NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 9:59 pm
rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 23, 12:49?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> wrote:
>> After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 7:38
>> am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 22, 10:22?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >> > On Feb 16, 7:10?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> > > On 16 Feb 2007 17:53:22 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> > > <1171677202.265303.67...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> > > >On Feb 16, 5:52?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>> >> > > >> On 16 Feb., 13:17, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On
>> >> > > >> Feb 13, 6:31?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> > > On 13 Feb., 14:03, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> > > > On Feb 12, 9:21?pm, bob young
>> >> > > >> > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> snip
>>
>> >> > > >> > > What we do not have is any evidence of any miracle.-
>> >> > > >> > > Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > > >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > > >> > Well, if you had been one of the people in Jerusalem at
>> >> > > >> > thattime, you might have seen it a little differently.
>> >> > > >> > ??t did not seem like a miracle to Sennacherrib after he
>> >> > > >> > arrived home in Ninevah safe and sound, but when it
>> >> > > >> > happened, he was not so sure. Robert B. Winn- Skjul tekst
>> >> > > >> > i anf?stegn -
>>
>> >> > > >> Sorry boobie but your fantasies about what happened or what
>> >> > > >> people thought back then are not evidence.
>>
>> >> > > >Well, why don't we go right to what Isaiah wrote, Thomas?
>> >> > > >Isaiah 1:20 ??But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be
>> >> > > >devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath
>> >> > > >spoken it.
>>
>> >> > > And you arrogantly think that you are the one to interpret it
>> >> > > and apply it here.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > I did not interpret anything. ??I just quoted the scripture the
>> >> > way it was written.
>> >> > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> you mean
>> >> 'how the last translator conceptualized the previous translator's
>> >> work, don't you?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > You do not know a lot about the Jews, do you? ??They prided
>> > themselves on not changing scripture. ??
>>
>> There goes that arrogance again. ??Why do you pontificate upon that
>> which you know little to nothing? ??Do you know how may different
>> versions of the Hebrew bible there were? ??In each of those, some
>> verses were deleted, some verses were added and words were outright
>> changed and that doesn't even begin to address all the various
>> misspellings and scribal errors. ??Even the link I provided show that
>> in the book of Isaiah alone there were 40,000 differences between the
>> Hebrew Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic
>> Text. ??And ther were even more among the other Hebrew texts of
>> Isaiah found in the DDS. And we haven't even begun to examine the
>> Samaritan Hebrew bible. ??To complicate matters further scholars know
>> that there were at least three different versions of the Greek Old
>> Testament (only one of which survives today).
>>
>> But because you are ignorant of the Hebrew and Greek you cannot see
>> that for yourself and cannot follow the conversations of the Jewish
>> scholar who showed the differences letter by letter in the link which
>> I provided.
>>
>> > They were not always successful, but they
>> > had no overriding motive to change meanings the way atheists of
>> > today have.
>>
>> Of course they did. ??There was no one, single, unifying Jewish
>> movement throughout the whole of history. ??There were many Jewish
>> philosophies throughout history and Christianity developed from one
>> of them. ??Each had a motive for changing scripture.
>>
>> But even more to the point, you are not discussing the Hebrew bible
>> because by your own admission you are not equipted to do that.
>> ??Rather you are discussing an interpretation and translation of the
>> Hebrew and Greek scriptures. ??And to make matters worse, the
>> translation you use and worship was developed from very, very late
>> Hebrew and Greek manuscripts including two which were only completed
>> a decade before that translation was made and the Hebrew version
>> which was only 400 years old.
>>
>> You have no ammunition for this discussion. ??Even more to your
>> discredit, you do not even have a gun to fire it from. ??And upon
>> further consideration -- not even the arms to use the gun. ??You are
>> handicapped in any discussion of biblical scholarship, and that comes
>> from your own admissions.
>>
>> > Robert B. Winn
>>
> Well, what you say only proves me correct. If the book of Isaiah has
> gone through all you say it has and still has the pattern of language
> in English that proves it was all written by Isaiah, then what are you
> talking about? There is a pattern in the structure of what Isaiah
> wrote that identifies all of his writings.
> When college professors claim that at least four people wrote the
> book, or when atheists claim that there were schools of people
> manufacturing the book, they are only showing their ignorance. No one
> else writes the way Isaiah writes.
> Robert B. Winn

How would you know? You can't read Hebrew. A translation from Hebrew
to English will not bring out the finer points of syntax, grammer
usage, anachronisms, nor word usage.

