Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Free Lunch on 18 Jul 2008 20:34 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:05:32 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Jul 18, 3:58�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: .... >> > Why don't you just take some time and decide for yourself? >> >> Why don't you address the point rather than simply issuing glib >> responses like the one above?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >There is no point that I can see. He is claiming that these four >books prove the Bible wrong in some way. >Robert B. Winn Reality shows us that the Bible is full of mistakes. Novels show us how the Bible is like other fiction.
From: rbwinn on 18 Jul 2008 21:02 On Jul 18, 5:34�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:05:32 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote in alt.atheism: > > >On Jul 18, 3:58�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > > ... > > >> > Why don't you just take some time and decide for yourself? > > >> Why don't you address the point rather than simply issuing glib > >> responses like the one above?- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >There is no point that I can see. �He is claiming that these four > >books prove the Bible wrong in some way. > >Robert B. Winn > > Reality shows us that the Bible is full of mistakes. Novels show us how > the Bible is like other fiction. So you are saying you read novels so that you can see the Bible is full of mistakes. I do not really believe that is why you read novels. Robert B. Winn
From: hhyapster on 18 Jul 2008 21:29 On Jul 18, 6:03 pm, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > Atheists are people who believe they are not accountable for their > > actions. > > Atheists are people who are particularly accountable for their actions. > Because they haven't a god's will to hide behind, they have no choice > but to accept responsibility. > > > They believe that the only thing that matters is if they get > > > away with some particular course of action. > > This rates along with "all blacks are criminal" and "all men are > rapists" in the list of irrational, blind, sweeping and completely > unjustified prejudicial blanket assertions. > > > They have themselves > > convinced that they have succeeded in killing millions of unborn > > children per year with no consequences. > > You've been dangling that bait for a long time - usually when you > realise you've totally lost an argument, and want to deflect it. OK, > I'll bite at last. > > In both the UK and USA, it's required that any woman who has requested > (note that word, requested) an abortion be counselled and made aware of > the physical, emotional and psychological consequences. Proceeding with > the abortion occurs only when the physicians are convinced that the > woman is capable of informed consent, has been fully informed, and has > consented, and that there are compelling medical grounds to perform the > procedure (which may include the psychological wellbeing of the woman). > > Given that a fair proportion of the women concerned (in the USA or the > UK) are Christian, yours is quite an amusing statement. > > Or maybe you believe that physicians performing abortions are all, every > single one of them, atheist? That would be even more amusing. > > What I'm about to say comes from the heart. I'm not saying it to needle you. > > You know, Christianity doesn't suit you, right now. You're too naive, > too gullible, too easily swayed. You parrot the preachings of your > pastor, without really thinking about them, and when they're challenged > with fact and logic, you deflect, or come out with some blanket > prejudice, to try to hide from yourself the fact that someone else might > have a point. > > I've seen that fervour in others. It's never once been a lifelong thing. > They become more and more emphatic in their statements, but it's to > suppress growing discomfort. By preaching more and harder, they hoped to > persuade _themselves_ out of their misgivings. In every case, every > single case, they failed, and had to step back from their religion and > reassess. Some returned to Christianity after their "time in the > desert", with a more worldly view, some decided that it really wasn't > for them after all. > > It's a painful process, more so because of the holes they dug for > themselves with every self-delivered sermon, but every one of them was > better for it, a more whole human being. > > Perhaps you should take ten years out, take the chance to mature and > really understand both yourself and the whole spread of world religions, > and maybe come back to Christianity when you can view it with a more > impartial eye. > > After all you've posted here, there's no possible way that you can say, > "TLA, you're right." You have left yourself little choice but to rebut, > or to ignore, these comments, and I will expect nothing less. You've > backed yourself into that corner. > > Think about it, though. More-or-less every saint in Christian history, > and even Jesus himself, has had at some point to stop and reexamine > their faith, maybe even abandon it for a while in order to understand it > better, so you're in good company. > > Someone I deeply respect once said, "The journey of a thousand miles > starts with a single step." I promise you, that step is not into an abyss. > > TLA Fine piece of advise. However, I doubt rbwinn will go for it. He first of all has no capability to understand, and secondly has a mental problem. He doesn't understand that a god is a human "invention" and that the Jesus/god thing never ever appear in this world. The Jesus he is worshiping was a past human, died +2000 years ago.
From: Antares 531 on 18 Jul 2008 21:32 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:29:04 -0700 (PDT), hhyapster(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Jul 18, 6:03 pm, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: (snip) >> >> Someone I deeply respect once said, "The journey of a thousand miles >> starts with a single step." I promise you, that step is not into an abyss. >> >> TLA > >Fine piece of advise. >However, I doubt rbwinn will go for it. >He first of all has no capability to understand, and secondly has a >mental problem. >He doesn't understand that a god is a human "invention" and that the >Jesus/god thing never ever appear in this world. The Jesus he is >worshiping was a past human, died +2000 years ago. > Objective is not spiritual and spiritual is not objective. Enough said.
From: Free Lunch on 18 Jul 2008 21:34
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:02:19 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Jul 18, 5:34?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:05:32 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >On Jul 18, 3:58?pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> >> rbwinn wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> > Why don't you just take some time and decide for yourself? >> >> >> Why don't you address the point rather than simply issuing glib >> >> responses like the one above?- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> >There is no point that I can see. ?He is claiming that these four >> >books prove the Bible wrong in some way. >> >Robert B. Winn >> >> Reality shows us that the Bible is full of mistakes. Novels show us how >> the Bible is like other fiction. > >So you are saying you read novels so that you can see the Bible is >full of mistakes. I do not really believe that is why you read >novels. You know I did not say that. Why do you insist on being dishonest and acting stupid? What does it benefit you to make your religion a laughingstock? |