com_dotnet

[Jim Carlock]

phpinfo() has a "com_dotnet" section.

It's kind of odd.

Here it says...

COM Support: enabled
DCOM Support: disabled
.net Support: enabled

What exactly is COM support?
What exactly is DCOM support?
And what exactly is .net support? And why would it say
enabled when .NET is not installed?

DCOM means an ActiveX file gets used. COM pretty much
means the same thing. Those files tend to be based upon
an object model and have a few extra functions there to
help with various programming environments.

ordinal hint RVA name

1 0 000017A6 DllCanUnloadNow
2 1 0000177A DllGetClassObject
3 2 00001790 DllRegisterServer
4 3 00001764 DllUnregisterServer

Other than that COM is not much different than standard
libraries.

And DCOM... that one seems like it might be a COM file put
into a publicly accessible folder, but I'll need some more
help here, if such is available, because something is not
sitting too well here.

Thanks.

--
Jim Carlock
Swimming Pool, Spa And Water Feature Builders
http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

So? And what makes him an expert on politics, terrorism or war? He's
just a so-so singer who wrote a song. Hardly what I call credible.

I like how you START by claiming that your "experience" in Nam makes you
an expert, but then END UP claiming that service in Nam does NOT even
make one "credible".

That thar's a fine example of the irrationality of the US Republican Guard.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Yea, or maybe we should just kill all the idiots like you and make
this world a better place.

Like you did to Osama, eh?

Have you ever been in Eastern Afghanistan or Western Pakistan? I
thought not.

Just another irrelevant comment from an irrelevant idiot.

And a troll trying to change the subject because he has no real argument
of his own.

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>So? And what makes him an expert on politics, terrorism or war? He's
just a so-so singer who wrote a song. Hardly what I call credible.

I like how you START by claiming that your "experience" in Nam makes you
an expert, but then END UP claiming that service in Nam does NOT even
make one "credible".

That thar's a fine example of the irrationality of the US Republican Guard.

Nope. I said nothing of the sort. But you need intelligence to carry
on an intelligent conversation. You obviously are incapable of such an
action.

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

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Just another irrelevant comment from an irrelevant idiot.

It's always kinda funny to me when someone takes the time and expense to
boot up their computer, login to the OS, connect to the web, retrieve
my usenet posts, read them, and then go even farther, responding to the
post to let me know how "irrelevant" I am.

GOD knows - nobody will ever again call US Republicans "irrelevant".
And when the next 9/11 happens - nobody will ask "Why?".
Nobody.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Just another irrelevant comment from an irrelevant idiot.

It's always kinda funny to me when someone takes the time and expense to
boot up their computer, login to the OS, connect to the web, retrieve
my usenet posts, read them, and then go even farther, responding to the
post to let me know how "irrelevant" I am.

GOD knows - nobody will ever again call US Republicans "irrelevant".
And when the next 9/11 happens - nobody will ask "Why?".
Nobody.

Only you would think I (or anyone else, for that matter) would go to all
that trouble to read your rantings.

Believe me, Sanders, you aren't that important. And I wouldn't even
read your tripe if it weren't the next thing in the forum.

But you aren't even worth the time it would take to filter your trash out.

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

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>Like Saddam told you to stay out before you went in?

We don't listen to terrorists.

The problem with that is that everything terrifies you.

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>ROFLMAO! You really are a sucker, you know that?

I don't have a problem with that.

>And this is a perfect example. Yep, he has more credibility than an
anonymous post on a website by an organization known for their lies.
Especially when they were not part of the conversations involved, and
Sean was.

So a little conservative wannabe has more credibility than half of the
Web and many big organizations? Tell me why! Maybe it's just because he
has the same opinions as you? So he simply _must_ be right, because you
don't allow any other opinions?

Micha

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>>Like Saddam told you to stay out before you went in?

We don't listen to terrorists.

The problem with that is that everything terrifies you.

Not at all. Terrorists don't terrify me.

The though of you actually writing programs, however, terrorizes me.

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Michael Fesser wrote:

.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>ROFLMAO! You really are a sucker, you know that?

I don't have a problem with that.

>And this is a perfect example. Yep, he has more credibility than an
anonymous post on a website by an organization known for their lies.
Especially when they were not part of the conversations involved, and
Sean was.

So a little conservative wannabe has more credibility than half of the
Web and many big organizations? Tell me why! Maybe it's just because he
has the same opinions as you? So he simply _must_ be right, because you
don't allow any other opinions?

Micha

ROFLMAO!

You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.

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

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:UL******************************@comcast.com. ..

Michael Fesser wrote:

>So a little conservative wannabe has more credibility than half of the
Web and many big organizations? Tell me why! Maybe it's just because he
has the same opinions as you? So he simply _must_ be right, because you
don't allow any other opinions?

Micha

ROFLMAO!