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

 

[Dan@V.A.]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:n17rt2hne74up3olepgl9dbhuin18u99u4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:35:13 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, nevertheless, the practice of polygamy places these Mormon
> >offshoots outside the Christian fold.
>
> Marriage itself does. Paul allows for it, but says that good
> Christians should be celibate.
>
I do not believe this! It this were true, Christianity would have
disappeared.

Dan

 

[Dan@V.A.]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:m37rt2pjruipk7t0pq9c54f2mej0j2cqoh@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:42:49 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:dpspt2psl16pe3u967lm8clsfauv951lvf@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:25:22 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Even where there is no belief
> >> >system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of
> >> >Christians.
>
> >> They follow Jesus - that, and the fact that they claim to be Christian
> >> makes them Christian. You certainly aren't the one appointed to
> >> decide who's Christian and who isn't.
>
> >You are right, all I can say is that pologamy places them outside
> >the Triditional Christian fold.
>
> If by "traditional" you mean "what Jesus, Paul and the Bible authors
> said" (as opposed to what American Christians actually practice), so
> does lying, cheating on your taxes, marriage, eating meat and milk
> together, wearing clothing of mixed fabric, crop rotation and a few
> hundred other things that are considered normal.
>
> >Again this is about LDS offshoots.
>
> Which, by judging others, prove to be less Christian than those they
> judge.
>
No judgment, just an opinion.

Dan

 

[Free Lunch]

On 23 Feb 2007 18:27:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172284059.970326.74290@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 23, 11:46?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>wrote:
>> After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 9:59
>> pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 10:49?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >> > On Feb 16, 10:10?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >> > > Free Lunch wrote:
>> >> > > > On 16 Feb 2007 16:54:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> > > > <1171673650.738689.54...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>> >> > > > >On Feb 13, 5:57?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> > > > >> On 13 Feb 2007 16:54:11 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> > > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> > > > >> <1171414451.120125.63...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> > > > ...
>>
>> >> > > > >> >I offered to send you a copy of the Bible. ??ou have
>> >> > > > >> >consistently maintained that the Bible does not exist.
>>
>> >> > > > >> How many more times will you repeat that lie.- Hide quoted
>> >> > > > >> text -
>>
>> >> > > > >You atheists all play the same game. ??If you want to claim
>> >> > > > >the Bible does not exist go ahead and say it does not exist.
>> >> > > > >Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> > > > Once again you lie.
>>
>> >> > > > You know that none of us have ever claimed that the Bible does
>> >> > > > not exist. You insist on this false witness because you cannot
>> >> > > > be honest and admit that the Bible is not in itself evidence of
>> >> > > > anything. It is just one of many religious texts that is held
>> >> > > > in high regard by one religion or another. There is no evidence
>> >> > > > that the Bible is any more true than the Q'ran or any other
>> >> > > > religious text.
>>
>> >> > > > We all know the Bible exists. What we won't buy is your false
>> >> > > > claim that there is something special about it.
>>
>> >> > > > Stop your lies.
>>
>> >> > > It's a 'backs to the wall' reaction - pure and simple- Hide
>> >> > > quoted text -
>>
>> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > I want to be watching when you try to run your game on Jesus
>> >> > Christ. Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> Lunacy laced with arrogance and vindictiveness.
>>
>> >> ...........and YOU wonder why there are atheists- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > No, I don't wonder why there are atheists. atan has never had
>> > trouble on this earth finding people to speak for him.
>>
>> Momons can follow Satan.
hristians and Moslems can follow Satan.
>> However by their very definition atheists cannot follow Satan.
>> Atheists believe in no gods.
ccording to scripture Satan is like
>> Yahweh the son of the god El. e is one of the 70 sons of El and a
>> member of the council of gods. e is according to scripture Yahweh's
>> brother and uncle to Joshua.
y the very fact that Satan is a god
>> atheists do not believe he exits. ne cannot follow that which does
>> not exist.
>>
>> > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> --
>> Later,
>> Darrell Stec $ars...@neo.rr.com
>>
>> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com
>> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Well, if you say Satan does not exist, you are speaking for Satan. If
>that is not following Satan, what is it?

