Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 18 Jul 2008 08:55 On Jul 18, 12:20 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 17, 12:59 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jul 16, 1:38�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:42:35 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Well, the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel was very remarkable. �But > >>>>>>> atheists do not like seeing remards about it. �Why is that? > >>>>>> I have nothing against the tunnel. No, what I dislike is your butchery > >>>>>> of logic.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> Well, choose for yourself what you like or dislike. �It means nothing > >>>>> to me. �If you or any other atheist decides to discuss the tunnel, > >>>>> come back and do it some time without trying to change the subject to > >>>>> Harry Potter. > >>>> Making a comparison between two pieces of literature is hardly > >>>> changing the subject. > >>> So you think the Bible is like a Harry Potter book.  What is the point > >>> of discussing it further with you then? > >> Can you not defend your beliefs? If the Bible is anything like you say > >> it is, there shouldn't be so much far removed from reality in there. > > >> Flying broomsticks are more believable than a global flood.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Well, I am sure that flying broomsticks are believable to atheists, > > but that is irrelevant.  The subject was the Bible, not sorcery or > > flying broomsticks.  Atheists always want to change the subject to > > Harry Potter in any discussion. > > It seems about as plausible. Now, about that flood?- Hide quoted text - > Well, flooding does seem possible. Ask some of the people in Cedar Rapids if they believe floods are possible. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 18 Jul 2008 08:57 On Jul 18, 12:29�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Smiler wrote: > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >news:ad020ec9-a457-4dae-818d-182301ce08ba(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.... > > On Jul 16, 12:01 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> 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.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > So you would only decide to kill someone if you were filled with > > murderous rage. �A lot of serial killers seem to be the same way. > > ==================================== > > Most of whom are 'beleivers' in one god or another. > > We've got one on trial over here at the moment. He shot a guy, then > tried to decapitate two women with a katana. Apparently God told him to > do it. Hopefully the jury disagrees.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Almost every murderer today says that because they know the atheistic court system will reward them for saying it. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 18 Jul 2008 08:58 On Jul 18, 12:30 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 17, 1:05 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jul 16, 12:02 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 15, 12:25 am, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> On Jul 15, 11:17 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 14, 3:36�pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi this is Conrad > >>>>>>>> To the three that did respond to my post, all I did is put the > >>>>>>>> evidence out there that the structure of the Universe is parallel to > >>>>>>>> and resembles the structure of the mind. I am confident enough to let > >>>>>>>> the evidence speak for itself and don't have to resort to childish > >>>>>>>> insults. Why some want to turn the Google dialogs into the goo goo > >>>>>>>> gaga childish dialogs I don't know but it is probably because of > >>>>>>>> frustration. > >>>>>>>> The evidence speaks for itself and anyone comparing objectively what > >>>>>>>> it says to what you say will see which is more correct. > >>>>>>>> I don't have to argue this point > >>>>>>>> Conrad > >>>>>>> Conrad, > >>>>>>>     Are you any good at math?  I am trying to figure out if the > >>>>>>> Lorentz equations predict a Doppler effect.  The result I keep getting > >>>>>>> is that the frequency and wavelength in the moving frame of reference > >>>>>>> are the same as the frequency and wavelegth in the frame of reference > >>>>>>> at rest. > >>>>>>> The reason I ask is because you said you had frequency figured into > >>>>>>> your equations. > >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>>>> No, he has the same level as you...high school standard and never > >>>>>> think straight, have lots of day dreaming, and always wishful > >>>>>> thinking. > >>>>>> But at least i cannot conclude if he is of the same mental problem as > >>>>>> you...- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> High school graduates are the most open minded people with regard to > >>>>> relativity of time. > >>>> Possibly because they have among the most limited grasps of the subject > >>>> matter.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> Well, scientists will promote equations they know cannot be right > >>> because they make a lot of money doing it.  The only thing that would > >>> change the situation would be other scientists with equations that > >>> agree more closely with experiment, which is not likely to happen as > >>> long as the government is appropriating billions of dollars every year > >>> for accellerators, colliders, and other projects relating to the > >>> Lorentz equations. > >> Yeah, a ton of money in scientific enquiry! All the scientists are > >> getting rich off our backs. If you have serious science to do, do it > >> seriously. Publish your results in the primary literature, and await > >> your Nobel prize. If you're a kook, just keep complaining on usenet. :-)- Hide quoted text - > > > I am doing it seriously.  