Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Alex W. on 22 Jun 2008 07:34 "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec(a)webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message news:485db4ed$0$3390$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... > Idiot. An atheist does not believe in gods, or demons or supernatural > forces. Witches and demons cannot be atheists. > Point of order: why should an atheist not be able to believe in ghosts, demons and things that go bump in the night? A non-belief in the existence of a god does not automatically include a denial of the supernatural per se, does it?
From: Alex W. on 22 Jun 2008 07:34 "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:485e3107$1(a)clear.net.nz... > I bet it's always Christmas in Londonland, and all the women look like > Angelina Jolie. I wish ....
From: Alex W. on 22 Jun 2008 07:36 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:4463e85c-8fa0-408f-b1d2-10bf1990091b(a)x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On Jun 21, 5:05?pm, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "BuddyThunder" <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message > > news:485d8115(a)clear.net.nz... > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > >> On Jun 21, 12:43?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:c5f85d3b-d62a-4cf8-925f-661796bd9082(a)t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >>> All public education in the United States is now atheistic. > > >>> ========== > > >>> IOW, it conforms to the law of the land. > > >> The law of the land guaranteed freedom of religion, right to trial by > >> jury, free and open elections, and many other things that do not exist > >> in the United States today. > > > You don't feel free to practice your religion? Weird. It's a VERY > > religious country. > > > Public education ?shouldn't teach people things that are not shown to be > > true. They shouldn't teach Christianity, Islam, Odinism OR Hinduism. Why > > is that wrong? > > He does not grasp that "freedom of religion" also means "freedom FROM > religion".- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, then they should not be teaching atheism, either, but we see no such restriction on that religion. ======== Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is no more and no less than living in freedom FROM religion. The term you may be groping for is "secularism". Google it.
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2008 10:56 On Jun 21, 5:23 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 20, 6:24�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >>news:b3f38615-2ef2-416d-b5c8-dd1b4b0c7a19(a)w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com.... > >> On Jun 20, 3:16 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > >> > rbwinn wrote: > >> > > On Jun 18, 11:28 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> > >> rbwinn wrote: > >> > >>> On Jun 18, 3:59?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > >> > >>> wrote: > >> > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >> > >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:34?pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > >> > >>>>> Well, Al, we have the ideas of atheists living today , and we > >> > >>>>> have the > >> > >>>>> writings of the apostles. > >> > >>>> I hate to break this to you, but there is not one apostle for > >> > >>>> which we have > >> > >>>> any writings. ?None of the New Testament books (except for the > >> > >>>> Pauline > >> > >>>> epistles) have any names associated with them. ?And in fact the > >> > >>>> earliest > >> > >>>> manuscripts did not have the names of the biblical books in them. > >> > >>>> ?It is > >> > >>>> apparent that the titles were added by a second or third copier > >> > >>>> because the > >> > >>>> lettering is not in the hand of the first and oldest scribe. > >> > >>>>> Who should I believe? ?This is really a > >> > >>>>> tough one. > >> > >>>> It isn't a tough one at all. ?Your first statement is false. ?So > >> > >>>> YOU are not > >> > >>>> to believed because you wallow in ignorance. > >> > >>>>> Well, I think I will believe the apostles. > >> > >>>> How will you do that? ?They wrote nothing. > >> > >>>>> Robert B. Winn > >> > >>> Let's see, Matthew was an apostle, John was an apostle, Peter was > >> > >>> an apostle, James was an apostle, Paul was an apostle, then there > >> > >>> are writings of some people who were just disciples. All of these > >> > >>> people seem more believable to me than you do Darrell. Maybe it is > >> > >>> just your attitude. > >> > >> What is your standard for assessment? You often say X "seems more > >> > >> reliable" than Y. You apparently distrust the honest inquiry of > >> > >> subject matter experts, so from that position of ignorance, how do > >> > >> you arrive at > >> > >> the correct alternative?- Hide quoted text - > > >> > > Well, that does not really matter, as long as I get to the correct > >> > > alternative. At any rate, Darrell has quite a story to tell, but, > >> > > just like Harry Pottrer, none of it is true. > > >> > That's my point, you've got no reliable way of evaluating which IS the > >> > correct alternative. > > >> > Can you say how Darrell is wrong rather than simply issuing a denial?- > >> > Hide quoted text - > > >> Darrell claims that there were no synagogues at the time of the life > >> of Christ. �According to him, the gospels had to have been written > >> after 200 A.D. because atheists of today have said that no synagogues > >> existed before that time. > >> It is easy to see that Darrell and his atheist authorities are wrong > >> about this because of the writings of Luke and Paul, who were > >> Christian missionaries sent to Asia Minor. �Whenever Luke and Paul > >> went to a city in Asia Minor where they had not been before they > >> always went to the Jewish synagogue. �So if there were no synagogues > >> at the time of Christ, why were there synagogues all over Asia Minor > >> just after he was crucified? > >> --------------------------------------------- > > >> Because the stories attributed to Luke and Paul were not written 'soon > >> after' your supposed jesus was supposed to have died. > >> They were written at least a hundred years after that supposed event. By > >> that time, there were synagogues all over Asia Minor. The writers didn't > >> know that the synagogues were a recent introduction. > > >> Your reply will, of course, be to either accuse me of lying or to change > >> the subject completely. > >> I expect no reasoned rebuttal from you. > > > Well, how did Jesus go to the synagogue at Nazareth and read from the > > Book of Isaiah?  