You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.

Most of life I was Republican. Then, when the "Immoral Minority" captured
the party I became Libertarian. The best thing I can say about this
upcoming election is that whoever gets in, from either party, at least we
won't have that sub-standard IQ and wannabe dictator Bush and his family
(now on his how-many-th excuse for invading Iraq?).

--
Shelly

[Sanders Kaufman]

Shelly wrote:

Most of life I was Republican. Then, when the "Immoral Minority" captured
the party I became Libertarian. The best thing I can say about this
upcoming election is that whoever gets in, from either party, at least we
won't have that sub-standard IQ and wannabe dictator Bush and his family
(now on his how-many-th excuse for invading Iraq?).

Sheesh - you start ONE holocaust, and suddenly everybody's a critic.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Shelly wrote:

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:UL******************************@comcast.com. ..

>Michael Fesser wrote:

>>So a little conservative wannabe has more credibility than half of the
Web and many big organizations? Tell me why! Maybe it's just because he
has the same opinions as you? So he simply _must_ be right, because you
don't allow any other opinions?

Micha

ROFLMAO!

You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.

Most of life I was Republican. Then, when the "Immoral Minority" captured
the party I became Libertarian. The best thing I can say about this
upcoming election is that whoever gets in, from either party, at least we
won't have that sub-standard IQ and wannabe dictator Bush and his family
(now on his how-many-th excuse for invading Iraq?).

indeed. You may support what Bush and the neocons *tried* to achieve,
for for out and out incompetence in actually achieving it? Nah.

A triumph of ideology and self deception over reality.

Not.

[Sanders Kaufman]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

indeed. You may support what Bush and the neocons *tried* to achieve,
for for out and out incompetence in actually achieving it? Nah.

A triumph of ideology and self deception over reality.
Not.

I used to think it was wildly improbable that the folks who support Bush
did /not/ know damned good and well what he was about when they did so.

But it seems that the same people who are stupid and irresponsible
enough to vote themselves a tax break when there's an outstanding and
past-due, mutli-generational debt to pay...

Well, those are the same people who were stupid and irresponsible enough
to be surprised to find out that he was a half-wit to a toad.

I mean - shit, the guy didn't make any secret about who or what he was,
even if his admen played it cool. For christ's sake, the twit blew up
frogs as a kid - that ain't right.

And when he publicly gave his life over to God, well if that didn't
cinch the strap on the old crazy-bag, I don't know what else could.

[tantrum]
I know that it's wrong to take pleasure in other people's suffering, but
when some God(#(&$muther(@#&$ Libertarian whines about getting exactly
what he didn't pay for, I get a sick little thrill.

But then I think about the million dead Iraqis and the thrill goes away.

Allah Akbar.
Death to George Bush.
Death to the soldiers who kill and maim, in His name.
[/tantrum]

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.

Says the one who can't even answer a simple question nor give any proof
for his claims. So much for your own credibility.

EOT
Micha

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>indeed. You may support what Bush and the neocons *tried* to achieve,
for for out and out incompetence in actually achieving it? Nah.

A triumph of ideology and self deception over reality.
Not.

I used to think it was wildly improbable that the folks who support Bush
did /not/ know damned good and well what he was about when they did so.

But it seems that the same people who are stupid and irresponsible
enough to vote themselves a tax break when there's an outstanding and
past-due, mutli-generational debt to pay...

Yea, and you know what? After that tax break, the economy improved, and
federal tax revenue INCREASED. You need to go back to Economics 101.
Raising taxes has an immediate increase, but the long term result is a
decrease in tax revenue. Whereas decreasing taxes (to a point) has the
effect of and immediate loss of tax revenue, but a long term gain in
revenue.

Well, those are the same people who were stupid and irresponsible enough
to be surprised to find out that he was a half-wit to a toad.

No, I'm not surprised at all that you are.

I mean - shit, the guy didn't make any secret about who or what he was,
even if his admen played it cool. For christ's sake, the twit blew up
frogs as a kid - that ain't right.

And when he publicly gave his life over to God, well if that didn't
cinch the strap on the old crazy-bag, I don't know what else could.

Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

[tantrum]
I know that it's wrong to take pleasure in other people's suffering, but
when some God(#(&$muther(@#&$ Libertarian whines about getting exactly
what he didn't pay for, I get a sick little thrill.

But then I think about the million dead Iraqis and the thrill goes away.

Allah Akbar.
Death to George Bush.
Death to the soldiers who kill and maim, in His name.
[/tantrum]

Yea, 1M dead Iraqis because of a murder who has been executed.

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Michael Fesser wrote:

.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.

Says the one who can't even answer a simple question nor give any proof
for his claims. So much for your own credibility.

EOT
Micha

What question did you ask which was worth an answer?

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

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Jo******************************@comcast.com. ..

Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

....and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who doesn't
mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for information).

