Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Steve O on 23 Jul 2008 08:55 "Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:6eoj11F84lquU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> wrote in message > news:6eoea6F8252cU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >> "Smiler" <Smiler(a)Joe.King.com> wrote in message >> news:OHkgk.12698$PQ1.4126(a)newsfe28.ams2... >>> >>> <hhyapster(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:fcd3a721-d2af-452a-aa4e-de7a07c129b7(a)x36g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Jul 17, 6:32 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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 >>>> >>>> I believe all of us here should encourage him to see a real doctor who >>>> is capable to repair his brain. The doctors in V.A. Hospital either do >>>> not do a good job or they are as fed up with him as we are. >>>> Instead of describing his condition, I believe he might be talking >>>> nonsense to the doctor. >>> >>> Exactly as he does to us. No change there, then. >>> >> It's more than likely that Robbie exists on the fringes of the mental >> health service, not quite crazy enough to be sectioned and sane enough to >> live in society. >> There are plenty of people like him. >> I quite often have to deal with the mentally ill, and it constantly >> surprises me how ill they have to be before the hospitals will take them >> in. > > ... usually only after they have sliced and diced some passer-by .... > :-( > Not really, Alex. More often than not, they're trying to harm themselves. But like you say, sometimes they damage someone else, or at least try to. Fortunately, that's rare, but it's usually the ones we get to hear about on the news which are the most alarming. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: BuddyThunder on 23 Jul 2008 15:56 Alex W. wrote: > "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message > news:48864044$1(a)clear.net.nz... > > >> There is no sin. It's a silly idea that you haven't been able to back up >> at all. I just believe that people should be free to go about their lives >> free of inexplicable religious bigotry. If you don't think you fall into >> that category, then explain yourself. Otherwise worry about your own >> failings before the perceived ones of others. > > Sorry, mate, you're wrong on this one. > There is sin. > Sin is an infraction of the moral code; it is a social construct. I disagree. Some people would see me as sinful, I would just go with immoral when I fall short of my own values.
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 23 Jul 2008 21:32 On Jul 24, 5:56 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Alex W. wrote: > > "BuddyThunder" <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message > >news:48864044$1(a)clear.net.nz... > > >> There is no sin. It's a silly idea that you haven't been able to back up > >> at all. I just believe that people should be free to go about their lives > >> free of inexplicable religious bigotry. If you don't think you fall into > >> that category, then explain yourself. Otherwise worry about your own > >> failings before the perceived ones of others. > > > Sorry, mate, you're wrong on this one. > > There is sin. > > Sin is an infraction of the moral code; it is a social construct. > > I disagree. Some people would see me as sinful, I would just go with > immoral when I fall short of my own values. Which would gel with sin being the social construct. It's a loaded word though. Everyone has their own meaning and inferences, so I suggest we use other more concise words. Al
From: pbamvv on 24 Jul 2008 12:15 On 22 jul, 05:58, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 7:45 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 11:52�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:eb8a53af-5a7c-4f8d-b8ce-3b4ee0c36918(a)a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.... > > > >>>> The Winn has a mental problem and there is no point to talk reason > > >>>> with him....we have to wait for the medicine to be invented before a > > >>>> mental disease get cured. > > >>> In other words, you do not like to talk about religion, and you want > > >>> to prevent discussion of religion. > > >>> Robert B. Winn > > >> Nonsense. > > >> We love talking about religion. > > >> In fact, we're probably experts on the subject. > > >> Most of us have taken the time to find out as much as possible about it. > > >> It's part of the reason why we're atheists. > > > > So you were just pretending to be ignorant about religion? > > > Sorry, where have we claimed that we were ignorant of religion? > > > -- > > Well, it is not what you claim, it is what you are that counts. > Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - On a forum like this Robert, we know little about what somebody is. Actually we only know what people say. We know now, supposing you are not deceitfull, that you are under the illusion that atheists are ignorant about religion. You should know by now that atheists are not. Could it be that you are misinterpreting Agnosticism? Agnostics claim to have no knowledge about God. With that they do not mean they are ignorant about religion. Most Agnostics are very well informed about religion. However they maintain that it is not possible to proof any religious claim, and therefoer real knowledge about dieties is still lacking. Informing them about what you think is true, won't help. They will simply claim that there is no way to verify what you say objectively. Sometimes it is possible to falsify religious claims, but if the theist claims his God has been tempering with the evidence, as to make it seem that the religious claims are false. There is of course no way to disproof that. Thus Agnostics will politity say, that they do not know (for sure). Weak Atheist will be so honest to say that they do not really believe you and Strong Atheists (like me) will say that based on probability they have indeed ample reason to believe that there is no God. All will say that regardless of wether they have more religious information than you have or less. They know most They believe almost none. Love, Peter van Velzen (Strong) Atheist#1107 July 2008 Amstelveen The Netherlands
From: BURT on 26 Jul 2008 23:56
"I want to know how God created this universe. I want to know His thoughts. All the rest are just details." Albert Einstein |