NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:s4dkt21p4jn6vu6o6k3821agnkthmhg5ou@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:18:14 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45d8c8bc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>
>>And which has as it's central theme: "There ain't no god(s)"?
>
> I don't say that. I state that there is absolutely no evidence for any
> gods. You choose to falsely claim that I have said something else.
>
That's an outright lie!!! Our Christian "God is love" and there is
plenty of evidence for the existence of love. YOUR god or devil doesn't
exist, for it is likely to be an invisible old man in the sky.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:q9dkt21bji309rddjf1tva8s01k265qkoa@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:26:29 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45d8c8c2$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>
>> Who is "rejecting the teachings of Jesus" more than atheists? You ARE
>>lying about us followers of Christ rejecting His teaching like atheists
>>do?
>>We are no Pharisees either.
>
> Then it appears that you are no follower of Jesus. From the evidence of
> your posts, I am more of a follower than you are, but I don't happen to
> think there are any gods, so you get all upset. You, on the other hand,
> are just like the Pharisees that were presented in the New Testament:
> self-righteous, rigid, indifferent to those around you, completely
> obsessed with the law.
>
>> You got yourself between a rock and a hard place. Is that why you now
>>screech nonsense to extricate yourself from your lies?
>
> As I said. I don't lie.
>
You know how to spell an awful lot of words, but strung together they
make no sense. Our
Christian "God is love (1 John 4:8,16) and this love is singular, never
plural. So all your whining about our supposed many gods is pure nonsense.
However you are right in that many Christians may not evidence their God
sufficiently. But then you must admit, it's not easy to love a trashing and
flaming atheist, is it?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just said, as
>>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system, instead of a
>>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or admit
>>your
>>just lying for atheism again.
>
> You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on your
> lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a system.
> You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that?
>
Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that atheism
is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are forever
listing all the things you don't believe and never get around to telling us
anything about what you DO believe.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vgdkt2pkuomjvr3nc963ffha8lqcnafo9c@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:07:20 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45d9c67d$0$16269$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>"Paul Ransom Erickson" <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:n83ft2l51m41jk686v172i57t3i2invsbp@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:14:54 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
>>> <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1171374673.776239.100670@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it that you think you are going to accomplish by making all of
>>>>> these lists of things you do not believe?
>>>>> Do you have any lists of things you believe?
>>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>>
>>>> Atheists believe that by listing all they don't believe, what's left
>>>>over MUST be the truth. Unfortunately for them, there are an infinite
>>>>number
>>>>of things which are not true, and very few thing which are true. So they
>>>>will never reach that desired end. Not only that, but because atheists
>>>>look
>>>>only for what is untrue and lies, were they to come across the truth
>>>>they
>>>>would miss it altogether.
>>>
>>> As usual, you think you know all about "athsists" based on your own
>>> past. I bet you haven't really changed much.
>>>
>> I changed from a self-justified sinner, to a repentant one.
>
> Your actions show the behavior of self-righteous man with no humility.
>
You again forgot to quote the statement of mine which evidences your
accusation. But even if you are right, tell us how do YOUR actions compare?
But then perhaps you are running short of self-esteem again, and try to
garner as many inferiors to yourself as possible, so as to contrast yourself
favourably and give you that boost you crave?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:45DA5B7E.D6BEBE26@netvigator.com...
>
> No gods needed or indeed exist,
> simply man's primitive needs - they exist all right !
>
Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested
in
Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the cross of Calvary. We
therefore know our God and have seen Him. (Jesus in John 14:6-10)
Atheists don't know our God and therefore cannot see Him.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:45DA5C6A.E7847B7B@netvigator.com...
>
> Lunacy exists, as anyone reading your posts quickly discovers
>
What about you claiming there ain't no god(s), when it's obvious that
there are existing gods aplenty? You are obviously into "lunacy" yourself.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:45DA6182.E21F3130@netvigator.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>> You forgot to finish your sentence again Bob!!!! What you wanted to
>> say
>> is: ....enslave them mentally too, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
>> For
>> once everybody has no beliefs anymore and is like me, I would have no
>> place
>> to hide and be safe any longer!!
>
> Another oblique weak response
> laced with sarcasm and nastiness
> I win again it seems
>
At least you don't deny what I said, therefore there may be still hope
for you and that is a positive response.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:45DA6803.3113FCE4@netvigator.com...
> rbwinn wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. No need to get irrational.
>> Isaiah 2:17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the
>> haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be
>> exalted in that day.
>> Robert B. Winn
>
> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum,
> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle of
> primitives
> Grow up
>
You just evidence again your being severely perceptually and
philosophically challenged. "Primitives" indeed!!! With you it's not just a
matter of "growing up", it's the need for treatment, ...and Jesus is the
answer.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:8vnpt2dbg15v1o4t4gi1od6t5c2d1r8el6@4ax.com...