What tendentious nonsense. You don't get to make an assertion that you
have absolutely no evidence to support and then claim that all who
disagree with you are supporting your imaginary invention.

When you provide evidence that Satan exists, then I will believe you,
until then, I will conclude that are you are incapable of either telling
the truth or knowing the truth.

 

[Dan@V.A.]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jb7rt2pt6a32ui9qa1aj6a5svai7gioume@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:49:45 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:8mtpt2po57hlr9udcaoh7sdugsdsu3885r@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:42:10 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You don't know what you are talking about. An analogy is water.
> >> >It can be liquid, gas or solid. But it still one. Same with the
Christian
> >> >concept of their God.
> >>
> >> The same water can't exist in all 3 states at the same time - the
> >> Christian god is supposed to.
> >>
> >A melting glacier is ice with water running off and water vapors
> >escaping into the atmosphere. This I've seen.
>
> But you haven't seen THE SAME water being in all 3 phases at the same
> time. Some of it is ice, some liquid water and some vapor. The
> analogy is, at best, very flawed.
>
Actually I have. It's all of the same body of H2O!
>
> >> And the independent objective evidence that the Christian Bible is
> >> correct is???
>
> >Whether it is or not, is another issue. But the two scripture differ
> >on the birthplace of the two Christs.
>
> Meaning nothing. They can both be wrong. Either one can be correct.
> They can both be correct. (Are you limiting an omnipotent god?)
>
It's impossible physically to be two places at the same time.
>
> >> >> Fortunately for you, if all you cults and sects and denominations
> >> >> weren't arguing with us beloved atheists, you'd be burning each
other
> >> >> at the stake.
>
> >> >This is BS. How can you be so asinine?
>
> >> He can read history. Christians have been killing Christians for
> >> 2,000 years.
>
> >You live in the past, I live in the present.
>
> In the present Christianity is arguing with outsiders. If, in the
> present, there were no outsiders to argue with, history shows us that
> Christians would be arguing with each other.
>
I disagree, Methodist, Baptist, Luthererns etc. have very little to disagree
about.
>
> > I look around, I do not
> >see Methodist, Baptist Lutherans, Presbyterians or Catholics killing
> >each other.
>
> You don't look around at a world in which they have no outsiders to
> kill. Or have you forgotten the history of the past 100 years?

Again you are living in the past. Come into the present.

Dr. Dan Wood, DDS

 

[Dan@V.A.]

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:cfest2p1kpupctn0o33omhrcbaqon5p0a7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:49:45 -0500, in alt.atheism
> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> <Bh9Dh.38628$19.29310@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
> >
> >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:8mtpt2po57hlr9udcaoh7sdugsdsu3885r@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:42:10 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You don't know what you are talking about. An analogy is water.
> >> >It can be liquid, gas or solid. But it still one. Same with the
Christian
> >> >concept of their God.
> >>
> >> The same water can't exist in all 3 states at the same time - the
> >> Christian god is supposed to.
> >>
> >A melting glacier is ice with water running off and water vapors
> >escaping into the atmosphere. This I've seen.
> >>
> >> >The Mormon Christ was born in Jerusalem, the Christian God was
> >> >born in Bethlehem.
> >>
> >> Which didn't exist until LONG after Jesus died. It was a cemetery
> >> when he was supposedly born, and no Jews would live in, or next to, a
> >> cemetery.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Two diffeent cities, according the two Bibles
> >> >ie the Christian Bible and the Mormon Bible (the Book of Mormon)
> >>
> >> And the independent objective evidence that the Christian Bible is
> >> correct is???
> >>
> >Whether it is or not, is another issue. But the two scripture differ
> >on the birthplace of the two Christs.
> >>
> >> >> Fortunately for you, if all you cults and sects and denominations
> >> >> weren't arguing with us beloved atheists, you'd be burning each
other
> >> >> at the stake.
> >>
> >> >This is BS. How can you be so asinine?
> >>
> >> He can read history. Christians have been killing Christians for
> >> 2,000 years.
> >>
> >You live in the past, I live in the present. I look around, I do not
> >see Methodist, Baptist Lutherans, Presbyterians or Catholics killing
> >each other.
> >
> >Dr. Wood, DDS
> >
> Not today, not publicly. Why, I'm sure it's been weeks since the good
> Christians in the KKK have murdered anyone.

Cite or do I just take the word of some who hates Christians?