[Sanders Kaufman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>But it seems that the same people who are stupid and irresponsible
enough to vote themselves a tax break when there's an outstanding and
past-due, mutli-generational debt to pay...

Yea, and you know what? After that tax break, the economy improved, and
federal tax revenue INCREASED. You need to go back to Economics 101.

I CLEP'd Eco101 and 102.
Where your logic fails is in your use of just ONE side of the economic
equation.

Just because you have a credit card with a really high limit, doesn't
mean you're rich.

Then there's the HUMAN cost.

[Sanders Kaufman]

Shelly wrote:

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Jo******************************@comcast.com. ..

>Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

....and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who doesn't
mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for information).

Amen.
The moon is in the 6th sun and this is the sunset of the age of
theology. Unfortunately, the religious nuts won't go without a fight.

--
That's why all those US soldiers have to die tonight.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Shelly wrote:

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Jo******************************@comcast.com. ..

>Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

...and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who doesn't
mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for information).

The Bill of Rights says nothing about whether the President may be
religious or not. All it says is that government can't pass laws
telling YOU how you must/must not worship.

In fact, the Bill of Rights doesn't even say you can't display the 10
Commandments in a courthouse. But the courts have expanded the first
amendment far beyond it's original purpose. The Federalist Papers by
Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison is quite interesting
reading. It should how far we have strayed from the original intent.

And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
"overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
I don't try to tell you the same.

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Shelly wrote:

>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Jo******************************@comcast.com ...

>>Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

....and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who
doesn't mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for
information).

Amen.
The moon is in the 6th sun and this is the sunset of the age of
theology. Unfortunately, the religious nuts won't go without a fight.

--
That's why all those US soldiers have to die tonight.

And your religion will take over?

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>>But it seems that the same people who are stupid and irresponsible
enough to vote themselves a tax break when there's an outstanding and
past-due, mutli-generational debt to pay...

Yea, and you know what? After that tax break, the economy improved,
and federal tax revenue INCREASED. You need to go back to Economics 101.

I CLEP'd Eco101 and 102.

Then you need to go back to school.

Where your logic fails is in your use of just ONE side of the economic
equation.

And which side is that, Sanders? It must be the same side every
recognized economics expert in the world is on, though, so I guess I'm
in good company.

Just because you have a credit card with a really high limit, doesn't
mean you're rich.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Then there's the HUMAN cost.

Yes, there is the human cost. Poor people have more money to spend on
necessities, so they are living better. People with higher incomes have
more money for luxuries, so they're living better. And all this extra
buying is creating more jobs, lowering the unemployment rate, which
gives more people a chance to move up in the economic world, so they're
living better.

In fact, the only ones not living better are the socialists who want to
control the country by taking hard-earned money from those who earned it
and give that money to people who sit on their behinds all day and drink
beer.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Steve]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Jo******************************@comcast.com. ..

Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or atheism
itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to ask, what
scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with whatever
'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it indicate that
she may want to have with us? as there is no objective evidence, i can only
infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to do with us.

as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions that
atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad? mythra? zeus?
buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this is the most i've
ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing to do with afghanistan
or iraq, but everything to do with domestic policy inacted after 911...and
how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved and rallied under the banner
of 'god' in leu of ration thought - especially thought that is critical of
current events in light of history.

give me an atheist about now, please!

[Steve]

And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"

by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
proper dictionary definition.

atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

that's all. i resent the implication that i am religious. i'm no more
religious for my lack of belief in god that i am for my lack of belief in
the toothfairy.

at least when i lost my tooth as a child, there was proof of a
toothfairy...i always had a quarter under my pillow where my tooth had been!

[Jerry Stuckle]

Steve wrote:

>And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
proper dictionary definition.

atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

that's all. i resent the implication that i am religious. i'm no more
religious for my lack of belief in god that i am for my lack of belief in
the toothfairy.

at least when i lost my tooth as a child, there was proof of a
toothfairy...i always had a quarter under my pillow where my tooth had been!

Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
"lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.

Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Steve wrote:

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Jo******************************@comcast.com. ..

>Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or atheism
itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to ask, what
scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with whatever
'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it indicate that
she may want to have with us? as there is no objective evidence, i can only
infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to do with us.

I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me. And
I feel sorry for you.

as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions that
atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad? mythra? zeus?
buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this is the most i've
ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing to do with afghanistan
or iraq, but everything to do with domestic policy inacted after 911...and
how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved and rallied under the banner
of 'god' in leu of ration thought - especially thought that is critical of
current events in light of history.

give me an atheist about now, please!

I don't care what you believe in. However, when you try to impose your
religion on me, the President or anyone else, I draw the line.

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

[Shelly]

"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:gf*************@newsfe02.lga...

>And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
proper dictionary definition.

atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From www.m-w.com

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
no deity

To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
"disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix "doctrine"
with theology you have "religion".

