Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 18 Aug 2008 02:18 On Aug 18, 4:11 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > 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 Well, atheists are very honest in their motivations. We acknowledge a thing called society, which we prefer not to offend, as it tends to do things to people who annoy it. Whereas christians just do things wrong and "ask for forgiveness". Al
From: Steve O on 18 Aug 2008 03:35 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:5c0838b0-234a-413f-b0ca-b87bc4b011c5(a)e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > How does evil exist without an evil spirit from which it originates? > Robert B. Winn So you are saying that good does not exist? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Steve O on 18 Aug 2008 03:41 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:0d5b6148-cf70-4500-ae12-c17f2dcbe1ea(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> >> You seem to have a problem with understanding... words >> ...simple ones. >> Why is that? >> > You were the one claiming that a living person did not have a soul. > Why do you suppose one person is breathing, and one is not breathing? > Robert B. Winn So, you must think that only dead people can breathe, right? As that is clearly not the case, it is evidence that the scriptures are incorrect. This is further evidence for this in Genesis. A west facing garden is usually warmer. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Yap on 18 Aug 2008 04:12 Did you Jesus command you to lie? How much lie you need to spew in order to demonstrate your illness? rbwinn wrote: > 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
From: Alex W. on 18 Aug 2008 08:59
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:3e888bd6-08cb-40c4-a20b-69b645286751(a)m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... Sorry, but good cannot exist without God. ========== In other words, those who do not believe cannot be good persons doing good things. So an atheist donating his organs or volunteering in the soup kitchen is not, in fact, doing good, and there is no such thing as a good Buddhist Samaritan. Do I have this right? |