=> Vox Populi ©" wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> Ken Smith wrote:>> Kingfish wrote:
>>> This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that this>>> country is something we should stand behind.
>> Fine. Get rid of the "under God" part
> Ain't a-gonna happen. Messing with the pledge is like messing with mom,> the flag, and apple pie.
It was "messed with" in the Fifties. Why not change it back to the original?
It's fine the way it is now. No need to change it.
>> -- iow, restore the Pledge to the original formulation -- and the>> State's legitimate objectives should be met.
> The state's "legitmate objectives" are founded upon God's Law. Remove> God, and the state no longer has any legitimate objectives, but only the> self-serving personal objectives of the politicians who run it.
That's ludicrous!
Maybe to you, but to those of us with out heads screwed on, it's common sense.
The Declaration of Independence was at essence a mutual defense pact.
Quotes from the Declaration [emphasis added]:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of NATURE'S GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, ..."
"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD for the rectitude of our intentions, ..."
"And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
You missed the following quotes,

Those quotes aren't from the Declaration of Independence.
[QUOTE] moron:

"[M]oron"? Moi? I doubt that you would recognise a moron if one were to
bite you on the arse. (Because you see one every time you look in the
mirror.)
United States Constitution
The First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."

And reciting the Pledge doesn't represent any establishment of religion.
Article VI, Section 3 "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Nor is any test imposed when the Pledge is recited.
Humans congregate in societies for protection -- these days, mostly for protection against other humans.
So how do we protect ourselves from politicians' exploitation of the system for their own personal benefit?
The State's "legitimate objectives" are to establish justice,
Ah, but what is "justice"? And how can "justice" be achieved apart from God, Who favours no man over another?
You mean the Gaawd who sent a White Male emmissary to only speak to the Jews in one small part of the planet ?

You do err in that you know not the Scriptures. God came in the form of a
Man -- Who probably wasn't quite white, if truth be told. His appearance was
most likely what we would call "swarthy". And He spoke to the whole of the
world -- to every man, not just to one localised group.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Al Klein

08-15-2003, 09:07 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:26:00 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> posted
in alt.atheism:
Especially if it has such mental illness rules as the 10 Commandments,right?

Christianity claims that the OT no longer matters. If I'm wrong, why
do you violate it?
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net

Al Klein

08-15-2003, 09:08 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:26:03 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> posted
in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:05:26 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>wrote:"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in messagenews:bhj80o$usj$1@news.ucar.edu... In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>, Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
>Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler >explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.
I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.
As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs toany effect on other people ...
Any deleterious effect...

Deleterious in THEIR minds.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net

Al Klein

08-15-2003, 09:09 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:25:49 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> posted
in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:15:52 +0000 (UTC), pack@eos.ucar.edu (DanielPackman) wrote:In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>,Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simplerexplanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.
I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.
Sure. works for Santa too!

More proof that he exists than that your god does.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net

Daniel Packman

08-15-2003, 10:07 PM

In article <sRb%a.78$Fu6.21333@news.uswest.net>, => Vox Populi © <-> wrote:"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in messagenews:o4gqjvcbp6rk6doivenq09c759kga2mbr8@4ax .com...
"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message
> I prefer a more practical approach:> If you enjoy believing, then do so.
As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs toany effect on other people ...
Any deleterious effect...
Nope, ANY at all ...

So, you have bleeding feet from bad fitting boots and need
a ride back to civilization. You would prefer someone not
give you a ride rather than give one because of their
religious beliefs?

As it turned out may years ago, the preacher stopped
and gave me a religious lecture but didn't give me a
ride. But the point remains...

--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu

Chas Clements

08-16-2003, 09:21 AM

"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote
.......> > Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a
simpler explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not. Au Contrare, Pierre. Occam's Razor, and logic, clearly indicate there is no need for, or even a possibility for, a god creature as first cause.

If you see an ordered system, the most logical perception is that there is
an 'orderer'.
Unless you postulate the 'happy accident' wherein you throw the parts into
the air and they fall to earth as a watch.

Chas

=> Vox Populi ©

08-16-2003, 10:21 AM

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ev6cncD-DqHax6OiXTWJkg@comcast.com... "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote ......> > Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not. Au Contrare, Pierre. Occam's Razor, and logic, clearly indicate there is no need for, or even a possibility for, a god creature as first cause. If you see an ordered system, the most logical perception is that there is an 'orderer'.

Only for small minded folk

Of course your fabricated "orderer" would
itself need an "grand-orderer" to explain it's existence, and "great
grand-orderer"
to explain that one, so you see your "orderer" explains exactly nothing at all,
unless you're going to claim it's Turtles all the way Down ...

Now if you postulate that your "orderer" *self-created*, then we
can dispose of it again as being un-necessary.

If *self-creation* (self-order) is a universal possibility,
then the universe itself can be self-ordered/created without the
unnecessary step of fabricating an "orderer" who in turn
self-ordered/created.

Unless you postulate the 'happy accident' wherein you throw the parts into the air and they fall to earth as a watch.