Dan Wood, DDS

 

[Dan@V.A.]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1172203820.268635.234740@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 20, 9:18?pm, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1172030782.372449.111750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...> On Feb
20, 2:22?pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:51:17 -0500, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > >Mormonism and Jehovah witnesses are extremes, far out in their
beliefs
> > > > >and practices. Several Mormon groups in Utah, Arizona Montana and
> > > > >other states still practice polygamy. This is abuse of women and
their
> > > > >offspring. A practice condemned by all Christians.
> >
> > > > Not by two Christian sects - Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
> >
> > > Atheists are the ones who are the greatest abusers of women.
> > > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > We were informed by the two Mormon missionaries that if we reject
> > this Joseph Smith we could not be saved into the presence of
> > God. Only Mormons can enter into the presence of God.
> > (who btw is just an exalted man who once lived on a planet
> > and died was resurrected and progressed into godhood)
>
> I wouldn't really think so.
>
I know this is taught as justification for polygamy, where is is still
practiced. This was exposed on nightline a few weeks ago.

> Robert B. Winn
>

 

[Free Lunch]

On 23 Feb 2007 18:25:55 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172283955.302443.37900@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 23, 11:40?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>wrote:
>> After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 11:14
>> pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 20, 11:22?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007
>> >> 10:03 pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 16, 6:36?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In alt.atheism On 15 Feb 2007 18:35:15 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 15, 5:00?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com>
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 22:24:28 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 14, 8:19?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com>
>> >> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 15:25:25 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 13, 7:22?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 13, 8:05 pm, Don Kresch
>> >> >> >> >> >> <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:> In alt.atheism On
>> >> >> >> >> >> 13 Feb 2007 16:59:35 -0800, "rbwinn"
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> ...]
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Did you notice that nowhere in the Old Testament is the
>> >> >> >> >> >> messiah predicted to be god? (e messiah is prophesied to
>> >> >> >> >> >> bring peace, to bring comfort to the wretched, to heal
>> >> >> >> >> >> the earth; but nowhere in the Old Testament does it say
>> >> >> >> >> >> he will be worshiped as a god.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Isaiah 9:6
>>
>> >> >> >> >> ?? See Is 8:3. That is the child spoken of in Is 9:6.
>>
>> >> >> >> >No, sorry.
>>
>> >> >> >> ?? ?? Sorry, but it's true. Only if one takes Is 9:6 completely
>> >> >> >> out of context can it be applied to jesus. Will you admit to
>> >> >> >> taking Is 9:6 completely out of context?
>>
>> >> >> >> Don
>>
>> >> >> >Well, let's work over to it, Don. ??
>>
>> >> >> ?? ?? ?? ?? No, there's no working over to it. The fact is that
>> >> >> the child born in Is 8:3 fills the prophecy from Is 7:14 and is
>> >> >> being lauded from Is 8:5 on, continuing through Is 9.
>>
>> >> >> ?? ?? ?? ?? Interesting note: if you read Is 9:1-2 and then find
>> >> >> Matt 4:12-16, you'll see how the former verses were concatenated
>> >> >> to invent a prophecy that doesn't actually exist.
>>
>> >> > Well, as an apostle, Matthew certainly had the authority to say
>> >> > what Isaiah meant by his prophecy.
>> >> > So what is your authority to say that Matthew was concatenating
>> >> > something?
>> >> > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> One does not need an authority to see what can be easily demonstrated
>> >> by reading the two passages oneself. ??Try it. ??The only way you
>> >> could come to any other conclusion but that Matthew concatenated two
>> >> verses is if you are subject to doublespeak. ??See Orwell's 1984 if
>> >> you are unfamiliar with the term.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Later,
>> >> Darrell Stec ?? ?? ??dars...@neo.rr.com
>>
>> > Well, it does not really mean anything in this context. t is just a
>> > word used by atheists trying to impress other people. hatever
>> > Matthew said about the book of Isaiah is authoritative because Matthew
>> > was an apostle.
>>
>> Are you sure about that? lease tell us the number of Joshua's apostles
>> and their names without neglecting or leaving out any of the text on
>> the subject of any gospel, Acts or epistles.
y the way the author of
>> Matthew quoted from a Greek version that we know did not exist in the
>> first century CE. ow did he do that? ow old would he have had to
>> have been to perform this minor miracle? o you know when that book
>> had Matthew's name put on it? t didn't appear on the early
>> manuscripts you know. one of the gospels had names on them.
>>
>> So much for your assumed authoritativeness. ow tell us why we should
>> deny that which we can plainly see for ourselves and that all biblical
>> scholars in the last 50 years attest to?
>>
>> > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> --
>> Later,
>> Darrell Stec $ars...@neo.rr.com
>>
>> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com
>> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>It does not really matter what atheist college professors say about
>the Bible. Everyone knows that atheists do not believe the Bible
>anyway. So they are going to compass sea and land to find someone to
>quote to discredit something in the Bible. Most of what they write is
>fiction. I prefer reading the Bible to reading fiction.
>Robert B. Winn

