Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 20 Jun 2008 18:14 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 20, 5:44�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:91aff9de-ef71-4690-8e27-742500d48b32(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> Well, you atheists have some strange ideas. �Your problem is that all >> you have is talk. �We have the Bible. >> >> ============= >> >> OK then, different tack. >> >> What do you have? >> What is the Bible? >> What makes up the Bible? >> Who decided what is and is not part of the Bible? >> Even if you believe, how can you TRUST a collection of documents that were >> transcribed from oral tradition, that have been edited, redacted, translated >> from previous translations, whose components were added or omitted according >> to pervailing theological fashion over several millennia? > > Well, in the church I belong to, we do it because we have further > revelation on the same subject. The golden plates?
From: BuddyThunder on 20 Jun 2008 18:16 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 18, 11:28 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 18, 3:59�pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:34�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>> Well, Al, we have the ideas of atheists living today , and we have the >>>>> writings of the apostles. >>>> I hate to break this to you, but there is not one apostle for which we have >>>> any writings. �None of the New Testament books (except for the Pauline >>>> epistles) have any names associated with them. �And in fact the earliest >>>> manuscripts did not have the names of the biblical books in them. �It is >>>> apparent that the titles were added by a second or third copier because the >>>> lettering is not in the hand of the first and oldest scribe. >>>>> Who should I believe? �This is really a >>>>> tough one. >>>> It isn't a tough one at all. �Your first statement is false. �So YOU are not >>>> to believed because you wallow in ignorance. >>>>> Well, I think I will believe the apostles. >>>> How will you do that? �They wrote nothing. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>> Let's see, Matthew was an apostle, John was an apostle, Peter was an >>> apostle, James was an apostle, Paul was an apostle, then there are >>> writings of some people who were just disciples. All of these people >>> seem more believable to me than you do Darrell. Maybe it is just your >>> attitude. >> What is your standard for assessment? You often say X "seems more >> reliable" than Y. You apparently distrust the honest inquiry of subject >> matter experts, so from that position of ignorance, how do you arrive at >> the correct alternative?- Hide quoted text - >> > Well, that does not really matter, as long as I get to the correct > alternative. At any rate, Darrell has quite a story to tell, but, > just like Harry Pottrer, none of it is true. That's my point, you've got no reliable way of evaluating which IS the correct alternative. Can you say how Darrell is wrong rather than simply issuing a denial?
From: BuddyThunder on 20 Jun 2008 18:18 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 19, 8:18 am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 18, 3:59�pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:34�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>> Well, Al, we have the ideas of atheists living today , and we have the >>>>> writings of the apostles. >>>> I hate to break this to you, but there is not one apostle for which we >>>> have any writings. �None of the New Testament books (except for the >>>> Pauline epistles) have any names associated with them. �And in fact the >>>> earliest manuscripts did not have the names of the biblical books in >>>> them. �It is apparent that the titles were added by a second or third >>>> copier because the lettering is not in the hand of the first and oldest >>>> scribe. >>>>> Who should I believe? �This is really a >>>>> tough one. >>>> It isn't a tough one at all. �Your first statement is false. �So YOU are >>>> not to believed because you wallow in ignorance. >>>>> Well, I think I will believe the apostles. >>>> How will you do that? �They wrote nothing. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>> Let's see, Matthew was an apostle, John was an apostle, Peter was an >>> apostle, James was an apostle, Paul was an apostle, >> Paul was not an apostle. He never met Joshua but rather made up his >> theology using Hellenistic philosophy from the Greek classics, Hebrew >> theology from the Old Testament, and epileptically induced hallucinations >> of imagined conversations with god the father. He even admits to that. In >> fact he goes further and says he learned nothing from any man. That means >> he never had any conversation with any apostle, nor any other human that >> either met the apostles or Joshua. It was not until he wrote a couple of >> epistles and was well into his ministry by several years that he met James >> and Peter. >> >> So far you have named four out of twelve apostles. That is a grade of 33 >> and 1/3 percent a solid 'F' if you were to give such sloppy results while >> attending seminary. Can't you open up a bible and type what you see about >> the named apostles? >> >>> then there are >>> writings of some people who were just disciples. >> What writings were those? We have no writings from any apostle nor any >> disciple concerning Joshua. As you have been told, and as you can find out >> by looking at perfect facsimiles of the earliest manuscripts and bibles, >> there were no names attached to the books of the New Testament until the >> second or third copyists. And none of the authors name themselves in the >> books themselves. >> >>> All of these people >>> seem more believable to me than you do Darrell. Maybe it is just your >>> attitude. >> Mine and the attitude of honest Christian scholars of higher biblical >> criticism. In fact prefaces in many versions of the bible say the same >> thing. >> >> But all you have is a knowledgeless opinion based solely on faith. >> >>> Robert B. Winn > Well, that bodes well for me. James says in his epistle, Without > faith it is impossible to please God. Okay. Faith is fine for you, but I can't follow you there. Lots of people have faith in many different religious beliefs. That doesn't show me which of them is correct, if any of them at all.
