Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 21 Aug 2008 23:57 On Aug 22, 12:27 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 21, 7:08 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Aug 20, 9:58?pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > >> On Aug 21, 1:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > >>> On Aug 20, 7:30 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Well, I > > >>> studied post graduate in British university at Manchester city > > >>>> previously. > > >>>> There were no European propaganda but most people did not bother to > > >>>> talk in Christianity, due to the fact that the tales were so > > >>>> obviously invented. > > >>>> British loons in most cases got cornered when being questioned > > >>>> about the inability of their god to do reasonable things. > > >>>> They evaded and switched subjects, like you did. > > > >>> I don't evade and switch subjects. ?The subject is relativity of > > >>> time. ?That is what we discuss here in sci.physics.relativity. > > >>> Robert B. Winn > > > >> No. ?The discussion was started by a Mitch who began discussing the > > >> subject line in typical retarded fashion. ?And your first comment was > > >> not in any way connected to relativity. > > >> How many times do you need to be corrected on this lie? > > > >> Al > > > > So, Al, are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss relativity > > > of time here in sci.physics.relativity? How are you going to enforce > > > your edict? > > > So, skippy, are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss atheism here > > in alt.atheism without interference from religious loonies like you? How > > are you going to enforce your edict? > > How would you discuss atheism? There is nothing there to discuss. > All you can do is discuss religion. > Robert B. Winn Don't worry you little head over it. Just because you can't think of a discussion, doesn't mean there aren't any. Al
From: rbwinn on 22 Aug 2008 00:25 On Aug 21, 8:51�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 21, 3:08 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 9:58 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 21, 1:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 20, 7:30 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Well, I studied post graduate in British university at Manchester city > > > > > previously. > > > > > There were no European propaganda but most people did not bother to > > > > > talk in Christianity, due to the fact that the tales were so obviously > > > > > invented. > > > > > British loons in most cases got cornered when being questioned about > > > > > the inability of their god to do reasonable things. > > > > > They evaded and switched subjects, like you did. > > > > > I don't evade and switch subjects. The subject is relativity of > > > > time. That is what we discuss here in sci.physics.relativity. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > No. The discussion was started by a Mitch who began discussing the > > > subject line in typical retarded fashion. And your first comment was > > > not in any way connected to relativity. > > > How many times do you need to be corrected on this lie? > > > > Al > > > So, Al, are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss relativity > > of time here in sci.physics.relativity? > > No, I did not say that. �In no way should that be infered from my > comments. �Your attempt to say that that is what I've said is a > typical representation of your lying and attempts to sway > conversations to suggest you are being repressed in some way, which > again is typical of both christians and paranoid schitzos. > > > How are you going �to enforce > > your edict? > > I'm not, as it's not an edict. �I am going to correct you everytime I > spot you lying outright about what others or yourself have said. > Well, your claim is that we do not discuss relativity of time in sci.physics.relativity. Exactly what is it that you think we discuss in this newsgroup? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 22 Aug 2008 00:28 On Aug 21, 8:57�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 22, 12:27 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 21, 7:08 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Aug 20, 9:58?pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > >> On Aug 21, 1:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > >>> On Aug 20, 7:30 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Well, I > > > >>> studied post graduate in British university at Manchester city > > > >>>> previously. > > > >>>> There were no European propaganda but most people did not bother to > > > >>>> talk in Christianity, due to the fact that the tales were so > > > >>>> obviously invented. > > > >>>> British loons in most cases got cornered when being questioned > > > >>>> about the inability of their god to do reasonable things. > > > >>>> They evaded and switched subjects, like you did. > > > > >>> I don't evade and switch subjects. ?The subject is relativity of > > > >>> time. ?That is what we discuss here in sci.physics.relativity. > > > >>> Robert B. Winn > > > > >> No. ?The discussion was started by a Mitch who began discussing the > > > >> subject line in typical retarded fashion. ?And your first comment was > > > >> not in any way connected to relativity. > > > >> How many times do you need to be corrected on this lie? > > > > >> Al > > > > > So, Al, are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss relativity > > > > of time here in sci.physics.relativity? How are you going to enforce > > > > your edict? > > > > So, skippy, are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss atheism here > > > in alt.atheism without interference from religious loonies like you? How > > > are you going to enforce your edict? > > > How would you discuss atheism? �There is nothing there to discuss. > > All you can do is discuss religion. > > Robert B. Winn > > Don't worry you little head over it. �Just because you can't think of > a discussion, doesn't mean there aren't any. > Well, I know you do not discuss the theory of relativity. I have seen you discuss religion. Robert B. Winn
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 22 Aug 2008 01:51 On Aug 22, 2:28 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > Well, I know you do not discuss the theory of relativity. I have seen > you discuss religion. > Robert B. Winn I've discussed your attempts to call algebra physics, but no-one has discussed relativity except to use the term. Have you seen me discuss religion? What did I say about it. Al
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 22 Aug 2008 01:56
On Aug 22, 2:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 21, 8:51 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 3:08 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 20, 9:58 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Aug 21, 1:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 20, 7:30 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Well, I studied post graduate in British university at Manchester city > > > > > > previously. > > > > > > There were no European propaganda but most people did not bother to > > > > > > talk in Christianity, due to the fact that the tales were so obviously > > > > > > invented. > > > > > > British loons in most cases got cornered when being questioned about > > > > > > the inability of their god to do reasonable things. > > > > > > They evaded and switched subjects, like you did. > > > > > > I don't evade and switch subjects. The subject is relativity of > > > > > time. That is what we discuss here in sci.physics.relativity. > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > No. The discussion was started by a Mitch who began discussing the > > > > subject line in typical retarded fashion. And your first comment was > > > > not in any way connected to relativity. > > > > How many times do you need to be corrected on this lie? > > > > > Al > > > > So, Al, are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss relativity > > > of time here in sci.physics.relativity? > > > No, I did not say that. In no way should that be infered from my > > comments. Your attempt to say that that is what I've said is a > > typical representation of your lying and attempts to sway > > conversations to suggest you are being repressed in some way, which > > again is typical of both christians and paranoid schitzos. > > > > How are you going to enforce > > > your edict? > > > I'm not, as it's not an edict. I am going to correct you everytime I > > spot you lying outright about what others or yourself have said. > > Well, your claim is that we do not discuss relativity of time in > sci.physics.relativity. No, that is NOT my claim. Al |