The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone. Everyone
is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it into
politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in the USA
**BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.

--
Shelly

[Steve]

Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a

"lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.

Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.

negative, ghost rider.

'a' latin: without
'theism' latin: belief in god(s)

try websters instead of your own opinion.

tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists observe?
where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that resembles anything
religious?

as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe that
god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa clause or
the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this critical
observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a asanta-clausian?

'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a religion
make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would be the start
of religion.

[Steve]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:nN******************************@comcast.com. ..

Steve wrote:

>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Jo******************************@comcast.com ...

>>Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or atheism
itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to ask, what
scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with whatever
'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it indicate
that she may want to have with us? as there is no objective evidence, i
can only infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to do with us.

I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me. And I
feel sorry for you.

oh my!

i can see the romanticism in the idea of the things hoped for. that is the
nature of humanity. however, to afix that to a god-figure and create a
regiment of though/belief about that concept - one that rules your life and
had such a huge and not always pleasant mark on the history of others
lives - without proof or indications that say you seem to be correct...that
is just scary!

why is it that most rational people who go through their lives applying
critical thinking to all aspects of their lives, negate or forbid themselves
from doing the same with this one, special case - god? that is wholly beyond
me!

you go ahead and feel sorry for me. i hope you are serving the 'right' one,
cuz all of the major religions now are quite exclusive in membership with
eternal damnation for not joining. (he pauses to think...i wonder if jerry
is going to come back with the good ol' pascal wager at this point...then
chuckles to self)

>as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions
that atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad?
mythra? zeus? buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this
is the most i've ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing to
do with afghanistan or iraq, but everything to do with domestic policy
inacted after 911...and how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved
and rallied under the banner of 'god' in leu of ration thought -
especially thought that is critical of current events in light of
history.

give me an atheist about now, please!

I don't care what you believe in. However, when you try to impose your
religion on me, the President or anyone else, I draw the line.

and the world shudders.

why are christians so eager to say that but gaffaw when atheists, for the
exact same reason, want to remove religious icons from mountainsides in
california, or edicts greeting patrons of public places, or pray in schools?
why is there a double standard?

[Shelly]

For the record, while I believe in God, to this very day I leave out the
"under God" when I say the pledge. I was in high school when Eisenhower
pushed that through and I resented its insertion even then. At that time I
was much more active in my religion than I am now, but was I more concerned
with the First Amendment. I have seen what has happened to religious
minorities throughout history when the state had an "official religion".

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Shelly

[Steve]

"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

>
"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:gf*************@newsfe02.lga...

>>And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
"overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
proper dictionary definition.

atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From
www.m-w.com

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
no deity

To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
"disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix "doctrine"
with theology you have "religion".

sorry. to disbelieve something means that there is in fact something in
evidence to believe, and that one is simply not making the same conclusion
with that information. 'give the devil his due'...lol. present evidence of
god and then perhaps i might start 'disbelieving' it. until then, your case
is not ready to present and there is nothing for me to disbelieve.

The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone.
Everyone is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it
into politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in the
USA **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.

which i don't argue. what i do not like in the least is either of you
presuming to know what i believe, even to the point that you feel
comfortable that you can cast labels out. i'm not at all religious. i'm
logical. further, there is no religion in the studies of sciences of old
that i don't believe any longer because of the evidences discovered by
modern sciences. i simply don't think about god because there is no reason
to. i understand that religious people can believe in god but go about their
day in the same way - not thinking of god - however, don't confuse their
lack of commitment in their own beliefs with my lack of merit given to the
notion of god(s) without evidence. god simply doesn't interest me. whatever
evidence you have for him, it certainly should be infered that she has the
same interest level in humanity.

shelly, if your spouse showed you the same level of interest as god - no
flowers from time to time, no 'hope you have a good day at work' note in
your car's driver seat, not even so much as evidence that he'd been sleeping
next to you that night (sheets crinckled and turned back) - would you assume
that he loved you and wanted a relationship with you that warranted your
lifetime commitment? again, what evidence is there that god exists? you have
faith, sure...but that is subjective. what in the natural world in which i'm
engaged, what can i point at and say 'that is god', 'there's your proof'?
think carefully, because all things that have been pointed at throughout
history as 'there's your proof' have all been explained by science...even
down to the origin of the universe.

