Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2008 03:28 On Jun 30, 6:34 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:4a956dde-8271-4dd1-96cb-3b689154e2f2(a)q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 12:57 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >> > On Jun 29, 11:47 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>> On Jun 29, 12:59 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>>>> On Jun 29, 12:08 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2:08 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 12:11 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 6:37�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask other readers here to help me recompose them with a > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grammar and > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vocabulary appropos for a first or second grade pupil so > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can comprehend > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then answer them. > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All public schools are required to teach atheism. > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please explain how, specifically, they are doing that. > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounding like > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another sacred lie...- Hide quoted text - > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Teachers hired to teach in public schools are trained in > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> college to > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> teach atheism. > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it explicit in their contract? Can you justify that > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> claim? <chirpiing > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> crickets>- Hide quoted text - > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, yes it is explicit in their contract. If someone prayed > >> >>>>>>>>>>> in > >> >>>>>>>>>>> school the way my sixth grade teacher did, he would be fired. > >> >>>>>>>>>> I didn't know they had a prayer clause in there. You learn > >> >>>>>>>>>> something new > >> >>>>>>>>>> every day. Don't you think religion belongs at home, not at > >> >>>>>>>>>> school?- Hide quoted text - > >> >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >> >>>>>>>>> Well, the Bible says that true religion is to help the widow > >> >>>>>>>>> and the > >> >>>>>>>>> fatherless in their time of affliction. Why shouldn't widows > >> >>>>>>>>> and > >> >>>>>>>>> fatherless people be helped at school? > >> >>>>>>>> Feel free to offer some actual help rather than religion. Unless > >> >>>>>>>> you can > >> >>>>>>>> show that you're right and everyone else is wrong, but you're > >> >>>>>>>> not doing > >> >>>>>>>> well on that score.- Hide quoted text - > >> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >> >>>>>>> Well, we religious people spend time helping widows and > >> >>>>>>> fatherless > >> >>>>>>> people. How are you atheists doing with that? > >> >>>>>> Deluded people do not have the altruism market cornered, no matter > >> >>>>>> what > >> >>>>>> you'd like to believe.- Hide quoted text - > >> >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >> >>>>> So you are saying that you actually believe some religious people > >> >>>>> are > >> >>>>> helping widows and orphans. That is very open minded for an > >> >>>>> atheist. > >> >>>> Ummm... thanks? What you think I believe is clearly hugely different > >> >>>> from what I really believe. Is this your mischaracterisation, or > >> >>>> have > >> >>>> you been lied to?- Hide quoted text - > >> >>>> - Show quoted text - > >> >>> Well, no, Paul was telling the truth when he said that true religion > >> >>> was caring for widows and the fatherless. > >> >> That's a religious opinion that I don't share. "True religion" is a > >> >> difficult phrase to talk sensibly about - no religion is able to > >> >> demonstrate much objective truth more impressive than an old tunnel.- > >> >> Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> > Well, the only reason I used the old tunnel was because it was > >> > something that atheists could come to understand after a long time. > >> > After enough repetitions, even an atheist cannot make a disconnect > >> > between what was written and what exists. > > >> There are much more mundane examples in the Bible that prove just as > >> much. Egypt, Jerusalem, the Nile, they're all places mentioned in the > >> Bible that really exist. What's your point. People write nice stories > >> about real places, so what? > > >> Why would you base your life around one? And why that one?- Hide quoted > >> text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > If I were to mention the Nile or Jerusalem, or the Jordan River that > > would have been something that atheists already knew about.  This way > > I get atheists scrambling all over the internet looking up Hezekiah's > > tunnel.  Then they all pretend they already knew all about the tunnel > > but are not going to admit it exists.  The tunnel is a much more > > effective demonstration of atheistic reaction to truth. > > Robert B. Winn > > Actually, so far, it's been a good demonstration of your complete inability > to construct a rational argument. > > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) > B.A.A.W.A. > Convicted by Earthquack, > Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence > "I have a miraculous picture of Jesus - if you look really closely at the > face, you can see a burnt tortilla"- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, there is your mistake, Steve. I am not arguing with anyone. You atheists are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2008 03:29 On Jun 30, 6:36 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 30, 5:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 7:42 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 27, 10:36 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:04 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 21, 4:09 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >>> On Jun 21, 8:16�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > >>>> "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote in message > > > > > >>>>news:6c4ja8F3erpl2U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > > >>>>> If you think that Harry Potter is fiction then you must also think that > > > > > >>>>> London doesn't exist right? > > > > > >>>>> You'd better tell that to all of the people who live there, it may come as > > > > > >>>>> a surprise to them. > > > > > >>>> Like the esteemed Mr Winn Esq, London councils have no doubt whatsoever > > > > > >>>> about the existence of London. �At least, that is what they profess when > > > > > >>>> they send out council tax demands. > > > > > >>> Taxes.  Well, that is something that should convince some atheists. > > > > > >>> Taxes are something they will never deny. > > > > > >> Are taxes evidence that any gods exist?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Taxes are evidence that atheists exist. > > > > > > I'm sure that you believe that. Why should we? > > > > > > Who needs more evidence that atheists exist? Some supporting evidence > > > > > for gods would be of more intersest.