Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 04:31 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 4:16�pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:29:33 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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? >> No, they're playing semantic games. Children, by definition, have been >> born. I suppose one *could* refer to a fetus as an "unborn child", in >> the same way that one could refer to an egg as an "unmade omelet", but >> it would be a silly thing to do.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Sorry, atheists, we have the word child as it was used more than two > thousand years ago. > Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife being great with > child. They had to make up stuff to render the world explainable. They did that plenty, so what? We know better now, isn't that a good thing!
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 04:33 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 4:25�pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:49:51 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> Technically speaking, they are parasites living off a grown female.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Well, thank you for your answer, Alex. �So human beings >> Nice try. Human beings, by definition, have been born. A fetus is not >> yet a person, albeit it has the potential to be one. Further, even if >> one was to grant that a fetus was a human being, it is not clear to me >> why its need to be carried for nine months would somehow trump an >> adult woman's right to control her own body, especially if the >> pregnancy was unwanted, unplanned, or occurred by force. >> >>> are nothing >>> except parasites in atheist theology. >> There is no such thing as "atheist theology". Atheism is the absence >> of belief in deities, and implies no other political, moral, or >> philosophical position. Atheists fall along the entire political >> spectrum, including those who oppose abortion. > > I have never seen an atheist who opposes abortion. I believe that pro- > life atheists are mythological. I can only speak for myself, but I have no reason to oppose abortion. I'm not going to have one, but see no reason why I should deny someone else that freedom. I don't accept the doctrine of a soul. That evidence thing again, I'm afraid.
From: hhyapster on 30 Jun 2008 04:35 On Jun 28, 10:36 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:31:01 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote > in alt.atheism: > > > > >"rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >news:59977e4c-efee-4381-ada6-017ab2f32122(a)e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > >I am not on drugs. > > >==== > > >[ ] You are in denial. > > >[ ] You are in withdrawal. > > >[ ] You have run out. > > [ } You refuse to take them, even though you have a prescription. Wrong. There is no medicine for his mental sickness yet, in this world. Probable cure is to put a twin electrode into his brain, to help. I shall contribute US$ 1.oo per month to help this fellow human, in the hope to see if we do find one day that he will be awaken. But this is conditional that I send the contribution to the hospital and not into his personal account.
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 04:41 rbwinn wrote: > 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. Ah, the now-infamous Winn "la-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening" defence. A rip-snorter! It's up there with the exceptional "because you disagree with me, I'm right" Martinez mindburp.
From: hhyapster on 30 Jun 2008 04:53
On Jun 29, 8:14 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 6:36 am, mizlee <miz...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 27, 9:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 27, 9:04 am, mizlee <miz...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 27, 8:37�am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > Teachers hired to teach in public schools are trained in college to > > > > > teach atheism. > > > > > > Robert B. Winn- > > > > > As a former public school teacher, I am in a really, really good > > > > position to tell you that you are an absolute, bald-faced liar, in > > > > addition to being a barking mad looney. Seriously, dude, you need > > > > professional help. > > > > So how did you get a teaching job if you did not go to college? > > > Robert B. Winn > > > As a matter of fact, you lying whackjob, I have gone to three > > colleges, and have degrees from all of them. And you are still an > > absolute, bald-faced-liar, in addition to being a barking mad looney. > > But, by all means, keep posting. The more that rational people are > > exposed to those of your deluded ilk, the more they are turned off by > > religion. It really is no coincidence, you know, that young people in > > particular are rejecting religion in droves, especially christianity, > > and over all, people who self describe themselves as having no > > religion have doubled in the last ten years. The PEW Forum puts the > > unaffiliated at 16%, the largest since the American Revolution; they > > are increasingly disgusted with the baggage of religion - intolerance, > > bigotry, hatred, self-righteousness, anti-abortion, anti stem-cell > > research, anti-everything-progressive - and are now the second-largest > > "religious" group in the country. Keep it up, you are a perfect > > representative of everything that is evil in this country.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Well, but I do not deny the existence of Hezekiah's tunnel the way > atheists do. > Did you know that the Bible prophesies that in the last days men would > be lovers of themselves more than lovers of God? > Robert B. Winn Really? But this would be more correct since it hinted that there is no god......and you don't get it ! |