> There is no evidence for God or Satan or any other gods of Christianity
> or any other religions.

I respect this as a tenet of your belief that you religiously adhere to and
evangelistically proclaim.

"Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God."
http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/atheismisareligion.txt
 
On Feb 21, 10:19�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2007 22:38:01 -0600, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
> wrote:
>
 
On Feb 21, 10:52?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 9:38?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Feb 18, 10:11 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > > On 18 Feb 2007 08:20:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > > > <1171815647.683755.31...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > > > >On Feb 18, 8:57?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > > >> On 18 Feb 2007 07:53:50 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > > > >> <1171814030.140365.45...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > > > >> >On Feb 17, 10:32?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> Bill M wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >> >news:1171521149.118439.271150@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >> >> > On Feb 14, 9:21?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > On 14 Feb 2007 18:59:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > > > >> >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > > > >> >> > > <1171508373.435033.309...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >On Feb 14, 5:24?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> On Feb 14, 6:44 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > ...
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell. incoln said on
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >several occasions that he believed the Bible.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > Source with complete context please.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> You'll never get it, not anything genuine.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Our religious kook might give you a forgery, as David Barton did in
> > > > > >> >> > > >> his book.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > forged quote of Lincoln is making its rounds in usenet at>> this very
> > > > > >> >> > > moment. 4 recommends hunting down and hanging anyone
> > > > > >> >> > > >> critical of the war effort.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > pundit has already confessed that he is
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> the author of the quote.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> The fraud was perpetrated by one of the Moonie rags, either the Moonie
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Times or that bag of internet lies called _Insight Magazine._
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >Well, why don't you atheists just wait until after the resurrection
> > > > > >> >> > > >and ask Abraham Lincoln in person if he believed the Bible?
> > > > > >> >> > > >I see no reason to worry about it myself.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > Because you know that you have absolutely no evidence at all that there
> > > > > >> >> > > is going to be a resurrection, yet you keep trying to duck questions
> > > > > >> >> > > with your silly incantation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > >> >> > Jesus Christ was resurrected. (at is all the evidence we need.
> > > > > >> >> > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > >> >> > You do not seem to understand the difference between a claim, a fable and
> > > > > >> >> > objective verifiable evidence!
>
> > > > > >> >> He only accepts what his mummy told him, forgetting that her mummy told her
> > > > > >> >> and then her mummy told her and 'ad infinitum' - well not exactly, as sooner
> > > > > >> >> or later we reach back to a small group of primitives that made the myth up in
> > > > > >> >> the first place.
>
> > > > > >> >> It's s hard to accept the fact that one's parents and grandparents were
> > > > > >> >> telling unsubstantiated yarns - maybe for the best possible reasons, but
> > > > > >> >> 'yarns' nevertheless- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > >> >So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys,
> > > > > >> >you claim that he was telling a "yarn"?
>
> > > > > >> Since Jesus never said that, you are the one telling a tall tale. Still,
> > > > > >> when it comes to science, it doesn't really matter what someone claims
> > > > > >> Jesus said. The people who were writing these stories about Jesus had no
> > > > > >> idea about common descent or evolution. I would be impressed with the
> > > > > >> Bible if it had actually talked about it, but it doesn't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > >Well, yes it does. ?Jesus Christ said that he was the son of God.
> > > > > >That does not leave any room for monkeys in his geneology. ?My
> > > > > >genealogy is the same way Jesus Christ's is.
> > > > > >Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > Matthew 5:1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and
> > > > > sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
> > > > > ?3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
> > > > > ? ? ? for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
> > > > > ?4Blessed are those who mourn,
> > > > > ? ? ? for they will be comforted.
> > > > > ?5Blessed are the meek,
> > > > > ? ? ? for they will inherit the earth.
> > > > > ?6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
> > > > > ? ? ? for they will be filled.
> > > > > ?7Blessed are the merciful,
> > > > > ? ? ? for they will be shown mercy.
> > > > > ?8Blessed are the pure in heart,
> > > > > ? ? ? for they will see God.
> > > > > ?9Blessed are the peacemakers,
> > > > > ? ? ? for they will be called sons of God.
> > > > > ?10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
> > > > > ? ? ? for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
>
> > > > > Note verse 8.
>
> > > > Thank you, Lunch. ?Wonderful to see you quoting scriptures.
> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > What do you feel about the Koran Robbie?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Nothing of much value in the Koran.
> > Robert B. Winn
>
> Exacly what a million or so Islamists claim about your old book -
>
> Both parties are delusional of course- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, one good thing about Muslims, they do not pretend that they are
