Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: DanielSan on 4 Aug 2008 08:38 rbwinn wrote: > 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, No, no, you have that backwards. When Stalin took over Russia, it was lawful. He criminalized it. > as > it was in all European nations. By the time Stalin died, abortion was > a requirement in the workers' paridise. Um, no. It was ILLEGAL when Stalin died. -- **************************************************** * 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 08:39 rbwinn wrote: > 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. You're paranoid, delusional, and laughably wrong. -- **************************************************** * 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 08:41 rbwinn wrote: > 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. LOL! Citation, please. > Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as > evidence in the famous "monkey trial". If a man killed someone else because of something he read in a Harry Potter book, the Harry Potter book would be entered as evidence in the trial. So what? > Riobert B. Winn What's your name, again? -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: Masked Avenger on 4 Aug 2008 08:58 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 1, 5:16�pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...(a)newsguy.org> wrote: >> In article <cca0c2fa-98aa-446b-b2fc-0c027ef0d...(a)59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >> rbwinn says... >> >> [snip] >> >>>> How do you 'KNOW' that ? There are plenty of Christians who baptize >>>> their babies ..... are you saying they won't get into heaven ? What >>>> 'special' knowledge do you possess that they don't ? >>>> -- >>> Modern revelation. >>> Robert B. Winn >> And this, of course, is where Winn demonstrates a thoroughly broken, >> unscientific epistemology. >> >> To demonstrate how broken it is, how thoroughly useless both for science and >> theology, one only has to consider: what answer can he have is someone else pops >> up and claims to have a "modern revelation" that infant baptism is not only >> good, but a commandment from God? >> >> All he can do is complain that this other person is not following revelation >> from God after all. But wait! Why should we not say the very same about Winn? >> Who is really going to win this contest? >> >> That is yet another reason why none of his crossposts belong in sci.physics. He >> should have posted to alt.atheism only, and amused himself by watching the >> rattled cages there. > > Well, I was discussing Einstein's theory of relativity until these > people came by. They are exactly like scientists in that respect. > They do not want to discuss the Galilean transformation equations. I > believe that the fastest way to get the subject back to relativity is > to answer all of their questions. > Robert B. Winn You're very good at evading the questions aren't you ...... I haven't seen someone so slippery in ages ...... do you EVER actually answer the question ? ..... or just continue to duck and weave ....... I wonder why it is only ever the Theists who refuse to give straight answers .......... and see nothing wrong with it ..... -- MA ....Yoiks .... and away ..... Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity .............. and I'm not sure about the Universe .......... - A. Einstein Does Schrödinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
From: Ben Dolan on 4 Aug 2008 11:00
DanielSan <danielsan(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>> Why? Do you think he doesn't know the Bible? > >>>> -- > >>> No, I don't think so. > >> I think he knows the Bible better than you do. > >> > > No, I don't think so. > > Well, that is about the most feeble-minded response I have ever seen. Exactly so. Just because the child grabs a few quotes out of context (which any imbecile can do), doesn't mean he has any clue about the history, the language, the interpretations (and misinterpretations), the controversies, or any other aspects of actually knowing the Bible. He's nothing but a trained monkey, like most religious idiots we see here. But he certainly is inexhaustible--the bulb that burns half as bright burns twice as long... |