Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2008 02:55 On Jun 29, 3:52�pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:23:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > >The Supreme Court and other atheists imposed abortion on the United > >States. > > Actually, abortion was legal in many States before Roe v. Wade, which, > incidentally, does *not* allow for unrestricted abortion rights: under > the decision, States may restrict it during the second trimester, and > ban it outright during the third. Nor is there anything to suggest > that anyone on the SCOTUS at that time was an atheist. > > Are you capable of writing a single sentence without committing > multiple errors of fact? There were no errors in what I said. If they are not atheists, then the way to prove it would be to say something other than what atheists tell them to say. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2008 02:56 On Jun 29, 3:56�pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:15:20 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > >I just believe what Paul said. �You seem a little upset that I do not > >believe your fable. > > Paul had nothing to say about evolution. Well, you might want to read the Bible instead of pretending to know what it says. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2008 03:02 On Jun 29, 4:06�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:29:33 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > > >On Jun 29, 8:44?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:26:23 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > >> >On Jun 29, 12:13?am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > >> >> > On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> >> rbwinn wrote: > >> >> >>> On Jun 28, 7:04?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:01:05 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno..com> > >> >> >>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > >> >> >>>>> On Jun 28, 12:21?am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >> >> >>>> ... > >> >> >>>>>>> No, you were trying to hedge your bets. ?You do not believe in faith, > >> >> >>>>>>> but you are "on the edge of faith", so that counts in case you need to > >> >> >>>>>>> have faith. ?I know how atheists think. > >> >> >>>>>> Why would I need to hedge my bets? I believe in faith, I just don't > >> >> >>>>>> think it's rational. And believe me, you really *don't* know how > >> >> >>>>>> atheists think.- Hide quoted text - > >> >> >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >> >> >>>>> I know far better than atheists how they think. ?They have made a > >> >> >>>>> wrong choice, so their options are limited. > >> >> >>>> Your lies are indefensible. You celebrate the evil that you have fallen > >> >> >>>> into. > >> >> >>> I thought you atheists did not believe evil exists. ?If there is no > >> >> >>> devil, everything is good, isn't it? > >> >> >> Evil sounds like a religious concept to me, but why would you think that > >> >> >> we can't differentiate right from wrong. Another strawman? > > >> >> >> We seem to be able to discuss without lying, can you?- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> >> > Sure. ?A while back you were saying that there was nothing wrong with > >> >> > killing children before they are born. ?So are you saying that killing > >> >> > children before they are born is a good thing? > > >> >> Where did I say that? Can you show me, or is that another lie? Abortion > >> >> is deeply unpleasant, however I don't think it should be banned. They're > >> >> not children yet, by the way.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> >Not children yet? ?What do you think they are? > > >> Embryos and fetuses.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >So you are saying that people who call them unborn children are lying? > > It depends on why they are calling them that. If it is the prospective > parents, it is wonderful, it shows their great love for their > baby-to-be. If it is a religious zealot trying to destroy the rights of > Americans, then they are telling lies at the legal level because they > just cannot stop trying to tell other people what to do. Funny how many > of these people follow a despot who is not married and does not allow a > single one of his priests to marry. The Pope knows nothing about babies > and mocks God with his foolish teachings. You, on the other hand, keep > yourself from learning and repeat lies the way it rains in the Amazon.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, I would suspect that one of the religious zealots you are talking about would be Luke. Luke wrote in his gospel, Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife being great with child. No wonder you think the writers of the Bible were religious zealots. To those of us who believe that children exist before they are born, Luke seems to have the right idea, unlike atheists of today. In fact, if the Bible is true, which it is, atheists of today are lying about not being able to tell that an unborn human being is a child. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2008 03:06 On Jun 29, 4:12�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:23:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote in alt.atheism: > > >On Jun 29, 7:07?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:06:07 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > ... > > >> >I did not lie. ?There actually is a conduit for water between Gihon > >> >spring and the pool of Siloam. > > >> And, as you know, that is not the lie I have pointed out to you. You lie > >> here by falsely and intentionally trying to distract us from the lie > >> under discussion. You know that no one imposes abortion in the United > >> States. That is another in a long line of lies that you refuse to repent > >> of.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >The Supreme Court and other atheists imposed abortion on the United > >States. > > Abortion is not imposed. You know that. No one is ever forced to have an > abortion by our government. Stop lying to us. Women have been forced to have abortions in order to get welfare assistance. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2008 03:09
On Jun 29, 4:12�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:34:02 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote in alt.atheism: > >> Most of your answers are as rude as a badly behaved six year old.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >So you are saying that I do not follow the rules of conversation that > >atheists want to impose. > > Christians generally despise your approach, too. Lying is condemned by > almost everyone.- Hide quoted text - > Well, you seem to be taking right to your new found position as a church administrator. What I am curious about is how your fellow atheists feel about your connection to church policy. Robert B. Winn |