Ibid.

Your "orderer" is entirely unnecessary, and explains nothing.
Chas

--
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

=> Vox Populi ©

08-16-2003, 10:31 AM

"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:bhke5p$56c$2@news.ucar.edu... In article <sRb%a.78$Fu6.21333@news.uswest.net>, => Vox Populi © <-> wrote:"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in messagenews:o4gqjvcbp6rk6doivenq09c759kga2mbr8@4ax .com... >"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message >> I prefer a more practical approach: >> If you enjoy believing, then do so. >As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs to >any effect on other people ... Any deleterious effect...Nope, ANY at all ... So, you have bleeding feet from bad fitting boots and need a ride back to civilization. You would prefer someone not give you a ride rather than give one because of their religious beliefs?

Funny you should mention that.

I deliberately boycott all those businesses that
advertise with that stupid xtian Fish symbol in
their advertisements.

I called some AC installers for bids on 2 houses for
central air and heat. Total bid ranges were $5500 - $8500.

The lowest was made by a company whose nicely done
bid proposal contained a rotting xtian Fish symbol next
to their company name. It went right into the circular file.
I willingly paid $1000 more for the job, and *you* may already
be thinking of the apparent irony that the company/owner who
did get the job was also some perversion of xtian...
yet the point was he didn't go around promoting, pandering,
and prostituting his pathetic superstitions openly.

As it turned out may years ago, the preacher stopped and gave me a religious lecture but didn't give me a ride. But the point remains...

If you were younger and cuter he might have given
you a Pony ride on his lap ... Praise Jaaayzus!

--
"This would be the best of all possible worlds,
if there were no religions in it."
- John Adams

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 02:52 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:36:52 GMT, "Hoffman" <hofffam@optonline.net>
wrote:
samuel> There is no "defence" {sic} for those leftist swine---------------------------------------Hoffman replies:Accepting for a moment, the incorrect american useageof "leftist and rightist" (no such thing)....

Why of course there is, don't play semantics scrabble with me bucko!
.In what waydo you consider the ACLU a "leftist" group.

They jump on every socialist oriented piece of rabble they can find
and work it.

http://www.gigo-soapbox.org/gigo/2000/06/gigo20000607.html

From: Hudson hermit

It's no earth shattering discovery to find that the ACLU is a leftist
tool not at concerned with everyone's civil rights. A quick look at
their website reveals that they promote the gay agenda; they wish to
force a private organization (Boy Scouts) to "end anti-gay bias."
Looking at their religious liberties section, I find that what the
ACLU means by religious liberty is freedom from religion, which will
not be complete until all traces of religion are removed from this
country.

The ACLU touted its courage when it defended the Nazi march through
Skokie Illinois. I don't believe that's true. National Socialism is
just that, socialism. Why wouldn't a leftist organization defend
socialism? If the ACLU wished to find courageous battles, they might
defend the politically incorrect Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Brian
Camenker, who are effectively being denied their First Amendment
rights. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Why bring this up? Why Dr. Laura, and Camenker? Well, as told by Don
Feder, the thought police are already here.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/don06052000.htm

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20010426.shtml

In case you aren't able to read ACLU press releases for yourself, The
Associated Press and The New York Times will helpfully restate them
for you as important, breaking "news."

Describing the criminal alien provisions being reviewed by the Supreme
Court this week, the American Civil Liberties Union's Web site calls
them "anti-immigrant laws" that in 1996 "tore down our national
welcome sign to immigrants." The New York Times touts the provisions
as "actions Congress took against legal aliens at the height of the
national anti-immigrant fervor in 1996." The AP says the law was
"enacted five years ago amid what critics call an anti-immigrant
fervor."

In modernamerican jargon, they would most certainly leanmuch more towards the "right" of the spectrum.Perhaps your confusing "religious conservative values"with association with the "rigfht wing." It's not.

Separate issue, it seems you're the one looking to obfuscate here.

"Right wing" beliefs, accepting american useage of theterm, requires multiple factors; perhaps the leastof which is religious conservatism.... which many 'rightwing' atheists such as myself might say is completely irrelevantto the issue.

Dude, no one cares if you're an atheist.

If you find that to be somehow linked to "conservative values" I
suggest however that you're deluded.
In America, we seperate politics and religionand hence being right wing has little of anything to do witha person or organizations stance on religion.

All laws are based on historical religious codes.
Last time I check, the ACLU does not actively promotesocialist economics, so they fail the left wing criteria onthis grounds too... so again, they are right wing on economics.

They are eh?

Got some proof on that one?

And which economics cases do you have in mind that they've been in on?

It has been my observation over the course of 10+ years ormore on the Internet, that with rare exception of some smartand well informed people who truly keep up with the issues,99.9+ percent of the people who refer to the ACLUas a "leftist group" (the Internet is filled with suchstatements), are people who's opinions clearly reak ofever-so-obvious religious bias.

Well then I guess you'll just have to deal with the fact that you're
99.9% deluded!

