Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 4 Aug 2008 07:42 On Aug 3, 8:42�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 3, 4:18 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:56:05 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > >> in alt.atheism: > > >>> On Aug 3, 8:08?am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> ... > > >>>> Which does not make them "pro-abortion". > >>> I would definitely consider that to be pro abortion. > >> I consider you to be pro-dishonesty. > > >> Can you point to a single post that you made in which you did not make a > >> false claim. > > >> Keep making the LDS look bad, Mr. Winn. Keep making religion look bad. > > > Well, all you have is an accusation without any proof. > > And that's all you have. �Accusations that there are pro-abortion > candidates. > > > For my statement there is proof. �There have been between one and two > > million abortions per year for every year since 1973 in the United > > States. > > Which is irrelevant to the existence of pro-abortion candidates. > > -- Abortion was a felony punishable by imprisonment in almost all states until 1973. It is now almost a requirement for participation in politics. Robert B. Winn
From: Steve O on 4 Aug 2008 07:38 "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwhipp(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:71765950-dd75-4ef7-a7cf-8cc92e970099(a)u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 4, 1:50 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> On Aug 3, 4:29 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> > wrote >> > in alt.atheism: >> > The Bible still is not evidence. I asked for evidence.- Hide quoted >> > text - >> >> The Bible is accepted as evidence in court. So why don't you accept >> it as evidence? >> Robert B. Winn > > No it's not. > > Al That one statement- " The bible is accepted as evidence in court" - is all we need to understand that rbwinn is a very, very confused and uninformed person. Robbie, I just asked my nine year old, "What do they use a bible for in court?" and she gave the right answer, including a little detail about how witnesses place their hands on the bible before swearing on oath. So, even a nine year old understands that the bible is not used as evidence- but apparently, you don't.. Don't you feel a little embarrassed that you got it completely wrong? I wouldn't be able to show my face in here after making myself look THAT stupid. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: rbwinn on 4 Aug 2008 07:51 On Aug 3, 8:50�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 3, 4:22 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > > 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. > >>> So how did abortions in Russia reach an average of five per woman in > >>> the lifetime of Russian women? > >> I looked for this statistic and couldn't find it. Where did you come by > >> this figure? > > >> -- > > It was a statistic that Russians were very proud of before the > > collapse of Communism. �When there were western governments that > > prohibited abortion, Communists used this statistic to show how free > > Russian women were. � > > What does this have to do with Stalin's Russia and abortion therein? > > Do try to stay on topic. > > <snip irrelevancies> > When Stalin took over in Russia, abortion was unlawful in Russia, as it was in all European nations. By the time Stalin died, abortion was a requirement in the workers' paridise. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 4 Aug 2008 07:57 On Aug 3, 8:50�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 3, 4:25 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Aug 3, 8:21 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>> 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? > >>> Up until this election independent voters were allowed and able to > >>> register as candidates in the United States, although since 1800, the > >>> party controlled news media has never publicized anything except party > >>> candidates. > >>> Now in this election, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader is running as > >>> an independent candidate. However, Mr. Nader is not an independent > >>> voter. You would also discover that almost all independent candidates > >>> in the United States have not been independent voters. > >> How do you define "independent voters"? > > >> -- > > An independent voter is a voter who is not registered as a member of a > > political party. � Originally all voters in the United States were > > independent voters. > > How about a voter who is registered as an Independent? > > -- Major party operatives have registered an Independent Party in almost all states so that they can pretend to be confused when any person registers as an Independent. This has the effect of keeping independent voter registration under party control. Here in Arizona the parties made the mistake of putting a check box on the voter registration form marked None,(with regard to party preference), and within ten years Arizona had the highest rate of independent voter registration in the nation. The number of independent voters increased from about 2% to 25% before they took the option to register independent off of the voter registration form. I don't think you will see them do that again. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 4 Aug 2008 08:02
On Aug 3, 8:56�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 3, 4:29 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > >> in alt.atheism: > > >>> On Aug 3, 8:12?am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>> I have a Bible. ?There's no evidence in there to back up your claim. > >>> John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the > >>> week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for > >>> fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto > >>> them, Peace be unto you. > >>> John 21:9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of > >>> coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. > >>> 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now > >>> caught. > >>> 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great > >>> fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so > >>> many, yet was not the net broken. > >>> 12Jesus saith unto them Come and dine, And none of the disciples durst > >>> ask him , Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. > >>> 13 Jesus then cometh , and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish > >>> likewise. > >>> 14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his > >>> disciples, after that he was risen from the dead. > >> The Bible still is not evidence. I asked for evidence.- Hide quoted text - > > > The Bible is accepted as evidence in court. � > > For what kinds of cases? > For any kind of case. A lawyer can request that a Bible be entered as evidence in any court case. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as evidence in the famous "monkey trial". Riobert B. Winn |