[Steve]

"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

Steve, I know that atheists like to claim that it is "lack of belief", but
go to websters at www.m-w.com. It specifically states that it is
"disbelief in the existence of deity". What you call "atheism" is really
"agnosticism". Again, from Websters:

negative, ghost rider.

i am without belief in god. remember your latin. i am without belief in god.
whatever you want to call that, that's what i am. i see no evidence for god,
and in such a state, i cannot be agnostic. i do not allow for the
possibility of god's existence due to lack of evidence. agnostics believe
that god could possibly exist, we just cannot know for sure. that is NOT me.

i don't know where i'm losing you here, shelly. perhaps we have different
versions of websters. perhaps as she aged, meriam couldn't help herself
either and started using disbelief - which means there is evidence there is
something in which to believe...a gross presumption. try other dictionaries.
they all differ. hell, dictionary.com definition shows many sources. here's
what i love seeing...it shows complete lack of understanding which is why we
are having this discourse.

american heritage:

disbelief or denial of the existence of god or gods.

right next to:

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

doesn't denial mean there is unequivically something in evidence for me to
deny? are you getting my point?

[Steve]

"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

For the record, while I believe in God, to this very day I leave out the
"under God" when I say the pledge. I was in high school when Eisenhower
pushed that through and I resented its insertion even then. At that time
I was much more active in my religion than I am now, but was I more
concerned with the First Amendment. I have seen what has happened to
religious minorities throughout history when the state had an "official
religion".

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

and those who are great scholars are best equipped to easily recreate it.

(man i hate conventional 'wisdom'...but that's another topic altogether)

[Shelly]

"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:DW***********@newsfe12.lga...

>
"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

>>
"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:gf*************@newsfe02.lga...

>>>And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
"overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
proper dictionary definition.

atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From
www.m-w.com

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there
is no deity

To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
"disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix
"doctrine" with theology you have "religion".

sorry. to disbelieve something means that there is in fact something in
evidence to believe, and that one is simply not making the same conclusion
with that information. 'give the devil his due'...lol. present evidence of

I thought you might find that phrase amusing.

god and then perhaps i might start 'disbelieving' it. until then, your
case is not ready to present and there is nothing for me to disbelieve.

Again from www.m-w.com
Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: "dis-b&-'lEf
Function: noun
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

These says (in this context) the declarative that "there is no god", not "I
haven't been convinced into believing that there is a god". It is not
"rejecting the belief in a god". It is "rejecting the belief in a god
because the existence is untrue". It is declarative, not passive. I don't
have to present "proof" for you to reject. There is no proof.

>The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone.
Everyone is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it
into politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in
the USA **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.

which i don't argue. what i do not like in the least is either of you
presuming to know what i believe, even to the point that you feel

I understand what you believe. I totally understand it. I was almost there
once, myself. I am giving you the dictionary definition of the words
atheist and agnostic. What you call atheist, is more properly classified
encompassing both [dictionary] atheist and agnostic.

comfortable that you can cast labels out. i'm not at all religious. i'm
logical. further, there is no religion in the studies of sciences of old
that i don't believe any longer because of the evidences discovered by
modern sciences. i simply don't think about god because there is no reason
to. i understand that religious people can believe in god but go about
their day in the same way - not thinking of god - however, don't confuse
their lack of commitment in their own beliefs with my lack of merit given
to the notion of god(s) without evidence. god simply doesn't interest me.
whatever evidence you have for him, it certainly should be infered that
she has the same interest level in humanity.

shelly, if your spouse showed you the same level of interest as god - no
flowers from time to time, no 'hope you have a good day at work' note in

I should by her flowers every now and again, now that you mention it.

your car's driver seat, not even so much as evidence that he'd been
sleeping

I have been married to my wife for over 44 years.

next to you that night (sheets crinckled and turned back) - would you
assume that he loved you and wanted a relationship with you that warranted
your lifetime commitment? again, what evidence is there that god exists?
you have

I have NO evidence that God exists because there is none. I simply take it
on faith after taking my logic to the point where I cannot go any further
without invoking the supernatural. I don't presume to try to prove it,
because it cannot be done.

faith, sure...but that is subjective. what in the natural world in which
i'm engaged, what can i point at and say 'that is god', 'there's your
proof'?

Nothing.

think carefully, because all things that have been pointed at throughout
history as 'there's your proof' have all been explained by science...even

Yes.

down to the origin of the universe.

....err, with that last one there are theories -- and only that. I find even
the "Big Bang" uncomfortable (and I am a scientist) because I then question
"where did all that super-condensed matter come from in the first place". I
guess the best definition of "God" is "that which is beyond mankind's
ultimate understanding". No, I do not believe in an interactive God.

--
Shelly (Sheldon)

[Shelly]

"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:zZ***********@newsfe12.lga...

>
"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

>I LOVE that last statement. Down with the Unpatriot Act! Next year it
is "So long Bush, it's not been good to know ya".

unless we go to war. in which case, he cannot be removed from office. ;^)

Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers on
the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January 2009, he
is [bad] history.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:0b***********@newsfe12.lga...