descended from monkeys.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Feb 21, 10:54�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 9:39?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > On 21 Feb 2007 19:46:34 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > <1172115994.713772.83...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >On Feb 21, 5:40?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > >> On 21 Feb 2007 16:10:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > >> <1172103030.774994.92...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >> >On Feb 21, 6:06 am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> > On 20 Feb 2007 20:04:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > >> >> > <1172030661.281379.130...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >> >> > >On Feb 20, 10:13?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> On Feb 19, 10:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> > >> > Well, I am probably less impressed by lawyers than Brigham Young was.
>
> > > >> >> > >> Judging by his many lawsuits and his comments about the lawyers
> > > >> >> > >> afterwards, he hated them. /u can read the particulars in an article
> > > >> >> > >> by Orma Linford, "The Mormons, the Law, and the Territory of Utah,"
> > > >> >> > >> and in many of Young's writings.
>
> > > >> >> > >> If it is any consolation to you I'm sure the Mormons had reason to
> > > >> >> > >> distrust law and lawyers from their many bad experiences in Missouri
> > > >> >> > >> and Illinois.
>
> > > >> >> > >> > Since you know so much about law, perhaps you could tell us your
> > > >> >> > >> > interpretation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the
> > > >> >> > >> > United States.
>
> > > >> >> > >> A conscientious writer could spend a year writing about the 6th
> > > >> >> > >> Amendment, it is so rich with caselaw and judicial gloss.
> > > >> >> > >oreover,
> > > >> >> > >> because of the 19th century's 14th Amendment, the 6th Amendment is now
> > > >> >> > >> applied to the states and their subdivisions, including Utah and SLC.
>
> > > >> >> > >> Legal issues:
> > > >> >> > >> pretrial rights
> > > >> >> > >> venue
> > > >> >> > >> in gremio legis
> > > >> >> > >> speedy trial
> > > >> >> > >> open proceedings, no closed courtrooms, no secret trials
> > > >> >> > >> impartial jury of peers
> > > >> >> > >> jurisdiction
> > > >> >> > >> no ex post facto
> > > >> >> > >> notice of charges in full particulars of facts and law so that accused
> > > >> >> > >> may prepare his defense
> > > >> >> > >> opportunity to be heard
> > > >> >> > >> confrontation with witnesses, no trial in absentia
> > > >> >> > >> subpoena power to compel attendance of witness and to bring documents
> > > >> >> > >> and things
> > > >> >> > >> (subpoena ad testificandum, subpoena duces tecum)
> > > >> >> > >> right to attorney
>
> > > >> >> > >> What part of it piques your curiosity? 2 is it the whole damn thing?
>
> > > >> >> > >> AMENDMENT VI.
> > > >> >> > >> Right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
> > > >> >> > >> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> > > >> >> > >> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
> > > >> >> > >> district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
> > > >> >> > >> shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
> > > >> >> > >> the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
> > > >> >> > >> witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
> > > >> >> > >> witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
> > > >> >> > >> defence.
>
> > > >> >> > >> Now, Robbie, don't be sending me off another one of those wild goose
> > > >> >> > >> chases.
> > > >> >> > >> We're talking about whether there is a god, and btw the brains who
> > > >> >> > >> drafted the 6th did not believe in a god, at least not in an
> > > >> >> > >> intervenor who paid any attention to the affairs of humanity.
>
> > > >> >> > >The part that says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a
> > > >> >> > >right to trial by jury. ?awyers claim this means that in most
> > > >> >> > >criminal prosecutions, the accused has no such right.
> > > >> >> > >Robert B. Winn
>
> > > >> >> > Could you show me where the Supreme Court said that you don't have the
> > > >> >> > right to a trial by jury in criminal prosecutions?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> I don't know that the Supreme Court has addressed the issue lately.
> > > >> >> In my state of North Carolina the right is preserved by de novo appeal
> > > >> >> to a jury from an adverse decision by a judge. ? ? ? ?n which case if you
> > > >> >> are convicted the judge will punish you by a sentence much harsher
> > > >> >> than that of the court below. ? ? ? ? ?note that in Tennessee if you appeal
> > > >> >> from a guilty verdict by a judge, in a court where the officer can
> > > >> >> testify to hearsay and summarize the testimony of all the other
> > > >> >> witnesses while you object until you are red in the face, you are
> > > >> >> required to pay a filing fee up front. ?hat, imho, is
> > > >> >> unconstitutional, a violation of the 6th Amendment. ? ?have read that
> > > >> >> in other states, like Nevada, the accused is subverted by various
> > > >> >> devices from asserting his 6th Amendment right to jury trial.
>
> > > >> >> I do know that in many appellate court decisions nowadays, where the
> > > >> >> courts have been packed with rightwing ideologs, doubleplusthink,
> > > >> >> doublespeak, and Ingsoc have crept into the decisions.
>
> > > >> >This all dates back to a minority opinion written by Thurgood Marshall
> > > >> >that the sixth amendment did not really guarantee right to trial by
> > > >> >jury.
> > > >> >After that, state courts began denying right to trial by jury until we
> > > >> >have reached the present condition where very few people are actually
> > > >> >given an opportunity to have a trial by jury.
> > > >> >Robert B. Winn
>
> > > >> Excuse me if I don't accept your claim without any evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >Do whatever you want to do. ?A United States citizen cannot go into
> > > >court and ask for a trial by jury and get it the way the Constitution
> > > >guarantees. ?The reason for that is that lawyers have set themselves
> > > >up as an elite class who decide what rights the rest of us have.
> > > >There are some of us non-lawyers who say that lawyers cannot take away
> > > >our rights even if they deny them.
> > > >Robert B. Winn
>
> > > So you assert. I have no reason to accept your claim. None.
>
> > > I would guess that your lawyer told you that you would be an idiot to
> > > ask for a jury trial, but that's a separate question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I have never appeared in court with a lawyer.
 
