Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Alex W. on 27 Aug 2008 20:05 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:090e3cd3-ea26-4934-a078-e6c0f3bdd11b(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Aug 27, 4:10?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:045ba16c-666c-42ba-8eeb-c028260e7d31(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > It is the people who bring the calamities. ?God said that if they keep > His commandments, they will have His protection. ?The people say, No, > we want the calamities. > > ========= > > And it doesn't bother you at all that He passed so many commandments that > they are impossible to keep, that He is setting Man up to fail? ?You are > happy to play a game that is rigged? Which commandments are impossible to keep? ======= For one thing, unless you are chemically castrated or practise some fairly peculiar sexualorientation, there is no way any male can go through life without ever thinking to himself "cor, look at that woman, I'd really like to sleep with her". Deuteronomy 4:15-18 prohibits you from making any kind of image of any idol, human or animal. Will you tell us that you never took even a single holiday snap? Deuteronomy 14:8 bans you from eating pork. Ever have a rasher of bacon for breakfast? Do you wear clothes of mixed fabric? Do your clothes have the appropriate tassels at each corner? If the answer is "yes" and "no", then you have broken divine commandments. And so on and so on ....
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 27 Aug 2008 20:24 On Aug 27, 9:15 pm, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:d556c247-efce-4e7b-8de7-d18280155cdf(a)25g2000prz.googlegroups.com... > > > I actually got a nice glossy offer of a buybull recently, and my first > > thought was fuel. > > That's a waste. > Nice thin bible paper is perfect for use in the dunny. Ewww... No way. I like the multiply soft paper. Bible pages would be like using public toilet paper. Yuk! > If you want fuel, burn your junk mail and mail-order catalogues. > That's what it's there for. Nah, too toxic with all that glossy coatings and fancy colours. Al
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 27 Aug 2008 20:38 On Aug 28, 6:15 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 27, 1:40 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > > > > > "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:89bf4f65-862d-4371-91b8-ee9e57563b8a(a)q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Aug 27, 12:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > >> On Aug 26, 6:44 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > >> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > >> > On Aug 22, 11:11 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > >> > > On Aug 21, 10:56 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > >> > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > >> > > > 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. > > > >> > > Well, what is your claim, Al? I said that we discuss relativity of > > >> > > time in sci.physics.relativity, and you immediately objected to that > > >> > > statement and said that you were not going to allow it. > > >> > > Robert B. Winn > > > >> > No, I did not. I objected to your assertion that that's all you've > > >> > been doing and that sci.physics.relativity is the only newsgroup > > >> > you've been posting to. If you want a specific claim to attempt to > > >> > refute, how about; > > >> > You, rbwinn, are systematically lying about what others say and you've > > >> > said in these discussions. > > > >> > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > >> Well, Al, I am sorry you feel that was. Maybe we could discuss the > > >> prophecy that if a man denies God and asks to see a sign, that man is > > >> an adulterer. Steve suddenly left when that subject came up. > > >> Robert B. Winn > > > > That's probably because you saying that makes it perfectly clear to > > > all that you've completely lost your mind. > > > > It makes no sense. What exactly did you want to discuss about it? > > > > Al > > > He thinks I have left. > > He doesn't have the wit to understand that I have simply kill-filed him, Al. > > It was interesting when he came up with that "If you deny God- you must be > > an adulterer" thing. > > Pity he doesn't understand that is exactly the kind of statement which > > demonstrates their way of thinking. > > The critical reasoning skills of these people are truly appalling and > > doesn't differ much from the days when they were running around burning old > > women and saying "Only a witch would deny they are a witch!" > > I kill- filed the sad sack when his posts started to become a little > > sinister. > > He had started talking about how he wasn't interested in society, wants the > > world to end etc. > > Coupled with his mental health problems, that's a dangerous mix. > > I didn't want to push him any further. > > I've seen what happens to those type of people before, and in Winn's case, > > all of the indicators are there. > > > -- > > Steve O > > Steve didn't want to talk about adultery. > Robert B. Winn I suspect he just didn't want to read any more of your gibberish. Al
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 27 Aug 2008 20:46 On Aug 28, 9:22 am, Sam Brown <sambr...(a)bleusky.net> wrote: > Steve O wrote: > > > "Sam Brown" <sambr...(a)bleusky.net> wrote in message > >news:q5CdnU6ijccOTCjVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Aug 27, 1:29 pm, Sam Brown <sambr...(a)bleusky.net> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 27, 12:48 pm, Sam Brown <sambr...(a)bleusky.net> wrote: > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>> Which commandments are impossible to keep? > >>>>>> All of them. > >>>>> If it was impossible to keep a commandment, God would not give it. > >>>> Which one have you never broken? > > >>> Thou shalt not kill. (murder). > > >> You've never been angry at anyone? > > > How does anger count as murder??? > > Are you one of those people who equate thinking about breaking a > > commandment is the same as breaking one? > > I've never heard it asked quite in that fashion before, i.e. "thinking > about breaking a commandment". But, yes, we have it on good source that > if you are angry with someone, some manuscripts add "without a cause", > then you are guilty of killing that person. Or, if you look upon a > woman, besides your wife, with lustful intent, then you are guilty of > committing adultery. > > Yes, I'm one of *those* people. But you can call me a Christian. > I wouldn't mind it a bit. ;) You do realise that that point of view is somewhat retarded? Yes, it is better not to be angry at someone than to be angry at them. But anger and murder are not even in the same ballpark. Acting on impulse, and the ability to choose not to act are part of what makes a society work. Equating the urge and the act can only lead to a lessening of the perceived gap between the two. And as it's clear to all who aren't in need of serious antipsycotics, there are quite a few anti-social urges that are just part of humanity. You can't choose to never get angry. You can choose to minimise your anger and not to act on it. But if there's no difference between getting angry and killing someone, then why not just go the extra step? Al
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 27 Aug 2008 20:49
On Aug 28, 10:05 am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:090e3cd3-ea26-4934-a078-e6c0f3bdd11b(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 27, 4:10?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >news:045ba16c-666c-42ba-8eeb-c028260e7d31(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > It is the people who bring the calamities. ?God said that if they keep > > His commandments, they will have His protection. ?The people say, No, > > we want the calamities. > > > ========= > > > And it doesn't bother you at all that He passed so many commandments that > > they are impossible to keep, that He is setting Man up to fail? ?You are > > happy to play a game that is rigged? > > Which commandments are impossible to keep? > > ======= > > For one thing, unless you are chemically castrated or practise some fairly > peculiar sexualorientation, there is no way any male can go through life > without ever thinking to himself "cor, look at that woman, I'd really like > to sleep with her". > > Deuteronomy 4:15-18 prohibits you from making any kind of image of any idol, > human or animal. Will you tell us that you never took even a single holiday > snap? Or mayhap a cross? > > Deuteronomy 14:8 bans you from eating pork. Ever have a rasher of bacon for > breakfast? Oh, pork's just unclean. Crabs/lobsters etc are abominations. > > Do you wear clothes of mixed fabric? Do your clothes have the appropriate > tassels at each corner? If the answer is "yes" and "no", then you have > broken divine commandments. > > And so on and so on .... Yeah, the list isn't endless, but it might as well be. Al |