Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 1 Jul 2008 03:10 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:03 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> 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?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > This guy says that a baby in its mother's womb is nothing but a > parasite on the mother, and you say, No implication was made that > "human beings are nothing except parasites". I believe that if > something is a parasite when it is in its mother's womb, then it is a > parasite after it leaves its mother's womb. A parasite is never > anything except a parasite. Your difficulty with English may be hampering your ability to understand reality. You injected "nothing but" into the conversation, not anyone else. That was careless or dishonest. If an organism isn't biologically living off the host, it is not a parasite.
From: BuddyThunder on 1 Jul 2008 03:13 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:05 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> 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?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, I believe that your attitude toward this particular thing will > be like your attitude toward Hezekiah's tunnel. It will not change in > this life. Are you still unable to articulate your point? Why not try rather than just saying "you won't get it"? My attitude may just surprise you, as you've shown little understanding of atheists to this point.
From: BuddyThunder on 1 Jul 2008 03:16 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:08�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> Alex W. wrote: >>> "Free Lunch" <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>> news:9ipg649e2urs6bgci76j1sk4bebjjd8pe5(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:58:24 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote >>>> in alt.atheism: >>>>> "Free Lunch" <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>>>> news:ej5g64psvc40o3fq3lpi12h4id0b8dskga(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:32:59 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, you atheists have yet to show how your crusade to kill unborn > children is a better way of life than following the teachings of Jesus > Christ. Yeah yeah, that really stupid "pro-abortion" religious nonsense. You really don't have a clue how silly that opinion is! Your lies about me are tiresome, but I think they're more for your benefit than mine.
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2008 03:17 On Jun 30, 3:58�pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:06:02 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - And our government still recognizes our right to trial by jury, right? How gullible do you think I am about "our government"? Or maybe you are just including atheists when you say "our government".
From: BuddyThunder on 1 Jul 2008 03:18
Steve O wrote: > > > "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message > news:c4e4d588-3124-45b3-a064-d5a153da4758(a)z32g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> On Jun 30, 2:59�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:1ce59514-cea6-4e3f-b227-f2e92dd39117(a)l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Why would I invent a religion? >>> > Robert b. Winn >>> >>> Your prophet, Joe Smith managed to do that and did quite well out of it. >>> (at least until the mob caught up with him, that is) >>> So why shouldn't you? >>> >>> -- >>> Steve O >> >> Joseph Smith had a very difficult life. Then he was shot by a mob. >> If he did quite well out of it, then it was in the hereafter. So are >> you saying that you believe Joseph Smith obtained some kind of reward >> after his death? >> Robert B. Winn > > Of course I'm not, and I have absolutely no idea why you would suggest > that I am saying anything like that. > How is it even remotely possible for some one to receive a reward AFTER > death? Winn has run out of truthful options for argument, it would seem. So any strawman of atheism will do! |