>
"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

>Steve, I know that atheists like to claim that it is "lack of belief",
but go to websters at www.m-w.com. It specifically states that it is
"disbelief in the existence of deity". What you call "atheism" is really
"agnosticism". Again, from Websters:

negative, ghost rider.

i am without belief in god. remember your latin. i am without belief in
god. whatever you want to call that, that's what i am. i see no evidence
for god, and in such a state, i cannot be agnostic. i do not allow for the
possibility of god's existence due to lack of evidence. agnostics believe
that god could possibly exist, we just cannot know for sure. that is NOT
me.

i don't know where i'm losing you here, shelly. perhaps we have different
versions of websters. perhaps as she aged, meriam couldn't help herself
either and started using disbelief - which means there is evidence there
is something in which to believe...a gross presumption. try other
dictionaries. they all differ. hell, dictionary.com definition shows many
sources. here's what i love seeing...it shows complete lack of
understanding which is why we are having this discourse.

american heritage:

disbelief or denial of the existence of god or gods.

right next to:

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

doesn't denial mean there is unequivically something in evidence for me to
deny? are you getting my point?

No, and yes. Example:

Statgement: "I watched TV last night"
Denial: No you didn't.

Where is there something in unequivocably in evidence for having watched TV
last night? It is still a "denial".

OK, you can live with your definition from American Heritage. All my life,
we always referred to Websters, so I'll live with mine.

Shelly

[Steve]

"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

>
"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:0b***********@newsfe12.lga...

>>
"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

>>Steve, I know that atheists like to claim that it is "lack of belief",
but go to websters at www.m-w.com. It specifically states that it is
"disbelief in the existence of deity". What you call "atheism" is
really "agnosticism". Again, from Websters:

negative, ghost rider.

i am without belief in god. remember your latin. i am without belief in
god. whatever you want to call that, that's what i am. i see no evidence
for god, and in such a state, i cannot be agnostic. i do not allow for
the possibility of god's existence due to lack of evidence. agnostics
believe that god could possibly exist, we just cannot know for sure. that
is NOT me.

i don't know where i'm losing you here, shelly. perhaps we have different
versions of websters. perhaps as she aged, meriam couldn't help herself
either and started using disbelief - which means there is evidence there
is something in which to believe...a gross presumption. try other
dictionaries. they all differ. hell, dictionary.com definition shows many
sources. here's what i love seeing...it shows complete lack of
understanding which is why we are having this discourse.

american heritage:

disbelief or denial of the existence of god or gods.

right next to:

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

doesn't denial mean there is unequivically something in evidence for me
to deny? are you getting my point?

No, and yes. Example:

Statgement: "I watched TV last night"
Denial: No you didn't.

Where is there something in unequivocably in evidence for having watched
TV last night? It is still a "denial".

good point. however, it is what is done after 'denial' that makes an atheist
or agnostic.

OK, you can live with your definition from American Heritage. All my
life, we always referred to Websters, so I'll live with mine.

i perfer not being labeled at all. ;^)

[Jerry Stuckle]

Steve wrote:

>Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
"lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.

Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.

negative, ghost rider.

'a' latin: without
'theism' latin: belief in god(s)

try websters instead of your own opinion.

Which does not mean it is not a religion.

tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists observe?
where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that resembles anything
religious?

Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a belief.

as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe that
god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa clause or
the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this critical
observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a asanta-clausian?

That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try
to convince me my opinion is wrong.

As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.

'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a religion
make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would be the start
of religion.

And you have a belief in the lack of a god.

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Shelly wrote:

"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:gf*************@newsfe02.lga...

>>And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
proper dictionary definition.

atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From www.m-w.com

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
no deity

To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
"disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix "doctrine"
with theology you have "religion".

The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone. Everyone
is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it into
politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in the USA
**BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.

I'm not saying there has to be a mix of religion and politics. But I am
saying the President is also a citizen, and welcome to practice his beliefs.

Personally, I would rather have a President with certain moral values
which are taught by religion. He could be Christian (my belief),
Jewish, Muslim or any of a number of different religions which share
those same core values. I'm not saying I would not vote for an atheist,
but it is one of the things I take into consideration when looking at
candidates.

Not to say all people who are religious follow those values - take
Clinton for example - getting caught with his pants down (literally).
That is something that I, as a Christian, have never done and will never
do, and I find that behavior abhorrent. My values are higher than that.

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

[Steve]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:EM******************************@comcast.com. ..

Steve wrote:

>>Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
"lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.

Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.

negative, ghost rider.

'a' latin: without
'theism' latin: belief in god(s)

try websters instead of your own opinion.

Which does not mean it is not a religion.

so that means it does?! come one jerry, you're more logical than that!

>tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists
observe? where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that
resembles anything religious?

Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
belief.

i 'believe' i *observe no evidence* that would allow me to *logically* lead
to me to a conclusion that god exists.

that is a PROCESS and not a belief. it is called scientific method. i'm sure
your response will be that science, too, is a religion. just a prediction.
;^)

>as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe
that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa
clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this
critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a
asanta-clausian?