These peoples motivation forcalling the ACLU "leftist" really amounts to little morethan low-brow cheap rhetoric name calling to smearany person or group who disagrees with religion.

Well whoever "these people" are, your gripe is with them.
It's been my observation that only religiously biased personsthink that the term "conservative" and "right wing" areequivelant terms,

Who would make the statement "equivalent" - you're building straw men.
and also we observe that only religiouslybiased individuals think the term "conservative" (or "politicalconservatism") is equivelant to "religious conservatism." Clearly,the two things have little to do with each other.

Then why flap yer gums about it for this long?

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 02:52 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:57:45 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in messagenews:n2gqjv80lf8qn83ifgoqh3jamato7vi2jc@4ax .com... On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:19:29 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote:"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in messagenews:bhjb5j$v7b$1@news.ucar.edu...> In article <bhjaoc$6346$1@ID-138129.news.uni-berlin.de>,> towelie <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:> >Daniel Packman wrote:> >> In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>,> >> Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:>> >>> Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler> >>> explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.> >> ....>> >> I prefer a more practical approach:> >> If you enjoy believing, then do so.>> >It's still a delusion. If I believe pink elephants are flying over myhouse> >and 2+2=5, it doesn't make it so.>> Of course it doesn't "make it so". That is irrelevant.Not quite.>> >Believing in something just because you want to is lying to yourself.>> Perhaps. I prefer to look at other people's religions as a black> box. It doesn't matter much what theology is inside. But does it> make them nicer and happier? Now if they start designing bridges> with the belief that 2+2=5, then we have a problem.Or if they start passing laws, rules, regulations, restrictions and othersocietal constructs based on 2+2=5 ...?If you encourage a delusion, actively or through blind acquiescence,you are bear the burden of the outcome when these deluded miscreantsstart projecting their mental illness as normative ... Especially if it has such mental illness rules as the 10 Commandments, right?Which 10 Commandments moron?

The 10 we accept as standard today.

And they seem. for the most part, to be quite workable.

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 02:53 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:35:21 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Uncle Samuel wrote: On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:02:36 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: Daniel Packman wrote:> In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>,> Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:>>> Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a>> simpler explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.> ....>> I prefer a more practical approach:> If you enjoy believing, then do so. It's still a delusion. But you can't PROVE that!The burden of proof is upon the believer, not the unbeliever.

That burden is only applicable to the believer's personal standards
and desires for proof, those can be anywhere from particle physics
high to faith only low.

So you'reright, I can't prove it, because it's not my place to prove a negative.

Especially by citing a negative!
Andyou can't prove it's not a delusion.

That could be said of dreams too.
If I believe pink elephants are flying over my house and 2+2=5, it doesn't make it so. Believing in something just because you want to is lying to yourself. They used to say that to Mets fans pre-'69.So? I believe the Chiefs have a chance this year, as I did last year, but Idon't believe they are definitely going to the Super Bowl. In fact, Ibelieve there's a very small chance they will make it.

Your beliefs will be validated...
If any Mets fansbelieved 100% that they were going to the World Series in any given year,then they were deluding themselves.

Not really, I believed 100% the Broncos could repeat, and they did.
Just because they eventually went tothe World Series is irrelevant.

No, it certainly is not.
Had I "believed" in the Tampa Bay Bucs weregoing to the Super Bowl starting with their inception in 1976, I would havebeen deluding myself, even though they eventually did go to and win theSuper Bowl. Your analogy is like a colander: it doesn't hold water.

It's grossly misapplied by you, there was no mandatory year after year
proviso.

For eons if man believed in a spherical planet he was derided, go
figger...

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 02:53 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:59:49 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in messagenews:o4gqjvcbp6rk6doivenq09c759kga2mbr8@4ax .com... On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:05:26 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote:"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in messagenews:bhj80o$usj$1@news.ucar.edu...> In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>,> Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:>> >Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler> >explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.> ....>> I prefer a more practical approach:> If you enjoy believing, then do so.As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs toany effect on other people ... Any deleterious effect...Nope, ANY at all ...

Good effects are a GOOD thing...

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 02:53 PM

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:31:02 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in messagenews:bhke5p$56c$2@news.ucar.edu... In article <sRb%a.78$Fu6.21333@news.uswest.net>, => Vox Populi © <-> wrote:"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in messagenews:o4gqjvcbp6rk6doivenq09c759kga2mbr8@4ax .com...> >"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message> >> I prefer a more practical approach:> >> If you enjoy believing, then do so.> >As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs to> >any effect on other people ...> Any deleterious effect...Nope, ANY at all ... So, you have bleeding feet from bad fitting boots and need a ride back to civilization. You would prefer someone not give you a ride rather than give one because of their religious beliefs?Funny you should mention that.I deliberately boycott all those businesses thatadvertise with that stupid xtian Fish symbol intheir advertisements.I called some AC installers for bids on 2 houses forcentral air and heat. Total bid ranges were $5500 - $8500.The lowest was made by a company whose nicely donebid proposal contained a rotting xtian Fish symbol nextto their company name. It went right into the circular file.I willingly paid $1000 more for the job,

Going on price only or something as irrelevant as religious symbols
only is idiotic.
and *you* may alreadybe thinking of the apparent irony that the company/owner whodid get the job was also some perversion of xtian...yet the point was he didn't go around promoting, pandering,and prostituting his pathetic superstitions openly.

