Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2008 15:30 On Jul 1, 3:54 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1a876d56-96e3-42ee-9f7e-c2a9cc62f964(a)r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > >> - 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 > > Don't be so dumb. > Your argument is that there is a God. > > -- > Steve O I never argue, Steve. If you want to be an atheist, that is your privilege. I was just curious about what you were going to do after you die. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2008 15:31 On Jul 1, 3:58 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:12bd9c5a-fc7c-437c-862b-33e48b270a59(a)m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > > Why would I want to read what some atheist says about a cytoblast? > > Robert B. Winn > > What makes you think that only atheists have studied fetal development or > agree with the parasitical nature of the cytoblast? > Could it perhaps be your ignorance on the subject? > > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) > B.A.A.W.A. The cytoblast is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. That means it is not a parasite. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2008 15:36 On Jul 1, 8:57�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:331f3679-c6d3-4823-a60e-ab10d5db820e(a)2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com... > > Well, Adolph Eichmann felt much the same way about the final > solution. > > ========= > > Now that's definitely Godwin's Law ... Yes, Godwin's law is a rule made by atheists forbidding any reference to the Nazi Party. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2008 15:41 On Jul 1, 9:55 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1138ce05-69cb-453e-9b75-8f58b452581f(a)34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 11:59 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >>news:2cd82a5a-f445-4105-b500-b805f0662927(a)s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 30, 3:09�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:61174020-7051-443b-87a2- > >> >> > I have never seen an atheist who opposes abortion. �I believe that > >> >> > pro- > >> >> > life atheists are mythological. > >> >> > Robert B. Winn > > >> >> You've never seen one, but you have communicated with one. > >> >> I am an atheist who is opposed to abortion. > >> >> We are no longer mythological. > >> >> How do you reconcile that with your twisted worldview? > > >> > Well, to be honest, Steve, I do not believe you. > >> > Robert B. Winn > > >> My statement is supportable. > >> All you have to do is Google previous posts on abortion to see where I > >> stand > >> on the subject. > >> You can continue with your inaccurate belief if you wish to, but all it > >> serves to do is highlight your wilful ignorance and inability to > >> establish > >> facts. > > > Well, I don't think we need to do that.  Let's just examine the matter > > a little.  What do you think about this scripture?  Luke 2:5  To be > > taxed with Mary his espoused wife being great with child. > > Robert B. Winn > > It's a simple statement which refers to the supposed responsibility that the > Joseph character assumed when he took on a pregnant woman to be his wife. > Let's save ourselves a lot of time here- I'm already yards ahead of you. > You are going to point out that the bible refers to a pregnant woman as > having a "child" inside herm rather than a foetus, right, thereby asserting > the biblical opinion that according to God, a foetus is classified as a > human being? > Am I right? > If I am, I already have an answer for you. > Unless you were already aware, there are several parts of the bible which > indicate that any child under 1 month old was not considered to be a person. > According to the bible, a child under 1 month old is not counted as a person > and abortion is not murder. > To support that, I'll refer you to Numbers 3 ;15-16 and Exodus 21 ; 22-23.. > However, as I consider the bible to be little more than nonsense, I can > assure you that it is not the reason for my opposition to abortion. > > -- > 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, Steve, you do not seem very good at interpreting the Bible. Anyway, I think you opposition to abortion comes and goes according to the need for an atheist who says he is opposed to abortion. Robert B. Winn
From: Steve O on 1 Jul 2008 15:45
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:ef48d0b6-169e-48e8-899b-1b4eef574eb2(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > No, Paul was talking about evolution. That is where animals turn into > humans. See a fable is a story about an animal with human > characteristics. > Robert B. Winn Humans ARE a type of animal, classified as mammal, the last time I checked. Yet another subject you are completely ignorant about. -- 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" |