That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try to
convince me my opinion is wrong.

sorry, religious people are in the *business* of converting. as for opinion?
we cannot both be right. and as you have NO evidence to support that there
is a god, the logical conclusion that should be drawn is that there, in
fact, is none. further, that our notions of god(s) evolve over time to match
our changing sophistication of thought is more proof for the idea that man
created god rather than vice versa. so much the case is this, that we have
nietche proclaiming that 'god is dead'!

As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.

well, you have proof that something respondse to you. what you infer about
that is up to you. however, you have *objective* evidence from which you can
draw such conclusions.

this is something no one can do for god. subjective evidence is as
interpretationally valid as the delusions of an insane person.

>'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a religion
make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would be the
start of religion.

And you have a belief in the lack of a god.

negative ghost rider,

i have drawn the conclusion that god does not exist because there is NO
objective evidence that he does. one is a conclusion and the other, fact.
there is no belief in that equation.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Steve wrote:

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:nN******************************@comcast.com. ..

>Steve wrote:

>>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Jo******************************@comcast.co m...

Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or atheism
itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to ask, what
scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with whatever
'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it indicate
that she may want to have with us? as there is no objective evidence, i
can only infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to do with us.

I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me. And I
feel sorry for you.

oh my!

i can see the romanticism in the idea of the things hoped for. that is the
nature of humanity. however, to afix that to a god-figure and create a
regiment of though/belief about that concept - one that rules your life and
had such a huge and not always pleasant mark on the history of others
lives - without proof or indications that say you seem to be correct...that
is just scary!

why is it that most rational people who go through their lives applying
critical thinking to all aspects of their lives, negate or forbid themselves
from doing the same with this one, special case - god? that is wholly beyond
me!

you go ahead and feel sorry for me. i hope you are serving the 'right' one,
cuz all of the major religions now are quite exclusive in membership with
eternal damnation for not joining. (he pauses to think...i wonder if jerry
is going to come back with the good ol' pascal wager at this point...then
chuckles to self)

Whatever. It's my belief. However, you can be assured if there is a
God, you will be in the wrong. At least I have a chance of practicing
the "correct" religion.

>>as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions
that atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad?
mythra? zeus? buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this
is the most i've ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing to
do with afghanistan or iraq, but everything to do with domestic policy
inacted after 911...and how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved
and rallied under the banner of 'god' in leu of ration thought -
especially thought that is critical of current events in light of
history.

give me an atheist about now, please!

I don't care what you believe in. However, when you try to impose your
religion on me, the President or anyone else, I draw the line.

and the world shudders.

why are christians so eager to say that but gaffaw when atheists, for the
exact same reason, want to remove religious icons from mountainsides in
california, or edicts greeting patrons of public places, or pray in schools?
why is there a double standard?

You're the one setting the double standard - not allowing me to practice
my religion. What harm does a cross on a mountainside do to you if you
don't believe in any god? It's just a couple of pieces of wood, after
all. Or if I want to pray in school, why is it your right to say I can't?

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

[Steve]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:jt******************************@comcast.com. ..

Shelly wrote:

>"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:gf*************@newsfe02.lga...

>>>And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
"overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
proper dictionary definition.

atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From
www.m-w.com

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there
is no deity

To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
"disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix
"doctrine" with theology you have "religion".

The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone.
Everyone is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it
into politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in
the USA **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.

I'm not saying there has to be a mix of religion and politics. But I am
saying the President is also a citizen, and welcome to practice his
beliefs.

Personally, I would rather have a President with certain moral values
which are taught by religion. He could be Christian (my belief), Jewish,
Muslim or any of a number of different religions which share those same
core values. I'm not saying I would not vote for an atheist, but it is
one of the things I take into consideration when looking at candidates.

Not to say all people who are religious follow those values - take Clinton
for example - getting caught with his pants down (literally). That is
something that I, as a Christian, have never done and will never do, and I
find that behavior abhorrent. My values are higher than that.

you are, intentionally or not, saying that atheists have no morals...or ones
that are substandard to religious orthodoxy. what a crock of shit!

if anything, i realize as an atheist that i don't get the luxury of an
afterlife, that my meaning is limited to this lifetime and what things i
engage in here and now. i have probably an even more profound sense of the
precious nature of life than do you, since i'm not getting another shot at
it...ever. my 'meaning' in life is found by helping others. that's it. it's
that simple. tell me that is something counter to ANY religion. if i base
all of my decisions on that singular premise, then i've met the core
requirements of ALL religions...and without any need of a god or gods as
impetous to do so.

take you pompous head out of your agitated sphinter, you close-minded,
superiority complexed bastard.

