Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: DanielSan on 7 Aug 2008 08:09 rbwinn wrote: > On 6 Aug, 22:55, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On 6 Aug, 20:29, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On 6 Aug, 17:13, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>> On Aug 6, 11:37 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Aug 6, 1:49 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Aug 6, 4:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 7:29 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>>>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 6, 12:05 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 10:38 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 8:52 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 3, 10:54 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 3, 6:16 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 11:57 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that Al campaigned for abortion. Are you going to provide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. Ask Al if he is in favor of right to life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does that have to do with whether I've campaigned for legal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abortions? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I am certainly sorry if I have misjudged you, Al. I think you >>>>>>>>>>>>> are pro-abortion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>> That is because you are pidgeon-holing people based on misinformation >>>>>>>>>>>> from your church. >>>>>>>>>>>> I am neither pro- nor anti- abortion. I think it's something for women >>>>>>>>>>>> to decide on. It doesn't directly effect me, and I think it >>>>>>>>>>>> presumptuous for men to have a say. Not an opinion, but a say. >>>>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>> So you are pro-abortion. >>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>> No. I'm pro letting women make their own minds up. If asked, I would >>>>>>>>>> warn against it. But I'm not arrogant enough to tell women what to >>>>>>>>>> do. >>>>>>>>>> Just because you think the state should control women's bodies does >>>>>>>>>> not mean that my position that I (and the state) should have no say in >>>>>>>>>> it, is in any way pro-abortion. >>>>>>>>>> So you're pro-death then? >>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>> Pro-life. >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>> OK, I'll rephrase that. >>>>>>>> You're anti-woman. >>>>>>> What makes you think I am anti-woman? >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>> What makes you think I'm pro-abortion? >>>>>> I have this idea of you in my head, and it said you were anti-woman. >>>>>> That's all I need to make up my mind aparently. >>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>> Abortion has been an atheistic agenda for centuries. >>>> Is that why most people getting abortions are Christian? >>>>> Atheists claim >>>>> that abortion is necessary in order to control the population of the >>>>> earth. >>>> Even though the population does need to be controlled, I don't remember >>>> any atheist saying that abortion is the only way to do it. >>> So in addition to Josef Stalin, you now have the leaders of China as >>> devout Christians. >> Now you seek to lie about what I say. �Do you really want to converse on >> an adult level or are you going to snipe? �I don't have time, energy, or >> motivation to respond to snipes. >> > Well, maybe you just did not remember the leaders of China, but if you > had, you would have remembered that they are atheists and not devout > Christians. Well, maybe you just did not remember that I do not care. Why? Because it's not relevant. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: DanielSan on 7 Aug 2008 08:15 rbwinn wrote: > On 6 Aug, 22:57, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On 6 Aug, 20:53, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On 6 Aug, 17:46, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Aug 6, 3:33 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 6:45 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 10:01 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 3:54 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:147d2d46-ff33-4aac-b29a-7e24af243840(a)k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 all kinds of cases. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence in the monkey trial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All kinds if cases? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean, "one type of case"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, a lawyer can attempt to introduce any physical object as evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a court case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, will it be ACCEPTED as evidence? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep trying these clever games with your debating tactics. Clever, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to you. Lame and flimsy to everyone else. