Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Free Lunch on 30 Jun 2008 18:56 On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:02:36 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in <c3447487-ef74-4a5a-9197-58ff3792ad85(a)f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>: >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 Once again you show that you are nothing but a mendacious fool, misrepresenting what I wrote.
From: Free Lunch on 30 Jun 2008 18:57 On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:06:02 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in <4d47e464-df75-43c4-94bd-383dbd74f654(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>: >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. Point us to the evidence. Based on your track record, I do not believe you.
From: Free Lunch on 30 Jun 2008 18:58 On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:11:23 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in <515eb829-8fa8-439f-97d1-91cdb05273b0(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>: >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. Apparently you are incapable of distinguishing between an old idiom and a legal concept, or you are lying to us again.
From: raven1 on 30 Jun 2008 18:58 On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:06:02 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >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. Bullshit. Citation, please.
From: Free Lunch on 30 Jun 2008 19:00
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:26:07 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in <b804ab27-a92f-4ef2-a69c-54dd80028462(a)j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>: >On Jun 30, 12:25?am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> Free Lunch wrote: >> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:15:20 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> > wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >> On Jun 28, 6:06?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:26:59 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> >>> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >>>> 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. >> >>> Paul knew nothing about it. You mock the Bible with such silly >> >>> interpretations of it.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >>> - Show quoted text - >> >> I just believe what Paul said. ?You seem a little upset that I do not >> >> believe your fable. >> >> > Your problem is that you _lied_ about what Paul said. He _never_ said >> > that evolution was a fable. That was the lie you told, one you cannot >> > back up with _anything_ in the Bible, not from Paul, not from anywhere. >> >> It's gotta be tough to keep 'em all in a row this far down the road!- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Well, if Paul had named Charles Darwin by name, atheists would claim >he was not talking about evolution. You know you lied to us, but you are trying to run away from your behavior when you were caught. |