Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Steve O on 7 Jul 2008 12:00 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:57e16449-1aee-4fc5-9bf6-f16f8970ac2b(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Show me an atheist who wants to enter heaven, and I will answer your > questions. Otherwise, they are totally meaningless. It is like you > coming up to me on the street and saying, I do not like you, and I > will never enter your house, but I want to know everything you do. If > you do not want to enter, it is none of your business. > Robert B. Winn When you insist that your house is the only way a house should be, and that our house is somehow evil and wrong, and demand tax concessions on your house, and call at our house asking us to change it to look like your house, and tell ridiculous and impossible lies about how our house was built , and dictate what type of house our children should grow up in by using legislation, then it IS our business. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Alex W. on 7 Jul 2008 13:56 "Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> wrote in message news:6dea8sF24o00U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message > news:63ab3449-0326-4096-b227-97ef9eb25141(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 6, 5:02 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>> rbwinn wrote: >>> > On Jul 6, 11:04?am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>> >> Alex W. wrote: >>> >>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>> >>>news:b9d055c5-7a5b-4534-9703-63f1e75e9648(a)56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> Your spirit is made of spirit. ?You cannot transplant it. >>> >>> ======= >>> >>> There is always possession .... >>> >> And actually the one thing we do know about spirit, is that is i NOT >>> >> limited to an earthly body, so it can move independently of it if it >>> >> wants. >>> >>> >> So yet one more lie from robbo. >>> >>> > The spirit of a human being wants to stay in the body because that is >>> > the best place for it until the person dies. >>> >>> Where in the body is it housed? >> >> The entire body. >> Robert B. Winn > > It's in your pee pee too? "pee pee"? You've been hanging round your kid too long, Steve ....
From: The Natural Philosopher on 7 Jul 2008 14:49 Richard Meredith wrote: > In article <sba274h0m6sfce2dq2q7nqsrh2lca5pnva(a)4ax.com>, > lunch(a)nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote: > >> *From:* Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> >> *Date:* Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:24:39 -0500 >> >> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:25 +0100 (BST), richard(a)rmeredith.co.uk (Richard >> Meredith) wrote in alt.atheism: >> >>> In article <dv3v641nlblt9lrl26j45pnb5v085e8m9o(a)4ax.com>, >>> lunch(a)nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote: >>> >>>>> Atheists, theists - what's the difference? They're both equally >>>> dogmatic >>>>> that what they happen to believe is the one and only version of >> the >> truth, >>>>> despite a complete inability to prove it - or even put up a >> decent >> set of >>>>> repeatable and verifiable evidence that supports their position. >>>> What rubbish. Atheists say they don't believe in gods. The lack of >>>> evidence for gods is sufficient not to believe in them. It is not >>>> necessary for atheists to prove that gods do not exist to not >> believe >> in >>>> them. Do you believe in Thor because you cannot prove he does not >>>> exist? >>> I don't believe in Thor but that doesn't give me any authority to >> insist >>> on his nonexistence to someone who does: if someone does, or claims >> to, >>> that's their business and none of mine. The atheists who have the >> marked >>> similarity to theists are not those who happen not to share the >> beliefs >>> of the theists, but are content to let them believe whatever they >> want to, >>> but those who get in longwinded, dogmatic and frequently ill-tempered >>> arguments about who is right, despite neither side having any real >>> evidence either that they are right or that their opponent is wrong. >> Once again, you erroneously equate the lack of evidence that the >> theists >> have with the lack of evidence that those who reject the doctrine of >> the >> theists. They are not equivalent. In all analysis of whether A exists, >> it is appropriate and necessary to start with the assumption that A >> does >> not exist and find evidence to disprove it. You defend silly claims, >> the >> flakier the better, because there is no evidence that the silly claim >> is >> false. > > If a claim is silly then evidence will exist that it is silly. If no such > evidence exists there is no justification for describing it as silly. That is not true. Consider the claim that "somewhere in the universe, exist fluorescent green unicorns." No evidence that I know of exists to *either* support *or* refute that statement. > Your argument, Yoi argument, therefire is based o a false premise. > therefore, is one of defending prejudice, since you are > assuming that the position you are attacking is silly, without evidence > that it is anything of the sort. > Quite quite wring in that statement as well. The atheist positiopn is that the concept of god adds nothing to a logical analysis of the universe, and therefore is simply irrelevant. > There is an equal lack of evidence that the doctrines of theists and > strong atheists are correct; Atheist are adoctrinal. With no beleifs to support, there is no need of doctrine. >in the lack of such evidence there is no > justification for assuming that there is any fundamental difference in > the status of a viewpoint supported by faith. > The real difference beweena theist and an atheist, is the theist supports a position by faith, an atheist reduces his position to the minimum necessary to be consistent with observed facts, and still produce repeatble results from repeatable experiments. If every time an atheist dropped on his knees and prayed to God, a 104 DBa voice thundered from the heavens, there would be some evidence to support the theists position. In the absence of any such results, the atheist simply describes the whole concept as at best, irrelevant, since it adds nothing, and at worst, a completely false concept, that is manifestly not supported by any experiment you can try to prove it. Te thist simply has put the Bible and doctrine as a priori, the atheist puts his experience of the world first. Hence they arrive at totally different worldviews. The fact that they do suggests that one of these two a priori assumptions AT LEAST is flawed and incomplete, if not downright wrong. That is, a LITERAL interpretation of the bible is inconsistent with a rational worldview. I am very happy to modify tteh interpretation of the bible so that it does at least show no incompatibilities with a rational worldview, but neither the scienetists nor the theists will thank me for it. >
From: Linda Fox on 7 Jul 2008 17:42 On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:05:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a(a)b.c> wrote: >Free Lunch wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:52:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a(a)b.c> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >>> Actually 100% of Russia is technically in europe. 80% of the USSR was in >>> asia however. >> >> Russia will be unhappy to find out that they have lost Siberia. > >Siberia is no more Russia than Scotland is england. But it's part of the Russian Federation, aka Russia, isn't it? Linda ff (breaking once again my self-imposed "thou shalt not cross-post" commandment)
From: Linda Fox on 7 Jul 2008 17:44
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:52:04 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > >Well, I would not want to be relying on athiests if I ever got a >heatstrroke. You'd be relying on doctors. Many of whom are atheists. Linda ff |