On Feb 15, 8:40�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 4:35�am, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Feb 13, 8:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > > > > Free Lunch wrote:
> > > > > > On 13 Feb 2007 16:39:50 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > > > > <1171413590.219240.10...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
> > > > > > >On Feb 12, 9:25 am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 12 Feb., 03:23, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> > On Feb 11, 4:10?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> > > ?Not even just one?
>
> > > > > > >> > > Damn, you'd think with all that omnipotence and ego, at least one god
> > > > > > >> > > would make itself known.
>
> > > > > > >> > Would you like me to send you a copy of the Bible?
> > > > > > >> > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > > >> Why, don't you have any evidence to offer?
>
> > > > > > >All things that exist show that there is a God.
>
> > > > > [I must remember to add that 'little gem' to my list of
> > > > > 'Religious propagator's backs to the wall cop-out's]
>
> > > > Well, Bob, you were willing to provide us with a list of evil
> > > > spirits.
 
On Feb 15, 8:43�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 7:06�am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> > > On 15 Feb., 13:52, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 15, 4:35?am, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Free Lunch wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 13 Feb 2007 16:39:50 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > <1171413590.219240.10...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
> > > > > > > > >On Feb 12, 9:25 am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On 12 Feb., 03:23, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> > On Feb 11, 4:10?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> > > ?Not even just one?
>
> > > > > > > > >> > > Damn, you'd think with all that omnipotence and ego, at least one god
> > > > > > > > >> > > would make itself known.
>
> > > > > > > > >> > Would you like me to send you a copy of the Bible?
> > > > > > > > >> > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > > > > >> Why, don't you have any evidence to offer?
>
> > > > > > > > >All things that exist show that there is a God.
>
> > > > > > > [I must remember to add that 'little gem' to my list of
> > > > > > > 'Religious propagator's backs to the wall cop-out's]
>
> > > > > > Well, Bob, you were willing to provide us with a list of evil
> > > > > > spirits. ?Why don't you make a list for us of the things that do not
> > > > > > show that there is a God?
> > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > with pleasure
>
> > > > > [Preface]
>
> > > > > "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
> > > > > fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
> > > > > gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
> > > > > [Stephen Roberts]
>
> > > > Well, there is really no such thing as an atheist.
 
On Feb 15, 8:57�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 2:52�am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> > > On 15 Feb., 00:54, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On Feb 13, 11:48?pm, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
> > > snip
>
> > > > > > I offered to send you a copy of the Bible. ?You have consistently
> > > > > > maintained that the Bible does not exist.
>
> > > > > Poor little Bobby thinks that repeating inane lies accomplishes
> > > > > something besides making him look like a fool.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Well, let's get right to it.
 