I see that you are now changing your tune without actually admitting
that you lied earlier. You know that "do not believe the Bible" does not
mean "do not believe the Bible exists" yet you claimed that earlier. You
also know that there is physical evidence that shows that some of the
stories in the Bible cannot be considered historically or scientifically
true, yet you claim that the Bible is not fiction. The problem for you
is that it is your responsibility to show that the Bible is creditable.
It is not the responsibility of critics to show that it is not.

You have failed, and done it in a way that reflects badly, not only on
yourself, but on those whose faith you share.
--

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

 

[Dan@V.A.]

"jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1172237302.394756.295100@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 2:42 pm, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Where is your evidence that they are Christian? >> > Do you imply
that
> > > > > >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy?
> >
> > > > > That wasn't your claim.
> >
> > > > They worship three different gods
> >
> > > So do all the other Christians. They worship Jesus, God, and the
> > > Holy Spirit, all three separate entities.
> >
> > You don't know what you are talking about. An analogy is water.
> > It can be liquid, gas or solid. But it still one. Same with the
Christian
> > concept of their God.
>
> I know my bible enough, having read it through several times, and
> having been raised the son of a baptist minister and grandson of
> missionaries, that there are three separate and distinct entity
> deities in the kjv and the nuts who believe all that malarkey are
> foolish enough to say it's ONE god, when there are THREE. You fundies
> don't even know simple arithmetic.
>
> So much for your hokey analogy. You get to God thru Jeezus, Danny.
> So saith the bible, a little like you get to Allah thru Mohammed.
> Jeezus is not God; Jeezus is God's son, and the Holy Spirit is the
> stud who came down and jumped in the sack with Mary. God didn't even
> perform the stud service; he had his brother the Holy Spirit do it.
>
> At least the Greeks and Romans with their demi-god messiahs, the
> Caesars, for example, claimed that a god and a mortal copulated to
> make a demi-god, a messiah. The Christians, I believe, toned it down
> a little, since in the case of the pagans there was a rape. So the
> Christians used a ghost to make the act a little less unsavory,
> although to be fair we should admit that Joseph was cuckolded and it
> was a sort of immaculate adultery. But then they had to fix that by
> having Mary and Joseph, who were apparently together at the time,
> betrothed but not yet married.
>
> Three Gods are not one, Danny. And as a matter of fact the moozle-ums
> have credible arithmetic on the question of monotheism.
>
God, you have a twisted mind. I bet you father and grandfather are proud
of you.

Dr. Dan Wood

 

[Free Lunch]

On 23 Feb 2007 18:09:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172282994.677931.75010@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 23, 11:05?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 12:18 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>, i. e., Winnie thePooh, wrote:
>>
>> ...]
>>
>> > I have never appeared in court with a lawyer. always speak for
>> > myself. always request trial by jury and then appeal the case on
>> > the grounds that I was denied trial by jury.
>>
>> That must be the reason for your acrimony against the courts. ou
>> bumble and lose and then blame the lawyers and judges for your defeat.
>>
>> If you're as bad a lawyer as you are at furnishing caselaw for such
>> zany charges as blaming Thurgood Marshall for taking away your 6th
>> Amendment rights, I can understand why you're losing.
>>
>> Marshall voted with the majority in the 7 to 2 Suprme Court decision,
>> _Duncan v. Louisiana,_ which required jury trials in all 50 states for
>> criminal defendants accused of misdemeanors. uncan applied the 6th
>> Amendment to the states by incorporating it into the purview of the
>> 14th Amendment.
>>
>> So your accusation against Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was denied
>> admission to law school in Maryland because he was black, is grossly
>> in error.
>
>All I know about it is that states started denying trial by jury.

