Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 4 Aug 2008 08:03 On Aug 3, 8:57�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 3, 4:30 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Aug 3, 8:54 am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:50:37 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> The discussion was whether a pregnant woman has a child in her womb. > >>> You claimed she did not. > >> There is a fetus in the womb from 9 weeks from conception to birth. > >> Prior to 9 weeks, there isn't even a fetus. > > >> Did you parents ever teach you about the birds and the bees? (Hint: It > >> has nothing to do with avians or insects.) > > > I was taught from the time I was born that a pregnant woman has a > > child inside her. > > Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you were taught wrong. > > -- Well, that is about the most feeble-minded response I have ever seen. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 4 Aug 2008 08:13 On Aug 3, 9:31�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 2, 1:07 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 8:14 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > >news:f012c137-ec7a-4f41-acf8-81a047bcb82d(a)8g2000hse.googlegroups.com.... > > > > >> Smiler, > > > > I never go to alt.atheism. > > > > Idiot - you are never out of it. > > > Every time you hit that send button with alt.atheism in your headers, you go > > > there. > > > > All I am doing is responding to posts in > > > > > sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > And alt.atheism, cretin. > > > I don't care what is in the headers. �I have already told you how to > > avoid talking to me. �Just take sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity > > out of the header. �I never go to alt.atheism. > > Robert b. Winn > > The issue is really that some of us really object to lies. �And when > we see lies, we feel the need to publicly denounce them to the same > audience as they were originally disseminated to. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If you object to lies, then you should stop posting lies in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity. Lies are off topic in these newsgroups. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 4 Aug 2008 08:14 On Aug 3, 9:35�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 2, 4:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Robert B. Winn > > Yes you did. �You said I campaigned for abortion. �When asked about > it, you said Stalin and Mao created societies with a higher incidence > of abortion (with no cites), and suggested that this means I campaign > for abortions. �Your thinking is disjointed and unconnected to itself. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > Well, I am certainly sorry, Al. All you have to do to clear up the confusion is to say you are in favor of right to life. Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 4 Aug 2008 08:36 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:38�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Aug 3, 4:18 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> No, that's not evidence. That's a claim. >>> Well, you have to understand something about rules of evidence. �If >>> something exists, it can be entered into evidence. �The Bible >>> exists. >> This post exists. �This post says that unicorns exist. �Therefore, this >> post can be entered into evidence and unicorns must exist. �Right? >> >> Or is "unicorns exist" just a claim? > > No, it is evidence that you are not telling the truth. And your evidence that the Bible IS telling the truth? > >>> So what is your position, that the Bible does not exist, therefore it >>> cannot be entered into evidence? >>> This is the same tactic you have used from the beginning concerning >>> Hezekiah's tunnel. >> Um, no. �And you cannot prove that any atheist has ever said anything >> about Hezekiah's tunnel not existing, so you might as well give up that >> tripe. >> > One atheist a few years back said that Hezekiah's tunnel was a hoax > perpetrated by Jerusalem tour guides. Citation, please. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: DanielSan on 4 Aug 2008 08:37
rbwinn wrote: > 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. Citation. > It is now almost a requirement for participation in > politics. Is that why there are many politicians that are "anti-abortion"? -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * **************************************************** |