Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Steve O on 16 Jul 2008 18:32 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:2c47d272-fec4-4636-bd37-2183f3f50f82(a)r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 15, 1:53 am, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> On Jul 15, 4:30 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> >> Probably very true of rbwinn. >> When he told us that he is a welder, I actually wrote some real advise >> for him to work hard and look forward towards a retirement, instead of >> wasting time in the church on Sundays. Sundays pay thrice as much. >> However, my email could not get through>> ] > > Welding is fairly easy compared to picking oranges. I should be able > to keep welding until I am about 97 years old. > Robert B. Winn Don't. People get drier and crispier as they get older. You are likely to catch fire if you keep welding until that age. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Steve O on 16 Jul 2008 19:23 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:df3e8e8b-d5b9-411f-8e21-b107c5eb038d(a)8g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > I think they are related also. Scientists and atheists have a >> > religion that believes in one miracle, length contraction. >> >> Aw, you go right on believing that. :-) > Well, thank you for your permission. Do you speak for all atheists or > just for yourself? > Robert B. Winn I think he's speaking for all atheists. You can believe what the hell you like. You can even believe there is a teapot in orbit around Jupiter if you really want to. Just don't expect us to believe you are not a loony if you do, and don't try to push your silly beliefs in our faces without expecting a reaction. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Steve O on 16 Jul 2008 19:29 "Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:6e66o8F5g81eU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message > news:487d9ce4(a)clear.net.nz... >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 14, 11:29 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 14, 8:01?am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> Only an atheist would want all choices made for >>>>>>> them. >>>>>> Now there was me thinking that that was the mark of a worshipper. It >>>>>> seems to me that atheists make their own choices, because they don't >>>>>> have decisions ready-dictated to them. >>>>> So you think it is a mistake to decide ahead of time not to commit >>>>> murder, not to steal, to attend church, not to commit adultery, etc. >>>> Why would you be so morally deficient so as to need to perform morning >>>> affirmations in order not to kill people? >>>> >>>> My moral decisions are made as the occasion demands it. Seems to work >>>> okay. >>> >>> So are you saying that for each person you encounter, you make a >>> decision to kill or not to kill? >>> Robert B. Winn >> >> No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I need not make that decision at >> all, because I'm not filled with murderous rage. >> >> As moral decisions need to be made, I make them according to my own >> values. > > Sort of yes, but not quite, IMO. > There is a level of decision-making which is sub-conscious much of the > time. You probably don't realise it at the time, but when you encounter > someone, there is a whole routine you go through, a checklist for > friend/foe, fight/flee, us/them, relative dominance. This does feed into > any moral decisions you make regarding that person, such as whether and > how much respect I accord the other person, or -- in a business setting -- > how honest I will be in my dealings with him. What HAVE you been reading lately, Alex? ;-) I only say this because it kind of rings a bell with me. -- 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 16 Jul 2008 20:10 "Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> wrote in message news:6e7ejdF5l4hbU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > "Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:6e66o8F5g81eU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message >> news:487d9ce4(a)clear.net.nz... >>> rbwinn wrote: >>>> On Jul 14, 11:29 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>> On Jul 14, 8:01?am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>> Only an atheist would want all choices made for >>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>> Now there was me thinking that that was the mark of a worshipper. It >>>>>>> seems to me that atheists make their own choices, because they don't >>>>>>> have decisions ready-dictated to them. >>>>>> So you think it is a mistake to decide ahead of time not to commit >>>>>> murder, not to steal, to attend church, not to commit adultery, etc. >>>>> Why would you be so morally deficient so as to need to perform morning >>>>> affirmations in order not to kill people? >>>>> >>>>> My moral decisions are made as the occasion demands it. Seems to work >>>>> okay. >>>> >>>> So are you saying that for each person you encounter, you make a >>>> decision to kill or not to kill? >>>> Robert B. Winn >>> >>> No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I need not make that decision at >>> all, because I'm not filled with murderous rage. >>> >>> As moral decisions need to be made, I make them according to my own >>> values. >> >> Sort of yes, but not quite, IMO. >> There is a level of decision-making which is sub-conscious much of the >> time. You probably don't realise it at the time, but when you encounter >> someone, there is a whole routine you go through, a checklist for >> friend/foe, fight/flee, us/them, relative dominance. This does feed into >> any moral decisions you make regarding that person, such as whether and >> how much respect I accord the other person, or -- in a business >> setting -- how honest I will be in my dealings with him. > > What HAVE you been reading lately, Alex? > ;-) > I only say this because it kind of rings a bell with me. It does? So Pavlov was right!! ;-)
From: DanielSan on 16 Jul 2008 21:06
rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 15, 5:24 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 14, 8:27 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 14, 5:12�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:44f19f98-4d96-4419-a87a-d6bdbd73f31b(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>> Their idea is that if Hezekiah's tunnel exists, then Harry Potter has >>>>>>>>> to be true because the train station in London is mentioned in Harry >>>>>>>>> Potter. >>>>>>>> Exactly. Since we know therefore that harry potter isn't true, the fact >>>>>>>> of hezekiahs tunnel means the bible is obviously false. Since we have >>>>>>>> true facts referred to in works of complete fiction. >>>>>>>> By your reasoning at least. >>>>>>> Well, you have it exactly as atheists have been telling me it is. >>>>>>> Don't ask me what it is supposed to mean. >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>> Here is an example of rbwinn's logic. >>>>>> Sheep are mentioned in the bible >>>>>> Sheep exist today >>>>>> The bible is accurate and there is a God >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Steve O >>>>> Well, no, Steve O. Here is an example. Atheists were claiming that >>>>> nothing existed on earth today that could prove anything in the >>>>> Bible. So I said, What about Hezekiah's tunnel? These atheists had >>>>> never heard of Hezekiah's tunnel. So after they looked it up, they >>>>> said, The fact that a tunnel exists no more proves the Bible to be >>>>> true than Harry Potter leaving from the train station in London to go >>>>> to wizard's school. >>>> The original assertion remains in force. Hezekiah's Tunnel does not >>>> prove anything. >>>>> I really believe that it certainly does prove certain verses in the >>>>> Old Testament to be true which describe the digging of Hezekiah's >>>>> tunnel. Otherwise, atheists need to explain why there is a tunnel >>>>> exactly where the Bible in three books of the Old Testament says a >>>>> tunnel was dug as a conduit for water. >>>> For the same reason that King's Cross Station exists. >>>> Wow, you REALLY aren't getting the analogy, are you? >>> There is nothing in the Book of 2 Chronicles about the construction of >>> King's Cross Station. >> Wow, you REALLY aren't getting the analogy, are you? >> >> -- > Well, if you can provide a description of the construction of Kings > Cross station from the time it was built, maybe we could compare it to > the Biblical account of the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel. .....I see. So, since the Harry Potter books do not detail the construction of King's Cross Station, it's not a correct analogy? Okay, fine. In one of the Harry Potter books, the head of the Ministry of Magic visits the new Prime Minister of England and informs him of the fight against the Dark Lord. Since this Harry Potter book describes the Prime Minister of England at the time that he got into office and, since it coincided with Tony Blair getting into office, that means that Harry Potter is true? -- ****************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *----------------------------------------------------* * "I distrust those people who know so well what God * * wants them to do because I notice it always * * coincides with their own desires." * * --Susan B. Anthony * ****************************************************** |