From: BuddyThunder on 20 Jun 2008 18:20 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 20, 3:15 am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 19, 8:34�am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 18, 3:54�pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>> Right now, just about every reader on these newsgroups is convinced you >>>> are nothing but a liar and cannot defend your absurd statements by >>>> providing evidence. >>>>> Well, I >>>>> could not remember Andrew and Thaddeus when I tried to think of them. >>>>> What do we do now? >>>> Read your bible and tell us the names of the twelve apostles (which you >>>> claim, not I). �Why are you avoiding answering this very easy question? >>>> �Is it because you actually know you cannot reliably number them even >>>> using the bible? �Is it because you actually know you cannot reliably >>>> name them even using the bible? >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>> Well, I have seen atheists gert worked up about this before. What >>> difference does it make to an atheist? I thought you did not believe >>> in the apostles. So why are you so worried about what their names >>> were? >>> Robert B. Winn >> Just to demonstrate that you are a liar and cannot name them. You are wrong >> about the number and wrong about the fact you can name them. Being an >> atheist has nothing to do about investigating the contents of a work of >> literature, fiction, that has been handed down through the millenia. I >> don't have to believe any events in The Lord of Rings to actually discuss >> the contents of the trilogy while at the same time I can challenge someone >> who might assert that Gandalf wore a robe of purple and pink where the >> story does not provide evidence of it. >> >> Using your logic, nobody would study any literature that was a work of >> fiction if they did not believe the contents were true and if they believed >> that evidence could not be provided to back up the stories. You do know >> that both private and public schools require studying the fictional stories >> of Shakesphere, don't you? >> >> -- > Yes, and I know atheists require study of Harry Potter. That does not > mean I think it is a good thing. What I do notice about the Bible is > that from what exists today, the Bible seems historically accurate, > whereas, some other accounts of history such as Sennacherib's account > of the Assyrian invasion of Judea seem inaccurate and self-serving. > Then we have the kind of atheistic ideas that you continually expound, > but have no proof are true. It is my opinion that anti-Christ agendas > are always based on false information. You're still denying that London exists, huh? Could you point to the evidence of a global flood? How about a young earth? The historicity of Moses? Is the Bible really historically accurate? You're probably not in a position to demand evidence.
From: BuddyThunder on 20 Jun 2008 18:22
rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 18, 6:23 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > wrote: >> Steve O wrote: >> >>> "asilentskeptic" <asilentskep...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:0cd8677a-e3af-4244-9680-0f635809616d(a)i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Jun 18, 12:14 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> news:c44cff96-90ef-45f4-badc-413fcf95321e(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Jun 17, 10:41�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>> news:f8121cc3-37c1-4561-b7cc-b6292578b7f1(a)34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>> All atheists I talk to indicate to me that if they do not have a >>>>>>>> written record of something, then it did not exist, and if the >>>>>>>> written >>>>>>>> record is the Bible, then it still did not exist. >>>>>>> Liar. >>>>>>> We have simply told you on many occasions that the magical events >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> supposed to have taken place in your Bible are uncorroborated by any >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> source. >>>>>>> Meanwhile, all you can do is bleat about ramps and conduits, which >>>>>>> offer >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> proof at all that the supposed magical events actually happened, or >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> main characters depicted in the book actually existed. >>>>>>> You are either incapable of listening, or unwilling to listen. >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> Hey, you atheists thought Harry Potter was going to make the tunnels >>>>>> and ramps disappear. >>>>> We did no such thing. >>>>> You simply offered that as a straw man argument to disguise your weak >>>>> position. >>>> I was going to keep up a discussion with the guy, but he either >>>> doesn't grasp what you are saying, misinterprets what you said, or >>>> goes off on some completely strange tangent that has no basis (or some >>>> strange mind-warping basis) in what he is replying to. Not worth the >>>> time or the effort. >>> I had him pegged as a Loki, but Loki atheists don't normally insult other >>> atheists directly while they're trying to make theists look stupid. >> He is definitely a theist, a Mormon in fact who has had mental problems >> (still does) and is now off his meds. >> >> -- > Well, I know a great deal more about it than you do. What you refer > to as meds is a drug called torazine which causes people to feel as > though they are smothering 24 hours a day. Atheists want laws passed > requiring that any person who will not accept atheism to be given this > drug or some similar tranquilizer. I was fortunate to have such > severe side effects from the drug that people in medical science after > observing that I could not walk for a few months would become > concerned and stop giving me the drug, not because they had any > concern for me, but because they were worried they might get sued for > malpractice. By that time I had learned to never discuss anything > with psychiatrists except malpractice lawyers. I am sorry for your illness, mental health should never be taken for granted. But why beat up that strawman demonisation of atheists, what has it done to you? |