Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 29 Jun 2008 23:06 On Jun 28, 9:47 pm, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "BuddyThunder" <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message > > news:4865bc76$1(a)clear.net.nz... > > > rbwinn wrote: > > >> Atheists do not normally have children. If they are going to have > >> children, they usually kill them before they are born, so I have only > >> met adult atheists. They are the ones who believe in Harry Potter. > > > Yeah, then we eat the foetus. Then we prowl the neighbourhood looking for > > small Christian children. Then we torture them into renouncing their gods, > > then we eat them too. You're priceless! > > Where does that leave vegetarian atheists, I wonder? Hungry. Al
From: Smiler on 29 Jun 2008 23:07 "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:48673819$1(a)clear.net.nz... > Smiler wrote: >> "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message >> news:4865bc76$1(a)clear.net.nz... >>> rbwinn wrote: >>>> On Jun 27, 8:49?am, "pba...(a)worldonline.nl" <pba...(a)worldonline.nl> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 26 jun, 03:13, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Reading comprehension (for most of us) has nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>>> prior >>>>>>>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>> I can comprehend many books that I don't happen to believe are >>>>>>>>>>> truth. >>>>>>>>>>> If I had ever read any, Harry Potter books would be good >>>>>>>>>>> examples. >>>>>>>>>> Whjy would you read a Harry Potter book if you comprehended it? >>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>> Light entertainment. >>>>>>>>> Why do you read if you don't comprehend? >>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> Well, each to his own. ?I never met an atheist yet who did not >>>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>> in Harry Potter. >>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - >>>>>>> You mean to say you never met an atheist?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> I have met atheists. ?I have never met one who did not think Harry >>>>>> Potter was some kind of superhero who was going to defeat >>>>>> Christianity. >>>>>> Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - >>>>>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - >>>>> You have only met Atheistic children? >>>>> Where did you meet them, >>>>> and why didn't you meet there parents?- Hide quoted text - >>>>> >>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>> Atheists do not normally have children. If they are going to have >>>> children, they usually kill them before they are born, so I have only >>>> met adult atheists. They are the ones who believe in Harry Potter. >>> Yeah, then we eat the foetus. Then we prowl the neighbourhood looking >>> for small Christian children. Then we torture them into renouncing their >>> gods, then we eat them too. You're priceless! >> >> That reminds me! When's the next EAC <ntie> barbeque? >> I've not eaten BBQ'd devilled baby <yummmy> for ages! > > Next weekend, I'll kill the fatted child! That's how you keep the ratio stable....more sheep than people! Save me a portion. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 29 Jun 2008 23:11 On Jun 28, 11:44 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jun 27, 9:22 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Jun 27, 8:49�am, "pba...(a)worldonline.nl" <pba...(a)worldonline.nl> > > > wrote: > > >> On 26 jun, 03:13, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> Reading comprehension (for most of us) has nothing to do with prior > > >>>>>>>> beliefs. > > >>>>>>>> I can comprehend many books that I don't happen to believe are truth. > > >>>>>>>> If I had ever read any, Harry Potter books would be good examples. > > >>>>>>> Whjy would you read a Harry Potter book if you comprehended it? > > >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > > >>>>>> Light entertainment. > > >>>>>> Why do you read if you don't comprehend? > > >>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>> Well, each to his own. �I never met an atheist yet who did not believe > > >>>>> in Harry Potter. > > >>>>> Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > >>>> You mean to say you never met an atheist?- Hide quoted text - > > >>> I have met atheists. �I have never met one who did not think Harry > > >>> Potter was some kind of superhero who was going to defeat > > >>> Christianity. > > >>> Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > >>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - > > >> You have only met Atheistic children? > > >> Where did you meet them, > > >> and why didn't you meet there parents?- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > Atheists do not normally have children. If they are going to have > > > children, they usually kill them before they are born, so I have only > > > met adult atheists. They are the ones who believe in Harry Potter. > > > Yeah, then we eat the foetus. Then we prowl the neighbourhood looking > > for small Christian children. Then we torture them into renouncing their > > gods, then we eat them too. You're priceless!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Well, these things that you are doing are sins. You should try to > stop doing them. > Robert B. Winn As soon as you stop lying. Al
