Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Yap on 27 Aug 2008 21:42 On Aug 27, 10:40 am, 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 Steve is not even married, why should he be an adulterer? Those prophecies were made up by ancient con.......stick this fact into your usable part of the brain.
From: rbwinn on 27 Aug 2008 21:48 On Aug 27, 6:22�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > 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. > > Yet you were in the armed forces, directing others where to go to kill, > weren't you, skippy? > You may not have pulled the 'trigger', but you pointed the 'gun' which makes > you just as guilty, lying hypocrite. > > Smiler, I fixed radar repeaters, Smiler. No one was ever killed by a radar repeater. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 27 Aug 2008 21:50 On Aug 27, 6:23�pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 27, 10:34 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote:> On Aug 26, 5:43 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Luckily this is 21st century, or else they would be eager to draw > > > sword as well.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > So are you saying that now that guns are being used, the only ones > > eligible are atheists like Josef Stalin? > > Robert B. winn > > No. > What I am saying is that bible advocating a lot of killing, revenge, > etc and the loons follow with the weapons of the day. > If there is no guns, swords will be drawn....as all the time in the > old days. You do not seem to have read much of the New Testament. Robert B. Winn
From: Yap on 27 Aug 2008 21:50 On Aug 27, 11:30 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 26, 7:51 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I believe the Bible. So what do you atheists believe about that > prophecy? > Robert B. Winn Those prophecies in the bible were made up 2000+ years ago by some con culprits who wished to fool people. They were false, con stuff, lies, imaginations, wishful thinking that were meant to impress the stupid non-educated people then.....but apparently lingered on to today and still had the same sad effect. Which means you loons never learn through all those ages....that's all.
From: rbwinn on 27 Aug 2008 21:54
On Aug 27, 6:34�pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 27, 10:36 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > What is there to answer? The evil spirit instructed him to put me on > > > > ignore. > > > > Robert B. winn- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > See, you lie again.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > No, I am telling the truth. �Steve is gone. > > Robert B. Winn > > Didn't Steve told you that he will not create more harm than needed to > you? > It is Steve's personal human consciousness and not any evil spirit > that guides his action. > There is no evil spirit, ghost, or god in this world....tear out this > statement and stick onto your forehead. Do you really believe that? Steve just did not want to discuss adultery once he had the subject introduced into the conversation. Robert B. Winn |