I guess you never thought about that. > > Robert B. Winn > > Because the authors of that fiction had him do that.  It was because it was > not written by people who lived during the supposed lifetime of their hero > and did not live in the Palestine area.  By the time those stories were > written synagogues did exist.  But they were not written in the first > century CE and synagogues did not exist in the first century CE.  They > authors did not know that.  It is things like that which scholars use to > tell that the gospels are a late product, not an early product > contemporaneous with the supposed lifetime of Joshua the oiled one. > > -- Well, that only shows that scholars have an agenda and will manufacture any falsehood to try to achieve it. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2008 10:59
On Jun 21, 5:30�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:914a57c2-4339-4222-a734-ded3636e2882(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 20, 6:24?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >news:b3f38615-2ef2-416d-b5c8-dd1b4b0c7a19(a)w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > On Jun 20, 3:16 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Jun 18, 11:28 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > > >>> On Jun 18, 3:59?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:34?pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > >>>>> Well, Al, we have the ideas of atheists living today , and we have > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> writings of the apostles. > > > >>>> I hate to break this to you, but there is not one apostle for which > > > >>>> we have > > > >>>> any writings. ?None of the New Testament books (except for the > > > >>>> Pauline > > > >>>> epistles) have any names associated with them. ?And in fact the > > > >>>> earliest > > > >>>> manuscripts did not have the names of the biblical books in them.. > > > >>>> ?It > > > >>>> is > > > >>>> apparent that the titles were added by a second or third copier > > > >>>> because the > > > >>>> lettering is not in the hand of the first and oldest scribe. > > > >>>>> Who should I believe? ?This is really a > > > >>>>> tough one. > > > >>>> It isn't a tough one at all. ?Your first statement is false. ?So > > > >>>> YOU > > > >>>> are not > > > >>>> to believed because you wallow in ignorance. > > > >>>>> Well, I think I will believe the apostles. > > > >>>> How will you do that? ?They wrote nothing. > > > >>>>> Robert B. Winn > > > >>> Let's see, Matthew was an apostle, John was an apostle, Peter was an > > > >>> apostle, James was an apostle, Paul was an apostle, then there are > > > >>> writings of some people who were just disciples. All of these people > > > >>> seem more believable to me than you do Darrell. Maybe it is just > > > >>> your > > > >>> attitude. > > > >> What is your standard for assessment? You often say X "seems more > > > >> reliable" than Y. You apparently distrust the honest inquiry of > > > >> subject > > > >> matter experts, so from that position of ignorance, how do you arrive > > > >> at > > > >> the correct alternative?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > Well, that does not really matter, as long as I get to the correct > > > > alternative. At any rate, Darrell has quite a story to tell, but, > > > > just like Harry Pottrer, none of it is true. > > > > That's my point, you've got no reliable way of evaluating which IS the > > > correct alternative. > > > > Can you say how Darrell is wrong rather than simply issuing a denial?- > > > Hide quoted text - > > > Darrell claims that there were no synagogues at the time of the life > > of Christ. ?According to him, the gospels had to have been written > > after 200 A.D. because atheists of today have said that no synagogues > > existed before that time. > > It is easy to see that Darrell and his atheist authorities are wrong > > about this because of the writings of Luke and Paul, who were > > Christian missionaries sent to Asia Minor. ?Whenever Luke and Paul > > went to a city in Asia Minor where they had not been before they > > always went to the Jewish synagogue. ?So if there were no synagogues > > at the time of Christ, why were there synagogues all over Asia Minor > > just after he was crucified? > > --------------------------------------------- > > > Because the stories attributed to Luke and Paul were not written 'soon > > after' your supposed jesus was supposed to have died. > > They were written at least a hundred years after that supposed event. By > > that time, there were synagogues all over Asia Minor. The writers didn't > > know that the synagogues were a recent introduction. > > > Your reply will, of course, be to either accuse me of lying or to change > > the > > subject completely. > > I expect no reasoned rebuttal from you. > > Well, how did Jesus go to the synagogue at Nazareth and read from the > Book of Isaiah? �I guess you never thought about that. > ------------------------------------- > He didn't. Just as Harry Potter didn't leave from Platform 9 and 3/4 at > Kings Cross station to go to Hogwarts. > No, you are mistaken about that. The book of Luke says he did go to the synagogue and read from Isaiah. Well, it is nothing to argue about. Why don't you ask about it after the resurrection? Robert B. Winn |