What matters are the equations, not the > > money. > > Well okay, when you're published, let us know!- Hide quoted text - > When you have proven the equations wrong, let me know. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 18 Jul 2008 09:00 On Jul 18, 12:33 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 17, 1:08 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jul 17, 4:11 am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 15, 6:39�am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 14, 10:38 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> So are you admitting that you have sins? �This would be a first for an > >>>>>>>>> atheist. �All other atheists tell me that they do not have sins > >>>>>>>>> because whatever they do is not sin. > >>>>>>>> I have what YOU call sins. They aren't, because the concept is > >>>>>>>> meaningless. In absolute terms. > >>>>>>> Right. �Atheist Josef Stalin said the same thing when he killed 12 > >>>>>>> million people. > >>>>>> As opposed to Adolf Hitler ("I am now as before a Catholic and will > >>>>>> always remain so." - quoted in John Towland's biog). > >>>>>> Not to mention several Popes, who were happy to ordain the > >>>>>> indiscriminate massacres of Moslems in the name of the Cross. > >>>>>> Not to mention the Christian fundamentalist GWB (and his father), who > >>>>>> seems happy to go to war against the people of any Moslem country that > >>>>>> has the audacity not to kow-tow to his government's wishes. > >>>>>> There is no point in claiming that atheism breeds immorality, or that > >>>>>> Christianity is the cure, because there are so many counter-examples in > >>>>>> both cases that the only conclusion any sensible person can draw is that > >>>>>> some people are good, some people are bad, and anyone can be drawn to or > >>>>>> away from religion. > >>>>>> TLA > >>>>> So was this John Towland an atheist? > >>>> I have no idea, and it's not relevant anyway. He just wrote a biog of > >>>> Hitler. > >>>>> Anyway, Hitler was a politician saying what would make him popular > >>>>> with the German people.  His actions in his life show that he did not > >>>>> believe he would be punished for sins, much like atheists of today. > >>>> ...and any psychopath with temporal lobe epilepsy or schizophrenia who > >>>> believes that massacring groups or whole races is OK, because they've > >>>> God on their side. However, the point that you're trying to dodge, and > >>>> failing, is that as much evil is done in the name of religion, in this > >>>> case Christian religion, as is done by those with none - probably more. > >>>> If you don't find that an uncomfortable truth, you need to recalibrate > >>>> your humanity. > >>>> TLA- Hide quoted text - > >>> Well, I don't really see much evidence of it.  Stalin and Pol Pot were > >>> both atheists.  But politicians who killed large numbers of people > >>> cannot compare with the numbers of people killed by abortion, which > >>> was done by governments controlled by atheistic political factions. > >> Your vitriol against atheists is kinda cute in a psycho sort of way. > >> Where do I sign up for the genocides? I need to do my atheistic duty. Is > >> it the same place Mormons get their brains removed?- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > All you have to do is vote for your pro-abortion politicians.  That > > makes it pretty easy for homicidal people of today, doesn't it? > > However, my observation is that the blood of unborn children is not > > going to satisfy homicidal people forever.  Eventually, they are going > > to demand a more active role in homicide. > > Yeah, we'll start coming after the religious nuts! Woohoo!! *slaver* > *drooooool*- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The prophecy is that almost all people will be at war in the last days. Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 18 Jul 2008 09:21
rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 18, 12:20 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 17, 12:59 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 16, 1:38�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:42:35 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Well, the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel was very remarkable. �But >>>>>>>>> atheists do not like seeing remards about it. �Why is that? >>>>>>>> I have nothing against the tunnel. No, what I dislike is your butchery >>>>>>>> of logic.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> Well, choose for yourself what you like or dislike. �It means nothing >>>>>>> to me. �If you or any other atheist decides to discuss the tunnel, >>>>>>> come back and do it some time without trying to change the subject to >>>>>>> Harry Potter. >>>>>> Making a comparison between two pieces of literature is hardly >>>>>> changing the subject. >>>>> So you think the Bible is like a Harry Potter book. What is the point >>>>> of discussing it further with you then? >>>> Can you not defend your beliefs? If the Bible is anything like you say >>>> it is, there shouldn't be so much far removed from reality in there. >>>> Flying broomsticks are more believable than a global flood.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Well, I am sure that flying broomsticks are believable to atheists, >>> but that is irrelevant. The subject was the Bible, not sorcery or >>> flying broomsticks. Atheists always want to change the subject to >>> Harry Potter in any discussion. >> It seems about as plausible. Now, about that flood?- Hide quoted text - >> > > Well, flooding does seem possible. Ask some of the people in Cedar > Rapids if they believe floods are possible. No, BT wasn't talking about floods, he was talking about "that flood". You know, the global one. -- ****************************************************** * 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 * ****************************************************** |