Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Steve O on 18 Aug 2008 19:28 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:ba94ba27-bb69-447d-8bc9-143705f4a605(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 18, 11:56�am, "Dan Drake" <d...(a)dandrake.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:11:24 UTC, 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, as long as we're going to go all Americocentric and talk about >> American law -- as somebody was a couple of postings above, apparently >> somebody called rbwinn if I count the arrows properly -- one needs to >> point out that the basic law of the United States of America takes an >> entirely different view. In two separate places it specifies that an >> official must swear an oath of office -- or *affirm* the same text. >> Affirming is what you do when you refuse to swear an oath, you know. It's >> legally binding, just as much as if you decided to defy the words of >> Jesus >> Christ by swearing in the name of God Almighty. (You have read the Sermon >> on the Mount, I presume?) >> >> An affirmation was good enough for Madison, Hamilton, Washington, and all >> those guys. Not to mention Franklin, who didn't even hate Muslims! But >> that's what you get when you let a bunch of 18th-century Enlightenment >> gentlemen overthrow the King and institute new Government, laying its >> foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as >> to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. >> >> (Sorry, I had a brief fit of patriotism there. Always happens when I >> think >> of that document.) >> >> Good thing we managed to fix all that and make it a religiously based >> country once those guys were safely dead. >> >> -- > Well, technically all countries are religiously based countries. The > earth on which all of these countries exist was created by God. > Robert B. Winn Well, yes, but if man created the channel tunnel, there can be no God. So, you must be saying that Jesus travelled through the tunnel, which very clearly could not happen, therefore Jesus cannot exist either. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Smiler on 18 Aug 2008 21:21 Alex W. wrote: > "Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> wrote in message > news:6gsn1nFh7jjiU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > >> From now on, matey, I'll be playing you at your own game. >> > > You're getting a lobotomy? Insufficient grey matter would be removed by a lobotomy. Total decapitation would be nearer the mark. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Smiler on 18 Aug 2008 21:43 rbwinn 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. > So in your court system of atheistic evidence, only athests and > scientists are allowed to testify. Nope. > That may adhere to European rules of evidence, but here in the United > States, a person may testify anything in court. Anything that is pertinent to the case, yes. And may also, not be believed. 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. A 'christian' liar like you, no doubt. > The opposite is often true. A > witness is often allowed to testify about religious beliefs to show > that their testimony is reliable. And he won't be believed by a sensible jury. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 18 Aug 2008 21:44 On Aug 18, 11:38 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 17, 11:18 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > Well, now there is an unaccustomed display of honesty. Atheists do > whatever the majority are doing, whether it is right or wrong. But > their justification is that "everyone was doing it". No. See atheists don't justify. Society sets some guidelines on certain types of behaviours, but most atheists subscribe to simply not hurting anyone as a basic rule. You'd be amazed at how much you can extrapolate from this. > The Christian position is that sin cannot be justified that way. Oh, right. So your community written buybull isn't in any way created or edited by a society? So, you sacrifice any goats or oxen recently? Now, tell me society has nothing to do with the reason why you answered no to that. Al
From: Smiler on 18 Aug 2008 21:50
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. Well, you have an incentive to lie. It is not a sin for a 'christian' to lie for jebus, according to 'christians'. With 'christians', it is just whatever what works to preserve their beliefs. A lie for jebus is just as good as truth to 'christian' if it appears to work. And you can always 'repent'. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 |