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Well, we offered the Bible as evidence, and you said that it was all > > > > mythology. > > > > No, I think you'll find "we" said it was a book, and not what anyone > > > would call evidence. > > > > >Then we said, what about the parts that tell of Hezekiah's > > > > tunnel and the earthen ramp the Assyrian army built over the city wall > > > > when they took Lachish? Those can still be seen today. > > > > And we said so what?  What does that have to do with the other bits > > > you're claiming are true. > > > > > No, Harry > > > > Potter left from the train station in London to go to wizard's school, > > > > so the city of London does not exist. > > > > But I know a man from London.  He says that Harry Potter does not > > > > exist.  Atheists do not believe that I know a man from London. > > > > Tell me how a supporting evidence means anything to an atheist. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > And then you exhibited willful misinterpretation of everything anyone > > > said and proceeded to mumble on about fictional characters. > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I did not misrepresent anything any atheist said.  If they want to try > > to change a discussion about Hezekiah's tunnel into a discussion of > > Harry Potter, I will refer back to Harry Potter, but it was not my > > mistake. > > Robert B. Winn > > That's got to be the biggest lie so far.  Can you show us a single > instance in this thread of an atheist saying that every single thing > in the bible is false?  Or an atheist saying that there is no tunnel > aquaduct roughly where the bible says one was dug? > No, you can't.  Because no-one said it.  But you constantly claim that > you're arguing against people who claim so. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > Well, yes, one atheist did say the tunnel was a hoax perpetrated by Jerusalem tour guides. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2008 03:30 On Jun 30, 6:37 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:6b4ffde3-6dd2-42e1-ae8b-31dca39a4aee(a)f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > Robert B. Winn > > Please try an educate yourself and read up a little on the parasitical > nature of the cytoblast before you really make a fool of yourself. > Again. > > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) > B.A.A.W.A. > Convicted by Earthquack, > Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence > "I have a miraculous picture of Jesus - if you look really closely at the > face, you can see a burnt tortilla"- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Why would I want to read what some atheist says about a cytoblast? Robert B. Winn
From: BuddyThunder on 1 Jul 2008 03:31 Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) wrote: > On Jun 30, 5:20 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> Alex W. wrote: >>> "BuddyThunder" <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message >>> news:4867eccb$1(a)clear.net.nz... >>>> Alex W. wrote: >>>>> "BuddyThunder" <nos...(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! > > Um, I think he meant "Bingo". I could be wrong. > Pakeha could have any of hundreds of different derivations, and > considering the penchant for very long names shortened down to > simplified versions, it could have originally meant anything. For all > we know it's the Maori equivalent of Seppo. BAAAHAHAHA!! Damn, I'm a clown sometimes! You're right, I'm sure. Some people find it a mildly offensive term, but it seems to be gaining acceptance all the time. I'm proud to be a Pakeha! :-)
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2008 03:31
On Jun 30, 6:45 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 30, 5:21 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 7:43 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 27, 10:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:09 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 21, 4:17 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >>> On Jun 21, 4:14 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >>>>> On Jun 20, 3:40 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> On Jun 19, 12:06�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise..net.nz> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> <snip> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Well, what you are saying is that the Biblical account of the Assyrian > > > > > >>>>>>>>> invasion of Judea is fiction. �What part of it do you claim is > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fiction? �So far we have discussed the earthen ramp and Hezekiah's > > > > > >>>>>>>>> tunnel. �Are you still claiming that those are fiction? > > > > > >>>>>>>> You're still claiming London doesn't exist, huh? > > > > > >>>>>>>> I don't know either account, so really don't have an opinion. Have you > > > > > >>>>>>>> considered that maybe neither account is accurate? If pressed, I would > > > > > >>>>>>>> go with the explanation with the best evidential support. I don't have a > > > > > >>>>>>>> reason to decide at this point. > > > > > >>>>>>>> Happy to be agnostic on something! > > > > > >>>>>>> OK, well, my opinion is that unless an atheist has an opinion about > > > > > >>>>>>> Hezekiah's tunnel and the earthen ramp, it is a waste of time to try > > > > > >>>>>>> to discuss the Bible with that person. > > > > > >>>>>> Wow, why would you say that? It's a minor Biblical detail. > > > > > >>>>>> They exist, is that opinion enough?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > > >>>>> Well, any person who will not admit that someing exists which can be > > > > > >>>>> seen is not going to admit the existence of things which cannot be > > > > > >>>>> seen.  So conversation with atheists is totally unprofitable. > > > > > >>>> No-one *ever* denied their existence. If they did, then you have > > > > > >>>> consistently denied that London exists too. > > > > > >>>> All we demand is logical consistency. Would you like to talk about Harry > > > > > >>>> Potter again? ;-)- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > > >>> No reason to talk about Harry Potter.  There never was. > > > > > >> Then there was no reason to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel or earthern > > > > > >> ramps either. I agree with you. :-)- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > You said you wanted to talk about the Bible.  So now are you saying > > > > > > that you only want to discuss the parts of the Bible that you select? > > > > > > I don't remember saying that, maybe if you could point me to the post? I > > > > > don't remember selecting the topic of discussion either, you brought up > > > > > Hezekiah's tunnel and invading army ramps. Discuss what you like Robert, > > > > > we might even find some common ground!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Well, actions speak louder than words.  You do not want to discuss > > > > Hezekiah's tunnel.  You do not want to discuss the earthen ramp..  You > > > > will discuss certain verses of the Bible you can find fault with. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > What purpose would discussing sections of a book that people can find > > > agreement on? > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > That is what we do at church every Sunday.  Why don't you join us, Al? > > Robert B. Winn > > Because I have a brain that still works. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, it may seem that way to you. Robert B. Winn |