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(Steve)

>i have drawn the conclusion that god does not exist because there is NO
objective evidence that he does. [...]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and
without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could
not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by
your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that" and promply vanishes in
a puff of logic.

SCNR ;)
Micha

[The Natural Philosopher]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>
And BTW - atheism is a religion, also.

Only to religious people.

To atheists it is merely sidelining religion as irrelevant and getting
on with the job.

This is conveniently

"overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom".

This is conveniently overlooked by those who cannot concieve of a person
who believes in nothing other than his sensory apparatus and what it
tells him.

But many
atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

They can't. Atheism by definition is the absence of religion.

The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
I don't try to tell you the same.

I don't worship.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Steve wrote:

>>And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
"overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But
many atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the
country.

if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of
a proper dictionary definition.

atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

that's all. i resent the implication that i am religious. i'm no more
religious for my lack of belief in god that i am for my lack of belief
in the toothfairy.

at least when i lost my tooth as a child, there was proof of a
toothfairy...i always had a quarter under my pillow where my tooth had
been!

Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
"lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.

It isn't.

Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Steve wrote:

>>Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not
a "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.

Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.

negative, ghost rider.

'a' latin: without
'theism' latin: belief in god(s)

try websters instead of your own opinion.

Which does not mean it is not a religion.

>tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists
observe? where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that
resembles anything religious?

Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
belief.

No. I profess no belief in god.
That is not a belief.

It is the absence of one.

I also profess no belief in leprechauns. Does that make me some kind of
religious person?

In fact there are thousands of things I do not believe, up to and
including that GW Bush is the reincarnation of Immelda Markos.

Like my non belief in god, the are simply not worth mentioning.

What religious people do not like at all, is that to an atheist, the
issue of whether god exists or not is simply irrelevant. Uninteresting
in the highest degree. Its useless to believe or disbelieve. It has
little objective effect either way.

>as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to
believe that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than
for santa clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying
that this critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a
asanta-clausian?

That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try
to convince me my opinion is wrong.

As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.

Thats your problem, not mine.

>'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a
religion make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that
would be the start of religion.

And you have a belief in the lack of a god.

No, simply no belief in its existence. And no need to have or not have
the belief.

[Steve]

"Michael Fesser" <ne*****@gmx.dewrote in message
news:qb********************************@4ax.com...

.oO(Steve)

>>i have drawn the conclusion that god does not exist because there is NO
objective evidence that he does. [...]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and
without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could
not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by
your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that" and promply vanishes in
a puff of logic.

SCNR ;)
Micha

roflmao!!!

i have to pass that one on.

[Shelly]

"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:ux*************@newsfe12.lga...

perhaps i heard it wrong. i'll have to look into where i did hear that.
now my interest is peaked.

Sorry to nitpick, but while your interest may, indeed, have reached a "high
level", I believe it has "piqued". :-)

Shelly

[Steve]

"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

>
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:EM******************************@comcast.com. ..

>Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
belief.

A "belief" does not a religion make. A belief, couple with religious
dogma and practices makes a religion.

i agree with where you're going, but being logical, the definition of
religion cannot contain religion as part of its definition. ;^) your point
wasn't lost though.

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:jt******************************@comcast.com. ..

Shelly wrote:

>"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:gf*************@newsfe02.lga...

>>>And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
"overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
proper dictionary definition.

atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From
www.m-w.com

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there
is no deity

To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
"disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix
"doctrine" with theology you have "religion".

The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone.
Everyone is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it
into politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in
the USA **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.

I'm not saying there has to be a mix of religion and politics. But I am
saying the President is also a citizen, and welcome to practice his
beliefs.

....and noone is agruing against that point.

>
Personally, I would rather have a President with certain moral values
which are taught by religion. He could be Christian (my belief),

....and they are taught by society as well.

Jewish, Muslim or any of a number of different religions which share those
same core values. I'm not saying I would not vote for an atheist, but it
is one of the things I take into consideration when looking at candidates.

Well, do what you want (obviously) and you if you take such irrelevencies as
being religious into account you may well get stuck again with crap like we
have now in office.

Not to say all people who are religious follow those values - take

You got that one right! The list in interminable of such hypocrites.

Clinton for example - getting caught with his pants down (literally).

He disgraced the office with his sexual behavior. Otherwise, he was an
excellent president. We had prosperity and low inflation. We were at
peace. He put in that wonderful excemption for the profits (largely due to
infaltion) on the sale of your primary home. He failed on health care. All
in all, he was pretty good. I voted for him once and against him once. I'd
take him again in a heartbeat over the power maniac in office now who has
sent over 3,000 young Americans to their deaths in a war that can't be won
and for an ever-shifting raison d'etre.

That is something that I, as a Christian, have never done and will never
do, and I find that behavior abhorrent. My values are higher than that.

You are still a virgin? (Sorry, couldn't resist that one. I understand
what you meant to say).

Shelly