Which is his right as a private business owner...
As it turned out may years ago, the preacher stopped and gave me a religious lecture but didn't give me a ride. But the point remains...If you were younger and cuter he might have givenyou a Pony ride on his lap ... Praise Jaaayzus!

And lick some cats.

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 02:53 PM

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:08:41 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:26:03 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> postedin alt.atheism:On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:05:26 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>wrote:"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in messagenews:bhj80o$usj$1@news.ucar.edu...> In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>,> Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:> >Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler> >explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.> I prefer a more practical approach:> If you enjoy believing, then do so.As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs toany effect on other people ...Any deleterious effect...Deleterious in THEIR minds.

No, measurably deleterious.

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 02:53 PM

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:09:19 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:25:49 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> postedin alt.atheism:On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:15:52 +0000 (UTC), pack@eos.ucar.edu (DanielPackman) wrote:In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>,Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:>Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler>explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.Sure. works for Santa too!More proof that he exists than that your god does.

I disagree.

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 02:53 PM

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:28:46 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in messagenews:9mfqjvoamc2fmh0b3rmdp626fv9to9emp9@4ax .com... On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:01:31 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote:"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in messagenews:o9oojv8mu2r11h3emlbf0c83uucrjtr7s3@4ax .com...> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:36:34 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>> wrote:>> >> >> >"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message> >news:3F3B96D0.426711B3@worldnet.att.net...> >> Ken Smith wrote:> >>> >> > Kingfish wrote:> >>> >> >> This "law" is ideological - in that in school we teach that thiscountry> >> >> is something we should stand behind.> >>> >> > Fine. Get rid of the "under God" part> >>> >> Ain't a-gonna happen. Messing with the pledge is like messing with mom,the> >> flag, and apple pie.> >> >Funny, they "messed with it" when they added the supercilious "gaawd"part,> >and 'murrrrricans mess with their moms (MILF sites anyone?) and (French)Apple> >Pie> >(American Pie) all the time too ...> >> >Hell, they willingly desecrate and decimate their beloved Constitution as> >the drop of a hat ...> >> >>> >> > -- iow, restore the Pledge to the original formulation -- and theState's> >> > legitimate objectives should be met.> >>> >> The state's "legitmate objectives" are founded upon God's Law.> >> >Bull****. There is no "god" you blithering ignoramus.>>> How can you prove that?Easy numbnuts. OK then, let's see ya have a go at it!See below, moron.

Why, can't do it?
Your lack of proof, or even probable evidence, that a "god"exists is all the proof one needs. Can't prove a negative with another (perceived) negative, sorry...bzzznt!Get back to us when you grow a brain ...

Didn't like that one did ya?
Try again.QED.

Keep trying.

Al Klein

08-16-2003, 06:45 PM

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:53:22 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> posted
in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:08:41 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>wrote:On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:26:03 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> postedin alt.atheism:
>As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs to>any effect on other people ...
Any deleterious effect...
Deleterious in THEIR minds.
No, measurably deleterious.

Only if the world you live in is your own world.

Oh, did I forget to mention that almost the entire universe not only
doesn't care whether you exist, it's totally unaware that you do?
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net

Al Klein

08-16-2003, 06:46 PM

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:53:25 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> posted
in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:09:19 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>wrote:
More proof that he exists than that your god does.
I disagree.

There are people who disagree when told that they're not Napoleon.
That doesn't make them any more correct than your disagreement makes
you.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net

Chas Clements

08-16-2003, 08:36 PM

"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote Of course your fabricated "orderer" would itself need an "grand-orderer" to explain it's existence, and "great grand-orderer"

Not at all- how many 'Big Bang's' have their been?
Now if you postulate that your "orderer" *self-created*, then we can dispose of it again as being un-necessary.

Except it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.
The universe is ordered, therefore the concept is operational only by
presupposing 'intent' as opposed to 'chance'.
If *self-creation* (self-order) is a universal possibility, then the universe itself can be self-ordered/created without the unnecessary step of fabricating an "orderer" who in turn self-ordered/created.

You seek to define a 'god' which is within the universe; I postulate a God
who *is* the Universe.

Chas

Daniel Packman

08-16-2003, 09:32 PM

In article <KTt%a.1032$t27.11609@news.uswest.net>, => Vox Populi © <-> wrote:"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in messagenews:bhke5p$56c$2@news.ucar.edu...
..... As it turned out may years ago, the preacher stopped and gave me a religious lecture but didn't give me a ride. But the point remains...
If you were younger and cuter he might have givenyou a Pony ride on his lap ... Praise Jaaayzus!

