Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: DanielSan on 7 Aug 2008 09:21 rbwinn wrote: > 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. Sorry, but I don't need to be "saved". I'm going to live my life to the fullest and then die. How about you? -- **************************************************** * 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 09:29 On 7 Aug, 01:39, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 7, 2:11 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 6, 9:51 am, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > ? 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? > > > > No more and no less than that Jesus character in your favorite science > > > fiction book. > > > So you believe that Harry Potter is sort of a Messiah for atheists. > > Robert B. Winn > > Looking at your this reply, we all know that your mental illness is > getting worse. > Can you check into Washington V.A. immediately?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No, I am in Arizona. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 7 Aug 2008 09:32 On 7 Aug, 01:40, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:206e5969-0e0b-40f3-8a11-4410f42d8955(a)34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. �So the > > arresting officer states his version of why the defendant was > > arrested. �The defendant must now prove that the police officer is > > lying to a judge who sent the police officer out in the first place to > > bring in people to pay fines to the court. �Without a jury, it > > accomplishes nothing in that court for the defendant to say anything > > unless he is going to appeal the case. �The case was decided before > > the defendant was ever arrested on false charges. > > Robert B. Winn > > The right for trial by jury is further codified by the Seventh Amendment. > Misdemeanors do not receive a jury trial- they are reserved for felonies and > certain civil cases only > > -- > Steve O Amendment 7 is referring to civil cases. Either party in a civil case can request trial by jury. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 7 Aug 2008 09:47 On 7 Aug, 02:08, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 7, 11:25 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> 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. �Atheists claim > > that abortion is necessary in order to control the population of the > > earth. > > Robert B. Winn > > You have no standing to talk about this subject, period.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Here in the United States we have the right to freedom of speech, unlike Europe where you live. Robert B. Winn
From: Ben Dolan on 7 Aug 2008 12:44
<hhyapster(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 7, 12:32 am, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > > > So you claim that anyone who questions Einstein's theory is insane? > > > > No, that's not what I claimed, child. > > > > There are many serious scientists who have spent years of their lives > > working hard to understand and expand the works of Einstein. Questioning > > is at the heart of the scientific method. Scientists question everything > > they and their colleagues do, that's how scientific knowledge is built. > > > > And then there are the idiots like you... > > > > With your incoherent gibberish, you scream for attention you have not > > earned and do not deserve. You have no real understanding of basic > > undergraduate physics, and yet insist you have made breakthroughs that > > the greatest minds in science (even Einstein!) have missed. Your > > "discovery" is always some error in the most elementary theory of > > physics, because of course, you can't possibly understand anything BUT > > the most elementary theory of physics. > > > > Instead of respect and admiration for your work, though, you get > > criticism and corrections. But you refuse to listen, you refuse to admit > > to any errors no matter how basic. You feel persecuted because you are > > upsetting "the establishment" who have a vested interest in "the status > > quo". And you never try to learn from your mistakes because you are > > unwilling or unable to admit that you have made any. > > > > And that is exactly what separates you from real scientists. > > > > So, is that insane? Let's see... > > > > Delusions of grandeur? Check. Refusal to confront reality? Check. > > Incoherent or irrational thought patterns? Check. Inability to perceive > > one's own self image? Check. > > > > Yup, that is insane. > > Hey, Ben. > You make a great mistake here by claiming what separates rbwinn from real > scientist. He is just a welder and you put him into a status of scientist? Well, no, I would never put him in that category. There's no question that he is no scientist. I did refer to him as an idiot, which IS a category he belongs to. (Perhaps it's unfair to categorize a mentally ill person that way, but then again, he could be mentally ill AND an idiot...) The "This American Life" episode I mentioned had someone very similar to Winn, a guy with a high school education, an electrician who believed he could prove that "E = mc squared" was false. He quit his job and spent a year polishing his "proof", and then was laughed at by every scientist who looked at it, having made breathtakingly simple mistakes such as not having the units in his equations agree (a mistake Bobby also makes). > With his high school standard, he can't even explain things clearly, let > alone understand physic formula. He copied the formula from somewhere and > posted it without explaining the basics and expecting others to follow. I know. It's painful to watch him try. I've read his posts for a couple years now, and he really has never understood the profound depths of his irrationality. > But I think we are partly to be blame....we catch hold of an insane > person by the road side and started to explain normal things to him. > He would turn around and claim we are insane. True enough. He really is a textbook case, which is what is so interesting. You don't often get an opportunity to engage people like this. I don't expect that what we say will ever get through to him, all indications are that he is beyond help. |