On Feb 15, 9:08�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 6:46�am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> > > On 15 Feb., 13:22, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On Feb 15, 2:17?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 15 Feb., 00:29, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:34?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
> > > snip
>
> > > > > > Well, Bob, does the Bible exist or not? ?You say whether it exists.
> > > > > > Don't try to call me a liar just because I called your bluff.
>
> > > > > You are a liar. ?You said that I and others claimed the Bible did not
> > > > > exist. ?Not only was that a lie, it was incredibly silly. ?You called
> > > > > nobody's bluff; you just told a silly lie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > You are still claiming that the Bible does not exist.
 
rbwinn wrote:

> On Feb 21, 10:54�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Feb 21, 9:39?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > On 21 Feb 2007 19:46:34 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > > <1172115994.713772.83...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > > > >On Feb 21, 5:40?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > >> On 21 Feb 2007 16:10:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > > >> <1172103030.774994.92...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > > > >> >On Feb 21, 6:06 am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> >> > On 20 Feb 2007 20:04:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > > >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > > >> >> > <1172030661.281379.130...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > > > >> >> > >On Feb 20, 10:13?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > >> On Feb 19, 10:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> >> > >> > Well, I am probably less impressed by lawyers than Brigham Young was.
> >
> > > > >> >> > >> Judging by his many lawsuits and his comments about the lawyers
> > > > >> >> > >> afterwards, he hated them. /u can read the particulars in an article
> > > > >> >> > >> by Orma Linford, "The Mormons, the Law, and the Territory of Utah,"
> > > > >> >> > >> and in many of Young's writings.
> >
> > > > >> >> > >> If it is any consolation to you I'm sure the Mormons had reason to
> > > > >> >> > >> distrust law and lawyers from their many bad experiences in Missouri
> > > > >> >> > >> and Illinois.
> >
> > > > >> >> > >> > Since you know so much about law, perhaps you could tell us your
> > > > >> >> > >> > interpretation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the
> > > > >> >> > >> > United States.
> >
> > > > >> >> > >> A conscientious writer could spend a year writing about the 6th
> > > > >> >> > >> Amendment, it is so rich with caselaw and judicial gloss.
> > > > >> >> > >oreover,
> > > > >> >> > >> because of the 19th century's 14th Amendment, the 6th Amendment is now
> > > > >> >> > >> applied to the states and their subdivisions, including Utah and SLC.
> >
> > > > >> >> > >> Legal issues:
> > > > >> >> > >> pretrial rights
> > > > >> >> > >> venue
> > > > >> >> > >> in gremio legis
> > > > >> >> > >> speedy trial
> > > > >> >> > >> open proceedings, no closed courtrooms, no secret trials
> > > > >> >> > >> impartial jury of peers
> > > > >> >> > >> jurisdiction
> > > > >> >> > >> no ex post facto
> > > > >> >> > >> notice of charges in full particulars of facts and law so that accused
> > > > >> >> > >> may prepare his defense
> > > > >> >> > >> opportunity to be heard
> > > > >> >> > >> confrontation with witnesses, no trial in absentia
> > > > >> >> > >> subpoena power to compel attendance of witness and to bring documents
> > > > >> >> > >> and things
> > > > >> >> > >> (subpoena ad testificandum, subpoena duces tecum)
> > > > >> >> > >> right to attorney
> >
> > > > >> >> > >> What part of it piques your curiosity? 2 is it the whole damn thing?
> >
> > > > >> >> > >> AMENDMENT VI.
> > > > >> >> > >> Right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
> > > > >> >> > >> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> > > > >> >> > >> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
> > > > >> >> > >> district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
> > > > >> >> > >> shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
> > > > >> >> > >> the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
> > > > >> >> > >> witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
> > > > >> >> > >> witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
> > > > >> >> > >> defence.
> >
> > > > >> >> > >> Now, Robbie, don't be sending me off another one of those wild goose
> > > > >> >> > >> chases.
> > > > >> >> > >> We're talking about whether there is a god, and btw the brains who
> > > > >> >> > >> drafted the 6th did not believe in a god, at least not in an
> > > > >> >> > >> intervenor who paid any attention to the affairs of humanity.
> >
> > > > >> >> > >The part that says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a
> > > > >> >> > >right to trial by jury. ?awyers claim this means that in most
> > > > >> >> > >criminal prosecutions, the accused has no such right.
> > > > >> >> > >Robert B. Winn
> >
> > > > >> >> > Could you show me where the Supreme Court said that you don't have the
> > > > >> >> > right to a trial by jury in criminal prosecutions?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > >> >> > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > >> >> I don't know that the Supreme Court has addressed the issue lately.
> > > > >> >> In my state of North Carolina the right is preserved by de novo appeal
> > > > >> >> to a jury from an adverse decision by a judge. ? ? ? ?n which case if you
> > > > >> >> are convicted the judge will punish you by a sentence much harsher
> > > > >> >> than that of the court below. ? ? ? ? ?note that in Tennessee if you appeal
> > > > >> >> from a guilty verdict by a judge, in a court where the officer can
> > > > >> >> testify to hearsay and summarize the testimony of all the other
> > > > >> >> witnesses while you object until you are red in the face, you are
> > > > >> >> required to pay a filing fee up front. ?hat, imho, is
> > > > >> >> unconstitutional, a violation of the 6th Amendment. ? ?have read that
> > > > >> >> in other states, like Nevada, the accused is subverted by various
> > > > >> >> devices from asserting his 6th Amendment right to jury trial.
> >
> > > > >> >> I do know that in many appellate court decisions nowadays, where the
> > > > >> >> courts have been packed with rightwing ideologs, doubleplusthink,
> > > > >> >> doublespeak, and Ingsoc have crept into the decisions.
> >
> > > > >> >This all dates back to a minority opinion written by Thurgood Marshall
> > > > >> >that the sixth amendment did not really guarantee right to trial by
> > > > >> >jury.
> > > > >> >After that, state courts began denying right to trial by jury until we
> > > > >> >have reached the present condition where very few people are actually
> > > > >> >given an opportunity to have a trial by jury.
> > > > >> >Robert B. Winn
> >
> > > > >> Excuse me if I don't accept your claim without any evidence.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > >Do whatever you want to do. ?A United States citizen cannot go into
> > > > >court and ask for a trial by jury and get it the way the Constitution
> > > > >guarantees. ?The reason for that is that lawyers have set themselves
> > > > >up as an elite class who decide what rights the rest of us have.
> > > > >There are some of us non-lawyers who say that lawyers cannot take away
> > > > >our rights even if they deny them.
> > > > >Robert B. Winn
> >
> > > > So you assert. I have no reason to accept your claim. None.
> >
> > > > I would guess that your lawyer told you that you would be an idiot to
> > > > ask for a jury trial, but that's a separate question.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > I have never appeared in court with a lawyer.
 