Actually, back then I was much younger and cuter, but
the guy with me more than made up for my allure. :-)

--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 09:53 PM

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 10:13 PM

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:07:05 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:26:00 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> postedin alt.atheism:Especially if it has such mental illness rules as the 10 Commandments,right?Christianity claims that the OT no longer matters.

The what?

You going for a 2 point convesrion son?

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 10:13 PM

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 10:13 PM

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 01:44:07 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:53:07 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> postedin alt.atheism:On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:07:57 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>wrote:The burden of proof lies on the claim that your god exists.A burden I need only satisfy to MY personal standards.No, one you need to present if you make the claim.

WRONG - it is your burden to climb, not mine!
And youcan't PROVE that!I can prove anything to myself if I do enough homework.The burden is proving it to those to whom you make the claim.

No, it is their burden to prove it to themselves!
If you're a child stop interrupting adult conversation.

If you're an *** munch go eat some hole.
If you're anadult act like one.

LOL - you first idiot!

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 10:13 PM

Uncle Samuel

08-16-2003, 10:13 PM

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 01:46:25 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:53:25 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> postedin alt.atheism:On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:09:19 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>wrote:More proof that he exists than that your god does.I disagree.There are people who disagree when told that they're not Napoleon.

And there are those who disagree when they are lied to by mental
midgets...

That doesn't make them any more correct than your disagreement makesyou.

You lack any evidentiary basis - moron!

Thomas P.

08-16-2003, 11:57 PM

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:36:13 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote Of course your fabricated "orderer" would itself need an "grand-orderer" to explain it's existence, and "great grand-orderer"Not at all- how many 'Big Bang's' have their been? Now if you postulate that your "orderer" *self-created*, then we can dispose of it again as being un-necessary.Except it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.The universe is ordered, therefore the concept is operational only bypresupposing 'intent' as opposed to 'chance'.

Order is a concept we have attached to the universe. What does a
universe without order look like? It is like thinking the planets
must move in circular orbits, because circles are the most perfect
form; or that time must involve numbers.
If *self-creation* (self-order) is a universal possibility, then the universe itself can be self-ordered/created without the unnecessary step of fabricating an "orderer" who in turn self-ordered/created.
You seek to define a 'god' which is within the universe; I postulate a Godwho *is* the Universe.

Neither one is required by necessity.

Thomas P.

08-17-2003, 12:41 AM

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:gd9tjv0g9n0ael8c7t2nrge9n6nck1np4f@4ax.com... On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:59:49 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote:"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in messagenews:o4gqjvcbp6rk6doivenq09c759kga2mbr8@4ax .com... On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:05:26 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote: > > >"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message >news:bhj80o$usj$1@news.ucar.edu... >> In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>, >> Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a
simpler >> >explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not. >> .... >> >> I prefer a more practical approach: >> If you enjoy believing, then do so. > >As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs to >any effect on other people ... Any deleterious effect...Nope, ANY at all ... Good effects are a GOOD thing...

Two words - Liquid Sky

Go figure ...

--
"We are going to fight them and impose our will
on them and we will capture or, if necessary, kill
them until we have imposed law and order upon
this country,"
-- US Viceroy Paul Bremer,
how U$A is going to win 'hearts and minds'
of the subjugated people of Iraq

Jiggs McManus

08-17-2003, 02:28 AM

"We are going to fight them and impose our will
on them and we will capture or, if necessary, kill
them until we have imposed law and order upon
this country,"

towelie

08-17-2003, 03:19 AM

Uncle Samuel wrote:
And you can't prove it's not a delusion. WRONG

Prove it then.

--
aa #2133
apatriot #19

Theodore A. Kaldis

08-17-2003, 06:09 AM

Al Klein wrote:
Uncle Samuel wrote:
"towelie" wrote: Daniel Packman wrote:> Chas wrote:
>> Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler>> explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.
> I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.
It's still a delusion.
But you can't PROVE that!
The burden of proof lies on the claim that your god exists. And you can't PROVE that!

Sure we can. We have the testimony of God's Word. What greater proof can
there be?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Theodore A. Kaldis

08-17-2003, 06:12 AM

Al Klein wrote:
Uncle Samuel wrote: "Vox Populi" wrote: Daniel Packman wrote:> Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler>> explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.
> I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.
As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs to any effect on other people ...
Any deleterious effect ...
Deleterious in THEIR minds.

So if it is "deleterious" in someone's mind for me to enjoin him from
boinking his neighbour's wife, I should refrain from such conduct?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Chas Clements

08-17-2003, 07:51 AM

"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wroteExcept it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.The universe is ordered, therefore the concept is operational only bypresupposing 'intent' as opposed to 'chance'. Order is a concept we have attached to the universe.

'Order' is what we've *found* in the universe.
There are only two conditions- order and chaos.
Chaos doesn't become order by random chance- unless you have an example
you'd like to share with us. You can flip a coin a million times, and it's
never going to come down as a pickle.
What does a universe without order look like?

