Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 16:03 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 11:50 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 29, 10:57�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1c31d316-2b91-43f6-b6c0-3fb4dbf97774(a)z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >>>> 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? >>>> =============== >>>> 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 are nothing >>> except parasites in atheist theology. >> Read it again, this time trying to understand as you go.- Hide quoted text - >> > > I understood it exactly the first time I read it. Then why the misrepresentation of what was said? No implication was made that "human beings are nothing except parasites". You misunderstood, or lied. Which was it?
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 16:05 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 11:54 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 29, 1:01 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> 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? >>>> A human embryo =/= a human child. One has been born.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> So you are saying that people who speak of unborn children are lying. >> It's not the only option.- Hide quoted text - >> > > Well, one option would be to admit that a baby in its mother's womb is > a child. You already said you would never do that. I never said I would never do that. I would like you to undertake to stop lying, that would be an undertaking that I could agree with! Another option would be that your objection is religiously-motivated, and has no rational basis. What's your point?
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 16:08 Alex W. wrote: > "Free Lunch" <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > news:9ipg649e2urs6bgci76j1sk4bebjjd8pe5(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:58:24 +0100, "Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote >> in alt.atheism: >> >>> "Free Lunch" <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>> news:ej5g64psvc40o3fq3lpi12h4id0b8dskga(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:32:59 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> >>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>> >>>>> Why would I invent a religion? >>>> Because the ones that demand you be honest all reject you. >>> Kindly cite a religion that expects its adherents to be honest. >> They all *claim* that they want their adherents to be honest (except for >> a certain willingness to adhere to unsubstantiated beliefs), but they >> may not expect their adherents to be honest. > > I was thinking of religious honesty. Everyday honesty in dealing with > others is hard enough, but how many people are honest enough to admit that > their faith has more holes than a Texas roadsign, and that their sacred text > is about as reliable as a 70's user manual translated from the original > Japanese into English by a dyslexic Albanian? In the end, all faiths are > based on humanity's overdeveloped capacity to suspend disbelief by the neck > until dead while claiming the exact opposite. In my book, that translates > into fundamental dishonesty. You're right, but in my case I managed to ignore or bury the cognitive dissonance generated, so that the illusion of "god's truth" was a bit more sustainable. Eventually the weight of evidence demolished that position, but I wasn't deliberately lying at the time. Robert is deliberately lying. That's another issue.
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 16:14 Alex W. wrote: > "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message > news:4868894b(a)clear.net.nz... >> Alex W. wrote: >>> "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message >>> news:4867eccb$1(a)clear.net.nz... >>>> Alex W. wrote: >>>>> "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message >>>>> news:486737ee$1(a)clear.net.nz... >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> I know. Abortion was imported here from Europe. >>>>>> I'm not European either. <shrug> >>>>> Pakeha? >>>> Bingo! :-) >>> That's not a Maori word. >>> Is it? >> Aye, that it is, but no-one's quite sure where it came from. In the wider >> sense it just means non-Maori New Zealander. I recently discovered a >> thimbleful Maori blood in my veins, but not much! > > The important question is: is it enough to qualify you for special > government goodies? It would've been if I'd known as I was going through university, but I didn't find out until later, dammit!
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 16:15
rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 9:57�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:42:19 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 29, 8:48?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:48:40 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>> On Jun 29, 12:22?am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 28, 12:50?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:11:54 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 7:17?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:05:42 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 12:26?am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 6:42?pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am upset by *people* who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that the Bible is anything more than mythology and try ?to impose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs on me ?using the Bible as evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can someone impose a belief on you? ?Just believe whatever you want to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The wrong part is when people attempt to use the myth to formulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> public policy or indoctrinate children or inform foreign policy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, actually they use fables. ?The apostles Paul said they would be >>>>>>>>>>>>> turned to fables in the last days. ?A fable is a story about animals >>>>>>>>>>>>> like the story about monkeys turning into humans. >>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you're ignorant about evolution. Colour me surprised. >>>>>>>>>>> In what way am I ignorant about evolution? >>>>>>>>>> Monkeys and humans do share a common ancestor. Your denial of the fact >>>>>>>>>> does not change that fact.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>> Charles Darwin was not my ancestor. >>>>>>>> So? >>>>>>>> Evolution happens. Learn to deal with reality.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> I never have believed in evolution. ?I think it is a fable, just as >>>>>>> Paul said it was. >>>>>> Classic, got a scripture for that?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Yes, we are still on the scripture in Isaiah that says that a tunnel >>>>> was dug as a conduit for water between Gihon spring and the pool of >>>>> Siloam. >>>> So, where is the evidence that the entire story is correct? The tunnel, >>>> as you know, is not evidence that the story is correct.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Well, so you are still taking the position that there is no tunnel. >> Liar. >> > How long will ye halt between two opinions? Multitudes, multitudes in > the valley of decision, for the day of the Lord is near in the valley > of decision. 2000 years away kind of close? ;-P |