Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Free Lunch on 17 Aug 2008 23:24 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:22:07 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Aug 17, 7:47?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:40:26 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism: .... >> >You do not seem to realize that I am not a Catholic. ?Augustine was an >> >uninspired Catholic Church leader. >> >> I know that you adhere to a modern heresy. Your dismissal of Augustine >> reflects your intentional ignorance of history.- Hide quoted text - >> >Augustine is not going to save onyone, no matter how much atheists >like what he said. No one is going to save anyone. Saving is a doctrine that is completely without any evidence to show that it's true.
From: rbwinn on 18 Aug 2008 00:12 On Aug 17, 8:24�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:22:07 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote in alt.atheism: > > >On Aug 17, 7:47?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:40:26 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > ... > > >> >You do not seem to realize that I am not a Catholic. ?Augustine was an > >> >uninspired Catholic Church leader. > > >> I know that you adhere to a modern heresy. Your dismissal of Augustine > >> reflects your intentional ignorance of history.- Hide quoted text - > > >Augustine is not going to save onyone, no matter how much atheists > >like what he said. > > No one is going to save anyone. Saving is a doctrine that is completely > without any evidence to show that it's true. Well, prophets and apostles have testified otherwise. What you are saying is that the words of prophets and apostles cannot be accepted as evidence. So in your court system of atheistic evidence, only athests and scientists are allowed to testify. That may adhere to European rules of evidence, but here in the United States, a person may testify anything in court. For example, a witness in a murder trial was allowed to testify about certain religious beliefs because the prosecution was trying to show that the witness was not a credible witness. The opposite is often true. A witness is often allowed to testify about religious beliefs to show that their testimony is reliable. Robert B. Winn
From: Free Lunch on 18 Aug 2008 01:00 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:12:36 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Aug 17, 8:24?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:22:07 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >On Aug 17, 7:47?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:40:26 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> ... >> >> >> >You do not seem to realize that I am not a Catholic. ?Augustine was an >> >> >uninspired Catholic Church leader. >> >> >> I know that you adhere to a modern heresy. Your dismissal of Augustine >> >> reflects your intentional ignorance of history.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >Augustine is not going to save onyone, no matter how much atheists >> >like what he said. >> >> No one is going to save anyone. Saving is a doctrine that is completely >> without any evidence to show that it's true. > >Well, prophets and apostles have testified otherwise. No, they have not. That is just another lie you tell because you don't have any evidence to back up your incredibly stupid, anti-reality doctrines. >What you are >saying is that the words of prophets and apostles cannot be accepted >as evidence. For what use? >So in your court system of atheistic evidence, only athests and >scientists are allowed to testify. You are really a morally reprehensible fool. Can you ever answer someone's point without twisting it and then attacking what they did not say? >That may adhere to European rules of evidence, but here in the United >States, a person may testify anything in court. For example, a >witness in a murder trial was allowed to testify about certain >religious beliefs because the prosecution was trying to show that the >witness was not a credible witness. The opposite is often true. A >witness is often allowed to testify about religious beliefs to show >that their testimony is reliable. Time to take a vacation from you again. You really need to repent of the evil and lies that you spread here. Why do you post to alt.atheism? Do you like it when people see how immoral and corrupt you are?
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 18 Aug 2008 01:41 On Aug 18, 2:12 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 17, 8:24 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:22:07 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > wrote in alt.atheism: > > > >On Aug 17, 7:47?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:40:26 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > ... > > > >> >You do not seem to realize that I am not a Catholic. ?Augustine was an > > >> >uninspired Catholic Church leader. > > > >> I know that you adhere to a modern heresy. Your dismissal of Augustine > > >> reflects your intentional ignorance of history.- Hide quoted text - > > > >Augustine is not going to save onyone, no matter how much atheists > > >like what he said. > > > No one is going to save anyone. Saving is a doctrine that is completely > > without any evidence to show that it's true. > > Well, prophets and apostles have testified otherwise. What you are > saying is that the words of prophets and apostles cannot be accepted > as evidence. Well, yes. All testimony is heresay, until backed up with physical evidence. AND, these prophets and apostles are "interested parties", meaning they can't be trusted. > So in your court system of atheistic evidence, only athests and > scientists are allowed to testify. No, physical evidence that can be verified by independant sources is trustworthy, and disinterested heresay is mildly convincing when supported by other similar disinterested heresay. > That may adhere to European rules of evidence, but here in the United > States, a person may testify anything in court. For example, a > witness in a murder trial was allowed to testify about certain > religious beliefs because the prosecution was trying to show that the > witness was not a credible witness. The opposite is often true. A > witness is often allowed to testify about religious beliefs to show > that their testimony is reliable. Which would be a gross missinterpretation of "swearing on" religious texts. That system is merely a system for imparting a seriousness into the idea of being truthful during the proceedings. The godless equivalent is more honest and truthful. Al
From: rbwinn on 18 Aug 2008 02:11
On Aug 17, 10:41�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 18, 2:12 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 17, 8:24 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:22:07 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > >On Aug 17, 7:47?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:40:26 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > ... > > > > >> >You do not seem to realize that I am not a Catholic. ?Augustine was an > > > >> >uninspired Catholic Church leader. > > > > >> I know that you adhere to a modern heresy. Your dismissal of Augustine > > > >> reflects your intentional ignorance of history.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >Augustine is not going to save onyone, no matter how much atheists > > > >like what he said. > > > > No one is going to save anyone. Saving is a doctrine that is completely > > > without any evidence to show that it's true. > > > Well, prophets and apostles have testified otherwise. �What you are > > saying is that the words of prophets and apostles cannot be accepted > > as evidence. > > Well, yes. �All testimony is heresay, until backed up with physical > evidence. �AND, these prophets and apostles are "interested parties", > meaning they can't be trusted. > > > So in your court system of atheistic evidence, only athests and > > scientists are allowed to testify. > > No, physical evidence that can be verified by independant sources is > trustworthy, and disinterested heresay is mildly convincing when > supported by other similar disinterested heresay. > > > That may adhere to European rules of evidence, but here in the United > > States, a person may testify anything in court. �For example, a > > witness in a murder trial was allowed to testify about certain > > religious beliefs because the prosecution was trying to show that the > > witness was not a credible witness. �The opposite is often true.. �A > > witness is often allowed to testify about religious beliefs to show > > that their testimony is reliable. > > Which would be a gross missinterpretation of "swearing on" religious > texts. �That system is merely a system for imparting a seriousness > into the idea of being truthful during the proceedings. �The godless > equivalent is more honest and truthful. > > Al- Hide quoted text - Well, atheists have no incentive to tell the truth. It is not a sin for an atheist to lie according to atheists. With atheists, it is just whatever what works in achieving the atheistic agenda. A lie is just as good as truth to an atheist if it appears to work. Robert B. Winn |