It doesn't 'look' like anything- it's 'chaos'. Chaos is the condition of
being unordered, so it can't 'look' 'like' anything.
It is like thinking the planets must move in circular orbits, because circles are the most perfect form; or that time must involve numbers.

Our attempt to identify the ordering model- a failure in our perceptions if
anything.
You seek to define a 'god' which is within the universe; I postulate a
Godwho *is* the Universe. Neither one is required by necessity.

You have no other viable alternative- unless you postulate that this is all
a huge accident- which has no more substance or logical base than any other
hypothesis, including the Giant Turtle.

Ken Smith

08-17-2003, 08:26 AM

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Al Klein wrote: Uncle Samuel wrote: "towelie" wrote:> Daniel Packman wrote:>> Chas wrote:>>> Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler>>> explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.>> I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.> It's still a delusion. But you can't PROVE that! The burden of proof lies on the claim that your god exists. And you can't PROVE that! Sure we can. We have the testimony of God's Word. What greater proof can there be?

Testimony published in the Weekly World News, for starters. :)

08-17-2003, 08:32 AM

:c09tjvcgikao5kb81vhpa1p7272lbdr314@4ax.com... On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:57:45 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote:"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in messagenews:n2gqjv80lf8qn83ifgoqh3jamato7vi2jc@4ax .com... On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:19:29 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote: > > >"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message >news:bhjb5j$v7b$1@news.ucar.edu... >> In article <bhjaoc$6346$1@ID-138129.news.uni-berlin.de>, >> towelie <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >Daniel Packman wrote: >> >> In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>, >> >> Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >>> Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a
simpler >> >>> explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not. >> >> .... >> >> >> I prefer a more practical approach: >> >> If you enjoy believing, then do so. >> >> >It's still a delusion. If I believe pink elephants are flying over myhouse >> >and 2+2=5, it doesn't make it so. >> >> Of course it doesn't "make it so". That is irrelevant. > >Not quite. > >> >> >Believing in something just because you want to is lying to yourself. >> >> Perhaps. I prefer to look at other people's religions as a black >> box. It doesn't matter much what theology is inside. But does it >> make them nicer and happier? Now if they start designing bridges >> with the belief that 2+2=5, then we have a problem. > >Or if they start passing laws, rules, regulations, restrictions and other >societal constructs based on 2+2=5 ...? > >If you encourage a delusion, actively or through blind acquiescence, >you are bear the burden of the outcome when these deluded miscreants >start projecting their mental illness as normative ... Especially if it has such mental illness rules as the 10 Commandments, right?Which 10 Commandments moron? The 10 we accept as standard today.

"We" ...? Who the fick is "we" you schitzophrenic psychopath?

"Standard" ...? Do tell us more of your pathetic nonesen ...
And they seem. for the most part, to be quite workable.

Which one's, you pathetic turdsucker?

Which Ten Commandments?

First Tables of Stone (Ex. 20)
("which Moses didst break") /

Second Tables of Stone (Ex. 34)
("the words that were on the first")

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the
house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).

2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to
them or serve them.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is
on the corn.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
4. All the first-born are mine.

5. Honor your father and your mother.
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.

6. You shall not kill.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat
harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

7. You shall not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.

8. You shall not steal.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house
of the Lord thy God.

10. You shall not covet.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.

*K. Budde, History of Ancient Hebrew Literature

Then again there is the inherent conflict of the Perverted Fabrications of
the major Babble-thumpers in the U$$A.

Protestant / Catholic / Hebrew

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the
house of slavery.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the
water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And
showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a
graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou
shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a
jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the
third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the
thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will
not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will
not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do
all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou
shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor
thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For
in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,
and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and
hallowed it.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do
all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God;
on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the
sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord
blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged
upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

6. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his
***, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his
***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

King James Bible, issued by the American Bible Society.
Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri, "published with Ecclesiastical
approval" and bearing the imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop, New
York. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.
Bloch Publishing Company, New York, 1922.

08-17-2003, 08:43 AM

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QA2dndVu2fv7ZaOiU-KYvA@comcast.com... "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote Of course your fabricated "orderer" would itself need an "grand-orderer" to explain it's existence, and "great grand-orderer" Not at all- how many 'Big Bang's' have their been?

Correct answer: As many as there needed to be to produce
the universe you and I currently inhabit.
Now if you postulate that your "orderer" *self-created*, then we can dispose of it again as being un-necessary. Except it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.

No, it does no such thing.
The universe is ordered,

Is it? Do you have any comprehension of the Science of Chaos,
chaotic systems and chaos theory? You do know that
chaotic systems ALWAYS eventually produce random
outcomes of order and symmetry given enough time/iterations.
therefore the concept is operational only by presupposing 'intent' as opposed to 'chance'.

Nope, not at all. Your god creature is neither required
nor does it answer any of the questions/equations. It simply
hides them.

If *self-creation* (self-order) is a universal possibility, then the universe itself can be self-ordered/created without the unnecessary step of fabricating an "orderer" who in turn self-ordered/created. You seek to define a 'god' which is within the universe; I postulate a God who *is* the Universe.

