Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Smiler on 14 Jul 2008 23:41 "Antares 531" <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote in message news:k40o74pg4tkilt0j8mr1lnkibela0rrgcg(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:21:17 +0100, "Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Antares 531" <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote in message >>news:72in74drr47ktr9l98raqph18ep0s1h4cp(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:25:09 -0400, Brian E. Clark >>> <reply(a)newsgroup.only.please> wrote: >>> >>>>In article <4d2a74pf351she9f40vri1ku32c7s40a9j@ >>>>4ax.com>, Antares 531 said... >>>> >>>>> Fulfillment of prophecies is the most convincing "evidence" for the >>>>> reliability of the Bible, >>>> >>>>Most convincing of all are those prophecies written >>>>after the events they predict. >>>> >>> Bryan, I see your point, but I maintain that there are many Biblical >>> prophecies that were written LONG before they were fulfilled, and the >>> history/dating can not have been manipulated. Even if the dating of, >>> say the prophecies of Daniel can be argued a bit, it can't be >>> stretched to a date later than the time of Jesus's life. If you >>> haven't already done so, please visit this site and check some of >>> these items out. >> >>There is no need to "stretch" anything when you are dealing with a work of >>multiple authors writing over a millennium or two. You take it on trust, >>pure and simple. >> >>Moreover, those prophesies are really quite vague (part of their intrinsic >>nature). Any major religion has predictions about the appearance of a >>redeemer figure, about salvation and whatnot. You merely latched onto >>Jesus -- it might just as well have been Mohammed, Bab, Baha'u'llah or a >>host of others. >> > Alex, I've seen this rebuttal before but I've never had anyone point > out to me any list of successfully filled complex prophecies other > than those revealed in the Bible. Can you please direct me to a source > such as this one, but for some of the other major religions? > The writers of the fiction called the NT were fully aware of those 'prophesies' in the fiction called the OT. They made their jesus character match with those 'prophesies' to make him appear more believable. And you idiots still fall for it after 2000 years. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Smiler on 14 Jul 2008 23:45 "Linda Fox" <linda.ff(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:ij7k74tnobjq7cfjqsrfidvm8ito221c6i(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:44:39 +0100, "Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Smiler" <Smiler(a)Joe.King.com> wrote in message >>news:1Acek.15296$xs1.7418(a)newsfe28.ams2... >> >> >>> >>> Sorry, but we are all 'closed minded atheists' (whatever that is) here. >> >>You misheard. We're all clothes-minded. >> > Aah, knickers t'that, y'big girl's blouse. > Don't skirt round the subject, or was that just a slip? Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Smiler on 14 Jul 2008 23:50 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:848a8d5f-0b44-40d4-8d12-8a293bbbcf19(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... On Jul 13, 3:44?pm, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:03:40 -0700, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) > > wrote: > > > >Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > > > >> I'm not looking for converts. I'm simply posting my insights for the > > >> benefit of those who may be in the decision making process and want > > >> information other than that from a closed minded atheist. > > > >Oops, your prejudices are showing... > > > >And why should anyone give credence to your insights over those of us > > >"closed minded atheists"? You strike me as nothing but a run of the > > >mill > > >religionist, complete with the requisite disdain of atheism. Hardly a > > >glowing endorsement worthy of respect. > > > Are you suggesting that I should show about the same level of respect > > for atheists as you show for Christians? > > Here's the difference, Skippy. I reserve my scorn and mockery for > individuals like yourself, in response to specific claims you have made. > I don't disparage "closed minded religionists" as a group. That's being > prejudiced, which is why I accused you--not all closed minded > religionists. > > I also find it interesting when someone accuses atheists of being closed > minded, when in my experience (and I'm not a minority in this), atheists > generally are more opened minded, more educated, and more rational than > religionists. > > > I don't think I could do this without resorting to a lot of profanity > > and > > obscenity, and I really don't like using this in my > > communications...makes > > one look inadequate, insecure and unable to express one's self fluently. > > There's a difference between fluency and content. While you are fairly > fluent, the content of your claims are utterly preposterous. > > And quite frankly, profanity and obscenity (whatever they are) provide a > great deal of expressive power when used appropriately. Just listen to > any of the late great George Carlin's monologs. > > > I'm not by any means suggesting that anyone give my insights more > > credence than those of an atheist. I just want to make my insights > > available to those who are still assembling information to help them > > make a decision on this. ? > > Well, I have made a decision on this. The insights you offer are > nonsensical, puerile, and clearly derived from years of religious > indoctrination combined with some sort of bizarre pseudoscientific mumbo > jumbo. As I said, hardly a glowing endorsement worthy of any fuckin' > respect...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I don't think Gordon likes being called Skippy. ================================ We should care, why? ======================= Maybe you could use his correct name next time. ========================== When he shows some respect for us by not posting his stupid delusions to a.a. then we may show him some respect in return. The same applies to you, Skippy #2. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 14 Jul 2008 23:59 On Jul 15, 10:11 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 8:03�am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > Think about it, Smiler. �I am not going to go to alt.atheism. �I have > > > no interest in atheists. > > > That's why you post into alt.atheism, and engage with atheists in a > > thread that spans many thousands of posts? > > > TLA > > As I said, take sci.physics and sci.physics relativity out of the > header, and I will never see your posts. > Robert B. Winn Take alt.atheism out of your headers and we won't feel the need to point out your lies. Al
From: Smiler on 15 Jul 2008 00:04
<hhyapster(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6c5418f6-0944-4c98-82b4-dfc117a7451f(a)34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 14, 5:43 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:03:40 -0700, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) >> wrote: >> >> >Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: >> >> >> I'm not looking for converts. I'm simply posting my insights for the >> >> benefit of those who may be in the decision making process and want >> >> information other than that from a closed minded atheist. >> >> >Oops, your prejudices are showing... >> >> >And why should anyone give credence to your insights over those of us >> >"closed minded atheists"? You strike me as nothing but a run of the mill >> >religionist, complete with the requisite disdain of atheism. Hardly a >> >glowing endorsement worthy of respect. >> >> Are you suggesting that I should show about the same level of respect >> for atheists as you show for Christians? I don't think I could do this >> without resorting to a lot of profanity and obscenity, and I really >> don't like using this in my communications...makes one look >> inadequate, insecure and unable to express one's self fluently. >> >> I'm not by any means suggesting that anyone give my insights more >> credence than those of an atheist. I just want to make my insights >> available to those who are still assembling information to help them >> make a decision on this. Gordon > > And your "insight" is made up of bullshit. > You are trying to cover up all the great inadequacies of your bible, > with your invented words/explanations. It's called 'reading between the lines'. By reading between the lines in the bible they can find whatever explanation they believe will fit their argument. The next day, reading between the same lines gives them an entirely different explanation to fit a new argument. They can read into the bible *anything* they want to believe, even if it turns the actual words in the bible on their heads. How convenient for them? Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 |