From: rbwinn on 29 Jun 2008 23:15 On Jun 29, 1:54 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 27, 12:34 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jun 26, 3:56�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>>> On Jun 27, 6:09 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > >>>>> W.A. Sawford wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 5:05� am, RobertL <robertml...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 4:48� am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 7:27�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> Well, if no one proved it, then it was not proven. � All you have done > >>>>>>> is to say it was proven without showing any proof or anyone who is > >>>>>>> suppsed to have done it. �Atheists have said they have proven all > >>>>>>> manner of things. �Almost always it turns out to be something some > >>>>>>> individual atheist put together that sounds good to other atheists.. > >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>>>> I wasn't going to get involved in all this (unless it's Friday, which it > >>>>>> isn't) but I can't stand it any longer (sigh). > >>>>>> 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.' > >>>>>> Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which atheists > >>>>>> have claimed it? �Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything, > >>>>>> because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first > >>>>>> place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god any > >>>>>> more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of Traal. > >>>>> Completely wrong. The concept of God is not a scientific hypotheis, nor > >>>>> a fact. > >>>>> So it can't be proven or disproven. > >>>>> Its simply a shorthand for 'all the wide and wonderful stuff we cant get > >>>>> a handle on; and feel scared by' more or less. > >>>>> Atheism isn't so much denying His existence, nor yet keeping and open > >>>>> mind on the subject (agnostic) its merely sidestepping the whole mess as > >>>>> something one can simply do without. > >>>>>> Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although actual > >>>>>> evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first place... > >>>>> That's the whole point. Belief is a state of mind that has utility. Its > >>>>> a little bit of Wise-ardry. Headology. > >>>>> Wise-ards understand that believing in something is an action, not a > >>>>> statement about its existence, or lack thereof. > >>>>>> Wendy > >>>> Your "god" is yours. �Different people have more or less > >>>> anthropomorphic ideas of gods. �And the claim wasn't so much that your > >>>> god of gaps was disproven (that would be a misnomer, as you're > >>>> suggesting god is the stuff we don't know), but the literal biblical > >>>> god is provably false. �The most obviously wrong points would be the > >>>> age of the universe, origin of species/types, and a world-wide flood. > >>>> There are lots of other smaller details that are contradictory to > >>>> reality as well, but could more easily be argued as lack of knowledge > >>>> by transcribers. > >>>> Al- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> So scientists can be proven wrong by > >> Correct. > > >> Religious beliefs cannot be proven wrong, because they are  not a > >> scientific theory: Since religion  predicts nothing that can be tested, > >> its is never open to challenge on a scientific basis. > > >>  their belief in the Loerentz > > >>> equations, which requires a miracle to describe relativity of time. > >>> But a miracle described by equations is OK if it results in > >>> appropriations from public revenues so that scientists can do > >>> research, while miracles to feed the hungry are not allowed by > >>> science. > >> A 'miracle' is worthy of funding if it can be tested and leads to > >> consistent results. > > >>> Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - > > Well, that was what the people who were fed by the loaves and fishes > > said also.  I do not personally see any reason to be giving scientists > > trillions of dollars every year just because they say they believe in > > one miracle. > > Thats not the reason why they get trillions of dollars, they get that > for all the billions of little miracles that scienece has already made > happen, like this machine you are looking at. > > In the compute stakes, > > Science 100% > God 'Null point' > > Its not My fault that you are confusing religion and science and want to > compare them: they are not comparable. > > Neither science nor religion are what you believe them to be. That's the > trouble with belief in general. It very easy to believe in things that > don't help, and are probably false. > Well, people today do that all of the time. Almost everything they believe is propaganda. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 29 Jun 2008 23:16
On Jun 29, 1:56�pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > Well, they do now that I have brought up the subject of Hezekiah's > > tunnel and the earthen ramp, which can both be seen today. �Before > > that, they were saying there was nothing in the Bible that was not > > mythology and nothing in the Bible that could be proven. �Atheists say > > whatever they think will fly. �It just so happened that I knew about > > Hezekiah's tunnel, so what they usually say was not sufficient for > > this conversation. �So now they are saying that the Bible has some > > history in it, but they are not happy about having to say that. �They > > would rather be saying what they said when this conversation started, > > that the Bible is nothing but mythology. > > Robert B. Winn > > If you are as wrong about what is in the bible as you are about what > people you have never apparently et think about it..God help you. ;-) I have read the Bible a couple of times. What other people think about it is up to them. Where they make their mistake is when they think they are going to tell me what I think about it. Robert B. Winn |