Absurd sophistry, and your extreme retreat to such a tautological position
simply proves and confirms that your god, as shown before, is absolutely
un-necessary and doesn't answer/solve any questions.

Thanks for unwittingly confessing to be a closet atheist ... who still
practicing
moderate forms of self-delusion.

Now excuse me while I pinch a loaf of your "god" off into my toilet...
would you like a taste?

--
Ezekiel 4:12

And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight.

4:13
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled
bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

4:14
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my
youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is
torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.

4:15
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou
shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

08-17-2003, 09:10 AM

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F3F7DEB.7E862966@worldnet.att.net... Al Klein wrote: Uncle Samuel wrote: Especially if it has such mental illness rules as the 10 Commandments, right? Christianity claims that the OT no longer matters. If I'm wrong, why do you violate it? Christianity doesn't claim that at all. Christianity claims that the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ.

So the old testament and it's rules, orders and commandments are still valid?

-- Theodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net

08-17-2003, 09:13 AM

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:ib9tjvomfueccgef7g1vv1jscaffiapjrf@4ax.com... On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:07:57 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:25:55 -0600, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> postedin alt.atheism:On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:02:36 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>wrote:>Daniel Packman wrote:>> In article <WkidnQnTgbifn6CiXTWJgA@comcast.com>,>> Chas <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:>>> Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler>>> explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.>> I prefer a more practical approach:>> If you enjoy believing, then do so.>It's still a delusion.But you can't PROVE that!The burden of proof lies on the claim that your god exists. A burden I need only satisfy to MY personal standards.

But you're a blithering idiot, without any discernable standards.
And youcan't PROVE that! I can prove anything to myself if I do enough homework.

Prove you're an idiot ... once again.

08-17-2003, 09:15 AM

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F3F7E83.425CA800@worldnet.att.net... Al Klein wrote: Uncle Samuel wrote: "towelie" wrote:> Daniel Packman wrote:>> Chas wrote:>>> Actually, it all boils down to applying Bill's Razor; is it a simpler>>> explanation that there *is* a 'G-d' or that there is not.>> I prefer a more practical approach: If you enjoy believing, then do so.> It's still a delusion. But you can't PROVE that! The burden of proof lies on the claim that your god exists. And you can't PROVE that! Sure we can. We have the testimony of God's Word.

God has testicles?

What the hell for ...?

What greater proof can there be?

That you're a blithering ignoramus ....? None.

--
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

08-17-2003, 09:19 AM

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pR-dnUfpfrBuPaKiU-KYuQ@comcast.com... "Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote .....> > > The burden of proof lies on the claim that your god exists. And you can't > PROVE that! Sure we can. We have the testimony of God's Word. What greater proof can there be? Testimony published in the Weekly World News, for starters. :) So cite them. Until you do, all the available evidence- standing unrefuted- is in favor of the 'pro-God' position.

What a pathetic ****-sucking lie Chas, and quite disappointing coming from
you.

In the alternative, one might say that the evidence is 'insufficient' (for some purpose), but the *only* evidence submitted so far stands unrefuted. Physics is the study of the body of God, not a refutation of anything.

Do tell us what religion, other than the Religion of Chas, claims the Universe
itself is the literal Corpus of God, and vice versa?

You've obviously been spending too much time around Hisanus ...

--
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

08-17-2003, 09:22 AM

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:kf9tjv0v7u173d9hguq1pidmhljdl34iv1@4ax.com... On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:31:02 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li> wrote:"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in messagenews:bhke5p$56c$2@news.ucar.edu... In article <sRb%a.78$Fu6.21333@news.uswest.net>, => Vox Populi © <-> wrote: > >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message >news:o4gqjvcbp6rk6doivenq09c759kga2mbr8@4ax.com... >> >"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.ucar.edu> wrote in message >> >> I prefer a more practical approach: >> >> If you enjoy believing, then do so. >> >As long as you don't "act" on those beliefs to >> >any effect on other people ... >> Any deleterious effect... >Nope, ANY at all ... So, you have bleeding feet from bad fitting boots and need a ride back to civilization. You would prefer someone not give you a ride rather than give one because of their religious beliefs?Funny you should mention that.I deliberately boycott all those businesses thatadvertise with that stupid xtian Fish symbol intheir advertisements.I called some AC installers for bids on 2 houses forcentral air and heat. Total bid ranges were $5500 - $8500.The lowest was made by a company whose nicely donebid proposal contained a rotting xtian Fish symbol nextto their company name. It went right into the circular file.I willingly paid $1000 more for the job, Going on price only

Another false conclusion on your part.
or something as irrelevant as religious symbols only is idiotic.

As idiotic as the morons who include religious symbols
in their commercial advertising?
and *you* may alreadybe thinking of the apparent irony that the company/owner whodid get the job was also some perversion of xtian...yet the point was he didn't go around promoting, pandering,and prostituting his pathetic superstitions openly. Which is his right as a private business owner...