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not today. A judge today in the United States will not even allow the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution of the United States to be entered as evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>> Want me to demolish that claim, too? >>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and try. Show where one of these police state judges has >>>>>>>>>>> allowed the Constitution in police state court. >>>>>>>>>> So glad for your permission. >>>>>>>>>> United States v. Donald Fell >>>>>>>>>> Case summary: Is the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 unconstitutional >>>>>>>>>> as per the 8th Amendment?http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/usfell92402opn.pdf >>>>>>>>> This defendant was obviously given a trial by jury. This case does >>>>>>>>> not apply. >>>>>>>> This case most certainly applies. You asked for a case wherein the >>>>>>>> Constitution was used as evidence. The Constitution was used as >>>>>>>> evidence in this case. >>>>>>> If there was a jury, then police state justice was not imposed on the >>>>>>> defendant. You need to find another case. >>>>>> Sorry, bub. You moved the goalposts. I won't play your games. You lose. >>>>> I said police state court. A police state court has only a judge who >>>>> denies the right to trial by jury. >>>> For instance, what kind of cases? >>> Criminal prosecutions. �United States citizens are guaranteed the >>> right to trial by jury in all criminal prosecutions by the sixth >>> amendment. �Whenever a judge denies that right, it becomes a police >>> state court. >> Can you give me an example? �Give me a case. >> > Certainly. Police officers are unhappy with some individual, so they > arrest him on a false misdemeanor charge to harrass him. The > defendant appears in court and asks for trial by jury. Your right to > trial by jury is denied, says the police state judge. Bzzt! That's not how it happens. For misdemeanors, the judge asks if you want a "court trial" or a "jury trial"... but ONLY if you plead "not guilty". -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: rbwinn on 7 Aug 2008 08:39 On 7 Aug, 00:36, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 7, 1:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6 Aug, 17:15, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 6, 11:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 6, 1:50 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 6, 4:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 6:50 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > >>> On Aug 4, 10:10 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>> On Aug 4, 8:35 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Aug 4, 8:02 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> 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. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as > > > > > > > >>>>>>> evidence in the famous "monkey trial". > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Riobert B. Winn > > > > > > > >>>>>> A judge must be mad or loony if he were to allow for bible as > > > > > > > >>>>>> evidence. > > > > > > > >>>>>> You mean that ancient time recording can be the evidence for modern > > > > > > > >>>>>> time crime or cases? > > > > > > > >>>>>> This would also mean America is declining, at a rate faster than I > > > > > > > >>>>>> thought.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > >>>>> Well, it happened in 1934, or whenever it was. So we have that > > > > > > > >>>>> precedent in American jurisprudence. > > > > > > > >>>> In only one type of trial, if it happened at all. Your credibility is > > > > > > > >>>> nil at this point. > > > > > > > >>> Well, judges of today are very careful to make certain that only > > > > > > > >>> atheism is allowed in courtrooms. > > > > > > > >> You mean, they'll only allow secular evidence? > > > > > > > > >>> That does not mean that the Bible > > > > > > > >>> is not evidence. No matter how hard atheists try, they are unable to > > > > > > > >>> make the Bible disappear. That is why it is evidence. > > > > > > > >> Atheists are not trying to make the Bible disappear. > > > > > > > > >> It also isn't evidence, no matter hard you try to make it evidence. > > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > > > So you are saying that the Bible is like Hezekiah's tunnel, it does > > > > > > > > not exist. > > > > > > > > Um. No. > > > > > > > If the Bible exists, then it is evidence. So does it exist or not? > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > Yes, several of them exist. Several Harry Potter books exist too. > > > > > What was your point here anyway? > > > > > If you want to talk about Harry Potter books, we can talk about Harry > > > > Potter books, Al. Do you believe that Harry Potter is going to save > > > > you? > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > No. What makes you think I need saving? > > > I think the H Potter books draw heavily on pre-existing fairy tales to > > > create a mythology that feels vaguely right. Much like the bible drew > > > on pre-existing mythology to create it's own. A clear sign of fiction > > > is that it is derivative of prior fictions. > > > Well, so you feel comforted and secure when you read Harry Potter > > books. > > Robert B. Winn > > I'm sure lots of people do, but as I've pointed out before, I haven't > done any Harry Potter readings. �When I read that bible thing I mostly > get annoyed. > Is comfort your guide to what's true? �If so, you might want to stay > away from reading anything on modern physics. > > Al- Hide quoted text - Well, I do read comedy from time to time. However, the best thing to read is non-fiction like the Bible. Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 7 Aug 2008 08:40 rbwinn wrote: > On 7 Aug, 00:36, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> On Aug 7, 1:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 6 Aug, 17:15, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> On Aug 6, 11:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>> On Aug 6, 1:50 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>> On Aug 6, 4:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 6:50 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 10:10 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 8:35 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 8:02 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> 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. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence in the famous "monkey trial". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Riobert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A judge must be mad or loony if he were to allow for bible as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean that ancient time recording can be the evidence for modern >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time crime or cases? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would also mean America is declining, at a rate faster than I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it happened in 1934, or whenever it was. So we have that >>>>>>>>>>>>> precedent in American jurisprudence. >>>>>>>>>>>> In only one type of trial, if it happened at all. Your credibility is >>>>>>>>>>>> nil at this point. >>>>>>>>>>> Well, judges of today are very careful to make certain that only >>>>>>>>>>> atheism is allowed in courtrooms. >>>>>>>>>> You mean, they'll only allow secular evidence? >>>>>>>>>>> That does not mean that the Bible >>>>>>>>>>> is not evidence. No matter how hard atheists try, they are unable to >>>>>>>>>>> make the Bible disappear. That is why it is evidence. >>>>>>>>>> Atheists are not trying to make the Bible disappear. >>>>>>>>>> It also isn't evidence, no matter hard you try to make it evidence. >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the Bible is like Hezekiah's tunnel, it does >>>>>>>>> not exist. >>>>>>>> Um. No. >>>>>>> If the Bible exists, then it is evidence. So does it exist or not? >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>> Yes, several of them exist. Several Harry Potter books exist too. >>>>>> What was your point here anyway? >>>>> If you want to talk about Harry Potter books, we can talk about Harry >>>>> Potter books, Al. Do you believe that Harry Potter is going to save >>>>> you? >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>> No. What makes you think I need saving? >>>> I think the H Potter books draw heavily on pre-existing fairy tales to >>>> create a mythology that feels vaguely right. Much like the bible drew >>>> on pre-existing mythology to create it's own. A clear sign of fiction >>>> is that it is derivative of prior fictions. >>> Well, so you feel comforted and secure when you read Harry Potter >>> books. >>> Robert B. Winn >> I'm sure lots of people do, but as I've pointed out before, I haven't >> done any Harry Potter readings. �When I read that bible thing I mostly >> get annoyed. >> Is comfort your guide to what's true? �If so, you might want to stay >> away from reading anything on modern physics. >> >> Al- Hide quoted text - > > Well, I do read comedy from time to time. However, the best thing to > read is non-fiction like the Bible. ....and one wonders why you were institutionalized. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: rbwinn on 7 Aug 2008 09:08
On 7 Aug, 01:01, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 6, 9:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 6, 1:50 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 6, 4:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 5, 6:50 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >>> On Aug 4, 10:10 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >>>>> On Aug 4, 8:35 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> On Aug 4, 8:02 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> 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. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as > > > > > >>>>>>> evidence in the famous "monkey trial". > > > > > >>>>>>> Riobert B. Winn > > > > > >>>>>> A judge must be mad or loony if he were to allow for bible as > > > > > >>>>>> evidence. > > > > > >>>>>> You mean that ancient time recording can be the evidence for modern > > > > > >>>>>> time crime or cases? > > > > > >>>>>> This would also mean America is declining, at a rate faster than I > > > > > >>>>>> thought.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >>>>> Well, it happened in 1934, or whenever it was. So we have that > > > > > >>>>> precedent in American jurisprudence. > > > > > >>>> In only one type of trial, if it happened at all. Your credibility is > > > > > >>>> nil at this point. > > > > > >>> Well, judges of today are very careful to make certain that only > > > > > >>> atheism is allowed in courtrooms. > > > > > >> You mean, they'll only allow secular evidence? > > > > > > >>> That does not mean that the Bible > > > > > >>> is not evidence. No matter how hard atheists try, they are unable to > > > > > >>> make the Bible disappear. That is why it is evidence. > > > > > >> Atheists are not trying to make the Bible disappear. > > > > > > >> It also isn't evidence, no matter hard you try to make it evidence. > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > So you are saying that the Bible is like Hezekiah's tunnel, it does > > > > > > not exist. > > > > > > Um. No. > > > > > If the Bible exists, then it is evidence. So does it exist or not? > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > Yes, several of them exist. Several Harry Potter books exist too. > > > What was your point here anyway? > > > If you want to talk about Harry Potter books, we can talk about Harry > > Potter books, Al. �Do you believe that Harry Potter is going to save > > you? > > Robert B. Winn > > How idiotic. > And you think that the bible is going to save you? > Save you from your insanity?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The only way anyone is going to be saved is through the Atonement of Christ. That would include any atheists who change their minds about being saved. Robert B. Winn |