Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jul 2008 03:11 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 20, 9:59�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:85ce5d7c-67c2-4090-8fd1-14d9b48f203d(a)34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> �There are only two commandments in the Law of Christ: >> Love the Lord thy God, Love thy neighbor as thyself. >> >> ======== >> >> Sorry, but I draw the line at giving my neighbour hand jobs. >> (as he will no doubt be relieved to hear). > > Anyone who engages in homosexuality does not love the other person, > since he is contributing to that person's damnation. No evidence backs up this silly claim. Why don't you take it up with Einstein when he returns, that idea has nothing to do with me.
From: rbwinn on 21 Jul 2008 03:40 On Jul 20, 2:55�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 20, 10:10 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> > > >>> I am fairly certain they would not love me even if I tried to conform > >>> to their demands. > >> I don't love you because you're an idiot. > > > So what would you like to see happen to idiots? > > To be laughed at. �:-) > That seems like sort of a cruel thing to want. Do you feel the same way about all mentally handicapped people? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 21 Jul 2008 03:44 On Jul 20, 6:40�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:10:15 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Why would an "atheistic court system" reward someone who claimed to believe > >> >> >> >> in gods, skippy? > > >> >> >> > Lawyers reward anyone who adds to their power and financial security. > > >> >> >> You've got a whole "reward" thing going on at the moment, why is that?- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >I do not have anything going at the present time. ?Lawyers were the > >> >> >people who started "plea bargaining" and did away with the right to > >> >> >trial by jury. > > >> >> That's odd, because my boss was just on a jury trial last month. I > >> >> guess that makes you a liar again, doesn't it?- Hide quoted text - > > >> >No, it does not. ?The right to trial by jury no longer exists. ? > > >> <snip> > > >> The rest of your psychobabble wasn't even worth reading, particularly > >> when you start with such an idiotic comment. > > >> I guess that old saying is right - A person who acts as their own > >> lawyer has an idiot for a client.. > > >Well, you Europeans love lawyers. �I would never hire one under any > >circumstances. > > What in tarnation ever gave you the idea that I am from Europe!?!?- Hide quoted text - > All atheists have European values. The difference between European values and American values is that Europeans believe that people exist to serve governments. Americans believe that governments exist to serve people. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 21 Jul 2008 03:48 On Jul 20, 7:28 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > It had nothing to do with privacy. The purpose was to impose European legal interpretation on the United States. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 21 Jul 2008 03:51
On Jul 20, 7:54 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > 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? > Stalin was an atheist. His values and beliefs were much like yours are today. Robert B. Winn |