Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: DanielSan on 20 Jul 2008 22:27 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 20, 2:16�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> On Jul 19, 3:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 18, 5:32 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 17, 6:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> George W. Bush is completely irrelevant, as the next President of the >>>>>>> United States will be. �All major decisions are made by the atheistic >>>>>>> Supreme Court, which at the present time holds the position of >>>>>>> Judicial dictatorship in the United States. >>>>>> Religious affiliations of Supreme Court Justices: >>>>>> Roberts: Roman Catholic >>>>>> Stevens: Protestant >>>>>> Scalia: Roman Catholic >>>>>> Kennedy: Roman Catholic >>>>>> Souter: Episcopalian >>>>>> Thomas: Roman Catholic >>>>>> Breyer: Jewish >>>>>> Alito: Roman Catholic >>>>>> Ginsburg: Jewish >>>>>> The Supreme Court follows the Constitution of the United States of >>>>>> America, the federal law of the land. >>>>>> What were you saying again? >>>>>> -- >>>>> During my lifetime the Supreme Court has not made even one decision >>>>> that did not promote atheism. �It does not matter if they all claim to >>>>> be religious. �Actions speak louder than words. >>>> Perhaps you can name me one decision that "promoted atheism". >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Roe v. Wade >>> Robert B. Winn >> Roe v Wade was a decision made on the grounds of violation of >> privacy. �Not a theological argument anywhere. >> Any more? >> >> Al- Hide quoted text - > > Roe v. Wade was made on the grounds of atheism. What "grounds of atheism"? -- ****************************************************** * 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 * ******************************************************
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 20 Jul 2008 22:28 On Jul 21, 12:22 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2:16�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 3:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 5:32 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > On Jul 17, 6:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > >>>> -- > > > > >>> George W. Bush is completely irrelevant, as the next President of the > > > > >>> United States will be. �All major decisions are made by the atheistic > > > > >>> Supreme Court, which at the present time holds the position of > > > > >>> Judicial dictatorship in the United States. > > > > >> Religious affiliations of Supreme Court Justices: > > > > >> Roberts: Roman Catholic > > > > >> Stevens: Protestant > > > > >> Scalia: Roman Catholic > > > > >> Kennedy: Roman Catholic > > > > >> Souter: Episcopalian > > > > >> Thomas: Roman Catholic > > > > >> Breyer: Jewish > > > > >> Alito: Roman Catholic > > > > >> Ginsburg: Jewish > > > > > >> The Supreme Court follows the Constitution of the United States of > > > > >> America, the federal law of the land. > > > > > >> What were you saying again? > > > > > >> -- > > > > > During my lifetime the Supreme Court has not made even one decision > > > > > that did not promote atheism. �It does not matter if they all claim to > > > > > be religious. �Actions speak louder than words. > > > > > Perhaps you can name me one decision that "promoted atheism". > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Roe v. Wade > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > Roe v Wade was a decision made on the grounds of violation of > > privacy. �Not a theological argument anywhere. > > Any more? > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > Roe v. Wade was made on the grounds of atheism. > Robert B. Winn You might want to review some court transcripts of the case. It was based on a privacy issue. Saying otherwise doesn't make it any less true. Al
From: rbwinn on 20 Jul 2008 22:51 On Jul 20, 2:53 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 20, 10:00 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jul 20, 6:34�am, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:27:44 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> No, a couple of atheists have told me that. ?They said he was a > >>>>>>>>>>> Russian Orthodox and an alcoholic. > >>>>>>>>>>> He was an alcoholic. > >>>>>>>>>> So, you're making things up again. > >>>>>>>>>> Hint: He was not a Christian merely because an atheist claimed he was... > >>>>>>>>>> Hint #2: ?What school did Stalin go to in 1888? > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Stalin went to a Russian Orthodox seminary. ?He rejected what he was > >>>>>>>>> taught there and became a mass murderer. > >>>>>>>> Only partially true. Like I told you before, politicians, and in > >>>>>>>> particular tyrants, will say anything to gain or remain in power.. > >>>>>>> Well, Stalin did say he was an atheist. ?He told the truth about that. > >>>>>> He never openly admitted this. In fact, his religious beliefs were > >>>>>> pretty vague. What he hated was the concept of god as presented by the > >>>>>> ROC. He did, however, find a political use for the church when it > >>>>>> suited his purpose.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> That is quite a statement. �So you are saying that Stalin did not > >>>>> believe in the Communist Manifesto? > >>>> Tyrants will use or believe anything to maintain their control. He > >>>> probably found some parts useful, and ignored anything that > >>>> contradicted his personally ideologies...pretty much the same with you > >>>> and your bible...- Hide quoted text - > >>> Stalin tried to stamp out religion in the Soviet Union.  It is well > >>> documented. > >> And what's that got to do with atheism? > > > Stalin was a prominent atheist of his time who is claimed to have been > > a Christian by atheists of today. > > Don't change the subject.  What has what Stalin tried to do relevant to > atheism? > > -- So what is the matter? Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists. They will never turn into Christians no matter how many times you try to claim they were. Don't you atheists ever take responsibility for anything? Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 20 Jul 2008 22:54 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 20, 2:53 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 20, 10:00 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 20, 6:34�am, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:27:44 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, a couple of atheists have told me that. ?They said he was a >>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian Orthodox and an alcoholic. >>>>>>>>>>>>> He was an alcoholic. >>>>>>>>>>>> So, you're making things up again. >>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: He was not a Christian merely because an atheist claimed he was... >>>>>>>>>>>> Hint #2: ?What school did Stalin go to in 1888? >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Stalin went to a Russian Orthodox seminary. ?He rejected what he was >>>>>>>>>>> taught there and became a mass murderer. >>>>>>>>>> Only partially true. Like I told you before, politicians, and in >>>>>>>>>> particular tyrants, will say anything to gain or remain in power. >>>>>>>>> Well, Stalin did say he was an atheist. ?He told the truth about that. >>>>>>>> He never openly admitted this. In fact, his religious beliefs were >>>>>>>> pretty vague. What he hated was the concept of god as presented by the >>>>>>>> ROC. He did, however, find a political use for the church when it >>>>>>>> suited his purpose.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> That is quite a statement. �So you are saying that Stalin did not >>>>>>> believe in the Communist Manifesto? >>>>>> Tyrants will use or believe anything to maintain their control. He >>>>>> probably found some parts useful, and ignored anything that >>>>>> contradicted his personally ideologies...pretty much the same with you >>>>>> and your bible...- Hide quoted text - >>>>> Stalin tried to stamp out religion in the Soviet Union. It is well >>>>> documented. >>>> And what's that got to do with atheism? >>> Stalin was a prominent atheist of his time who is claimed to have been >>> a Christian by atheists of today. >> Don't change the subject. What has what Stalin tried to do relevant to >> atheism? >> >> -- > So what is the matter? Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists. They will > never turn into Christians no matter how many times you try to claim > they were. > Don't you atheists ever take responsibility for anything? Because what they did is irrelevant to me? Now, back onto the question you are REFUSING to answer: What has what Stalin tried to do ("tried to stamp out religion in the Soviet Union") relevant to atheism? -- ****************************************************** * 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 * ******************************************************
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 20 Jul 2008 23:50
On Jul 20, 9:37 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 10:53 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Jul 19, 10:11�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:9445436b-52c9-44e7-8b37-1a8008c43c98(a)25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > > >>> On Jul 18, 5:32 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > > >>>>> On Jul 17, 6:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Jul 17, 5:42 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> 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. > > >>>>>>>> They were also both men. So what? > > >>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>>>> Number of abortions in United States since George W. Bush's > > >>>>>>>> inauguration: Approximately 9 million > > >>>>>>>> George W. Bush's religious affiliation: Christian > > >>>>>>>> What were you saying again? > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> George W. Bush is completely irrelevant, as the next President of the > > >>>>>>> United States will be. All major decisions are made by the atheistic > > >>>>>>> Supreme Court, which at the present time holds the position of > > >>>>>>> Judicial dictatorship in the United States. > > >>>>>> Religious affiliations of Supreme Court Justices: > > >>>>>> Roberts: Roman Catholic > > >>>>>> Stevens: Protestant > > >>>>>> Scalia: Roman Catholic > > >>>>>> Kennedy: Roman Catholic > > >>>>>> Souter: Episcopalian > > >>>>>> Thomas: Roman Catholic > > >>>>>> Breyer: Jewish > > >>>>>> Alito: Roman Catholic > > >>>>>> Ginsburg: Jewish > > >>>>>> The Supreme Court follows the Constitution of the United States of > > >>>>>> America, the federal law of the land. > > >>>>>> What were you saying again? > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>> During my lifetime the Supreme Court has not made even one decision > > >>>>> that did not promote atheism. It does not matter if they all claim to > > >>>>> be religious. Actions speak louder than words. > > >>>> Perhaps you can name me one decision that "promoted atheism". > > >> <piggybacking here to respond to Winn> > > > >>> Roe v. Wade > > >> BZZT! �Roe v. Wade did not promote atheism. �Try again. > > > > Roe v. Wade accomplished one of the primary goals of atheism, > > > BZZT! There are no goals of atheism. Try again. > > > -- > > So you are saying that the atheistic rulers of China do not try to > control the population of China by limiting reproduction to one child > per couple? Now we have the same kind of government here in the > United States in which the atheistic members of the Supreme Court can > begin to limit reproduction in the United States. That is one reason > why atheists have begun to promote homosexuality. They see it as a > means of limiting and controlling population. > Robert B. Winn The marxist communist ideals that the Chinese rulers adhere to are particularly anti-religious due to organised religion's ability to organise people. Generally speaking, marxist governments don't really care whether people are theists or atheists, they care about alternative organisations having a say in the minds of their subjects. It's all about control of the population. Something communism tends to be very clumsy with. I don't expect you'll see the distinction, as it's not being preached to you by your pastor. And China doesn't limit reproduction. It has financial incentives in place to encourage single child families. Yes, they're somewhat draconian. But also, yes, something needed to be done. Al |