On Feb 15, 9:18�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 9:21�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > On 14 Feb 2007 18:59:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > <1171508373.435033.309...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >On Feb 14, 5:24?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Feb 14, 6:44 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > > >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > >> > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >> > ...
>
> > > >> > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell.
 
On Feb 16, 2:05�pm, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> On 16 Feb., 04:57, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:> rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 2:52?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> > > > On 15 Feb., 00:54, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On Feb 13, 11:48?pm, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > > > > Well, let's get right to it.
 
On Feb 16, 2:14�pm, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> On 16 Feb., 13:49, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 4:27?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 12, 10:41 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > ?[...]
>
> > > > > All of those books exist just as the books titled Harry Potter exist. That
> > > > > doesn't mean that the contents are unquestionable.
>
> > > > > Klazmon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Well, there is a woman who claims she wrote all of the Harry Potter
> > > > books. ?Now you say that all of the books of the Bible exist. ?Did
> > > > they just materialize, or were they written also?
> > > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Nobody has challenged the authorship of the Harry Potter books, the
> > > first having been written by a divorcee in Scotland while she was on
> > > public assistance, and the books don't claim to be anything other than
> > > fiction. ? But the bible claims to be true, claims to be the inspired
> > > word of a god, despite that it does not stand up to scrutiny as
> > > history and appears at best to be the fiction of unknown writers who
> > > believed the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun
> > > revolved around the earth.
>
> > Appears to be fiction of unknown writers?
 

Similar threads

R
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY GODS
Replies
5
Views
18
Richo
R
B
A CHALLENGE FOR RELIGIONISTS
Replies
6
Views
18
Steve Hayes
S
B
FALSE GODS
2 3
Replies
55
Views
56
bob young
B
B
EVIDENCE OF NO REAL GOD
Replies
4
Views
21
Christopher A.Lee
C
B
GOD MYTHS AND FABLES
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
71
bob young
B
Back
Top