Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: DanielSan on 3 Aug 2008 11:14 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 2, 8:54�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 23:40:30 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >> in alt.atheism: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 1, 8:29?am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 31, 8:56 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Why don't we just wait for him before judging them then? >>>>>>>>>> I happen to think that if anyone needs judging it is the liars and >>>>>>>>>> hypocrites. But you don't see me campaigning to remove their human >>>>>>>>>> rights. >>>>>>>>> Well, yes, I do. Like other atheists you campaign for abortion, >>>>>>>>> which removes the right to live of the people who are killed. >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>> Please show me evidence that I've campaigned for abortion. Because >>>>>>>> that's a flat out lie. And is that your best effort at demonising >>>>>>>> atheists? >>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> Atheists have caused more abortions than any other group of people. >>>>>> So, you can't show evidence where atheists (like Al) have campaigned for >>>>>> abortion. You have lied. >>>>>> -- >>>>> Josef Stalin was an atheist like Al. ?While Josef Stalin was dictator >>>>> of the Soviet Union, the number of abortions in Russia increased to >>>>> about five per woman. >>>>> In the People's Republic of China, women who have had one child are >>>>> required by the state to abort any children conceived after the first >>>>> child is born. >>>> So, you have lied. >>> No, I did not lie. >> You lie to us all the time. This was one such example.- Hide quoted text - >> > > So you are claiming that abortions in Russia did not increase while > Josef Stalin was dictator of that country. Stalin prohibited abortion and contraception. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: rbwinn on 3 Aug 2008 11:17 On Aug 3, 4:29�am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 2, 7:16 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > > >>>>> Most independent voters do not have the means to meet the requirements > >>>>> for ballot access that party politicians have imposed. > >>>> Most PEOPLE do not have the means to meet the requirements for ballot > >>>> access that the party politicians have imposed. > >>> Well, I am sure that you Europeans are very impressed by that, but we > >>> Americans would like to have our own system of elections in effect. > >>> Democrats and Republicans see the voters as their personal property > >>> the same way Nazi party members saw the people of Germany as their > >>> personal property before World War II. > >> I notice you TOTALLY ignored the demolition of your claim. > > > Well, you Party members do not like to be ignored, I know that much. > > Sorry, but I registered as an independent voter the first time i > > voted. > > So did I. �And your claim that Independent voters cannot run for office > was demolished. > Independent voters cannot run for public office. You said it yourself. As recent as the 1970's there were states where an independent voter could run for President of the United States with 24 nomination petition signatures. That is no longer true. Party politicians have passed laws in almost all states since that time putting candidacy for office out of the reach of independent voters. Unless a person running for office has a party faction behind him, he cannot meet the requirements to get on the ballot. Party politicians make certain that a person running for office has to solicit money and organize faction, making all candidates automatically part of the corruption of party politics. Until recently in American government this was not true. When the government first started, elections were conducted to include ordinary citizens. Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 3 Aug 2008 11:21 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 3, 4:29�am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Aug 2, 7:16 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> Most independent voters do not have the means to meet the requirements >>>>>>> for ballot access that party politicians have imposed. >>>>>> Most PEOPLE do not have the means to meet the requirements for ballot >>>>>> access that the party politicians have imposed. >>>>> Well, I am sure that you Europeans are very impressed by that, but we >>>>> Americans would like to have our own system of elections in effect. >>>>> Democrats and Republicans see the voters as their personal property >>>>> the same way Nazi party members saw the people of Germany as their >>>>> personal property before World War II. >>>> I notice you TOTALLY ignored the demolition of your claim. >>> Well, you Party members do not like to be ignored, I know that much. >>> Sorry, but I registered as an independent voter the first time i >>> voted. >> So did I. �And your claim that Independent voters cannot run for office >> was demolished. >> > Independent voters cannot run for public office. Then how did Bernie Sanders get into office? > You said it > yourself. Where? > As recent as the 1970's there were states where an > independent voter could run for President of the United States with 24 > nomination petition signatures. That is no longer true. Party > politicians have passed laws in almost all states since that time > putting candidacy for office out of the reach of independent voters. > Unless a person running for office has a party faction behind him, he > cannot meet the requirements to get on the ballot. Party politicians > make certain that a person running for office has to solicit money and > organize faction, making all candidates automatically part of the > corruption of party politics. Until recently in American government > this was not true. When the government first started, elections were > conducted to include ordinary citizens. Then why can I find evidence of Independents running for office throughout our nation's history...up to this election? -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: Free Lunch on 3 Aug 2008 11:54 On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:50:37 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Aug 2, 7:23?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: > >> >> >> The word in question is "egkuos". This word can be defined as: >> >> >> swelling inside, i.e. pregnant -- great with child. >> >> >> You are using "great with child" and assuming that's what the writer of >> >> Luke meant. Not sure how you get that, actually. Most people today >> >> would use the word "pregnant", not the phrase "great with child". >> >> > Well, what you are saying is that you believe that Luke was so feeble >> > minded that he would have believed there was something other than a >> > child in the womb of a pregnant woman. ? Nothing he wrote would >> > indicate that he was feeble minded. >> >> No, I'm not saying that at all. >> >Well, you absolutely are. You regard me as so stupid that you think >you can convince me that a pregnant woman does not have a child in her >womb. Why would you treat Luke any different? Once again, you misrepresent the discussion.
From: Free Lunch on 3 Aug 2008 12:09
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:04:16 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Aug 2, 8:53?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:08:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >> in alt.atheism: >> >> >On Aug 1, 2:30?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> >> rbwinn wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> > Discuss it with John after the resurrection. >> >> >> No proof of this alleged "resurrection", is there? >> >> >Well, actually there is. ?The apostles were witnesses of the >> >resurrected Christ on two separate occasions. >> >> No evidence backs up your claim. > >Well, I could send you a copy of the Bible if you want one. We've been over this you mindless fool. The Bible is not evidence in any way, shape or manner. I have read the Bible from cover to cover. Your claims just don't hold water. |