As it was my choice to patronize another company
entirely because I objected to his pathetic pandering
and perversion of his religion.
As it turned out may years ago, the preacher stopped and gave me a religious lecture but didn't give me a ride. But the point remains...If you were younger and cuter he might have givenyou a Pony ride on his lap ... Praise Jaaayzus! And lick some cats.

Meow ...

08-17-2003, 09:23 AM

"Jiggs McManus" <anon@cheshire.dyndns.dk> wrote in message
news:GUMQCDL037850.2281365741@anonymous.poster... "We are going to fight them and impose our will on them and we will capture or, if necessary, kill them until we have imposed law and order upon this country,"

--

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already
earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,
since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to
civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command,
senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently
I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be
torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction
that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
-- Albert Einstein

Chas Clements

08-17-2003, 09:27 AM

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote Bull****. There is no, zero, zip, zilch, nada evidence for the "pro-God" position.

Sure there is; unrefuted affidavit.
Next is 'eyewitness testimony'.
Then we have 'witnesses'.
We have historical evidence in all cultures.
And, in the opposite corner- nothing but questions borne of confusion.
If you want people outside your religion it to treat it as anything else then YOU have the burden of proof.

There's your fallacy.
I could give a fat fiddler's foreskin about you- except in the most abstract
sense.
I simply report to you an experience I have- if you don't have that same
experience, there's nothing I can do for you.
Physics is the study of the body of God, not a refutation of anything. Hardly. It's the study and modelling of reality.

Yup- and doing a pretty good job at it, so far.
Frankly; I'm impressed and appreciative.
And until you demonstrate its existence or aty least a reason to postulate it, the hypothetical superbeing from your religion's mythology is not part of reality to be studied.

Well, we'll just operate on along till you catch up then.
Best of luck to you.

Chas

Theodore A. Kaldis

08-17-2003, 09:32 AM

"Vox Populi" wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Al Klein wrote: Uncle Samuel wrote:
> Especially if it has such mental illness rules as the 10 Commandments,> right?
Christianity claims that the OT no longer matters. If I'm wrong, why do you violate it?
Christianity doesn't claim that at all. Christianity claims that the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ.
So the old testament and it's rules, orders and commandments are still valid?

No, they have been fulfilled in Christ.

Oh, and before you bring up the 10 commandments, Christ gave us two
commandments, which, if kept, will fulfill all 10 of the Old Testament.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Thomas P.

08-17-2003, 09:43 AM

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 08:51:55 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wroteExcept it presupposes 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'.The universe is ordered, therefore the concept is operational only bypresupposing 'intent' as opposed to 'chance'. Order is a concept we have attached to the universe.
'Order' is what we've *found* in the universe.There are only two conditions- order and chaos.Chaos doesn't become order by random chance- unless you have an exampleyou'd like to share with us. You can flip a coin a million times, and it'snever going to come down as a pickle. What does a universe without order look like?It doesn't 'look' like anything- it's 'chaos'. Chaos is the condition ofbeing unordered, so it can't 'look' 'like' anything.

Then you have no way of comparing order with disorder.
It is like thinking the planets must move in circular orbits, because circles are the most perfect form; or that time must involve numbers.
Our attempt to identify the ordering model- a failure in our perceptions ifanything.

Your perception must be awfully good. You claim to recognize order,
yet you can give no example of its opposite.
You seek to define a 'god' which is within the universe; I postulate aGodwho *is* the Universe. Neither one is required by necessity.
You have no other viable alternative- unless you postulate that this is alla huge accident- which has no more substance or logical base than any otherhypothesis, including the Giant Turtle.

Or the god (or what ever you want to call it) you talk about. The
failure to explain everything does not justify making up answers or
make your particular creation one bit more "viable".

Thomas P.

Christopher A. Lee

08-17-2003, 10:15 AM

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:27:15 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote Bull****. There is no, zero, zip, zilch, nada evidence for the "pro-God" position.Sure there is; unrefuted affidavit.

There is no "unrefuted affidavit". If there were you would have cited
it instead of just saying it exists and hoping we didn't notice you
hadn't.
Next is 'eyewitness testimony'.

There is no "eyewitness testimony". If there were you would have cited
it instead of just saying it exists and hoping we didn't notice you
hadn't.
Then we have 'witnesses'.

There are no "witnesses". If there were you would have cited it
instead of just saying it exists and hoping we didn't notice you
hadn't.
We have historical evidence in all cultures.

There is no "historical evidence in all cultures". If there were you
would have cited it instead of just saying it exists and hoping we
didn't notice you hadn't.
And, in the opposite corner- nothing but questions borne of confusion.

Bull****. Only demands that people like you put up or shut up.

Are you really so ignorant that you don't know the difference between
saying there is evidence, and proving it?

If you actually had any you would have provided it, instead of
insisting there was some.
If you want people outside your religion it to treat it as anything else then YOU have the burden of proof.There's your fallacy.

I suggest you learn what the words "evidence" and fallacy" mean.
I could give a fat fiddler's foreskin about you- except in the most abstractsense.

In other