You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
support your claim, you just whine.

>When it all started everyone was quoting a minority opinion written by
>Thurgood Marshall.

You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
support your claim, you just whine.

>It has nothing to do with his race. He was a
>Supreme Court Justice who saw a reason to deny trial by jury that all
>lawyers bought into because they saw it would increase their status
>and financial well-being.

You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.


>Robert B. Winn

 

[Free Lunch]

On 23 Feb 2007 17:58:11 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172282291.376421.308410@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 23, 6:44?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 10:46 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 21, 5:40?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> ...]
>> > Do whatever you want to do.
United States citizen cannot go into
>> > court and ask for a trial by jury and get it the way the Constitution
>> > guarantees. he 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
>>
>> Cite, cite, cite!
>
>State of Arizona v. Robert B. Winn 2004

That's not a citation. You need to show us not only the title of the
case (which you purported to offer) but also the place it is printed.
This would be the volume, reporter and series, and page.

 

[Free Lunch]

On 23 Feb 2007 17:56:25 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172282185.747568.131480@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 23, 6:40?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 7:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>> regarding the 6th Amendment right to jury trial]
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I don't believe you. hat's the citation for that Thurgood Marshall
>> opinion?
>>
>> And what state or states do you refer to which deny the right to jury
>> trial in a criminal prosecution?
>
>All states as far as I can tell. I don't know the exact case, all I
>know is that it started with a minority opinion written by Thurgood
>Marshall. Then there was a case in Nevada where a man was denied
>trial by jury, then a case in Pennslyvania, etc., etc. I have
>personally been denied trial by jury in Massachusetts, Idaho, Utah,
>and Arizona.

You why would states decide to abide by the losing side? That isn't how
it's done. Please, learn a bit of law before you continue to defame
judges and lawyers.

 

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:14:33 -0500, in alt.atheism
"Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in <xYODh.16618$z6.15765@bigfe9>:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:cfest2p1kpupctn0o33omhrcbaqon5p0a7@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:49:45 -0500, in alt.atheism
>> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> <Bh9Dh.38628$19.29310@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
>> >
>> >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:8mtpt2po57hlr9udcaoh7sdugsdsu3885r@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:42:10 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You don't know what you are talking about. An analogy is water.
>> >> >It can be liquid, gas or solid. But it still one. Same with the
>Christian
>> >> >concept of their God.
>> >>
>> >> The same water can't exist in all 3 states at the same time - the
>> >> Christian god is supposed to.
>> >>
>> >A melting glacier is ice with water running off and water vapors
>> >escaping into the atmosphere. This I've seen.
>> >>
>> >> >The Mormon Christ was born in Jerusalem, the Christian God was
>> >> >born in Bethlehem.
>> >>
>> >> Which didn't exist until LONG after Jesus died. It was a cemetery
>> >> when he was supposedly born, and no Jews would live in, or next to, a
>> >> cemetery.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Two diffeent cities, according the two Bibles
>> >> >ie the Christian Bible and the Mormon Bible (the Book of Mormon)
>> >>
>> >> And the independent objective evidence that the Christian Bible is
>> >> correct is???
>> >>
>> >Whether it is or not, is another issue. But the two scripture differ
>> >on the birthplace of the two Christs.
>> >>
>> >> >> Fortunately for you, if all you cults and sects and denominations
>> >> >> weren't arguing with us beloved atheists, you'd be burning each
>other
>> >> >> at the stake.
>> >>
>> >> >This is BS. How can you be so asinine?
>> >>
>> >> He can read history. Christians have been killing Christians for
>> >> 2,000 years.
>> >>
>> >You live in the past, I live in the present. I look around, I do not
>> >see Methodist, Baptist Lutherans, Presbyterians or Catholics killing
>> >each other.
>> >
>> >Dr. Wood, DDS
>> >
>> Not today, not publicly. Why, I'm sure it's been weeks since the good
>> Christians in the KKK have murdered anyone.
>
>Cite or do I just take the word of some who hates Christians?

Once again, a supposed Christian lies in this newsgroup. Why does that
happen? You cannot show anywhere that I hate Christians as a group.
Sure, I hate people who call themselves Christian and then act in ways
that are completely contrary to Jesus's teachings. Sure, there are still
racists out there who claim to be Christian but have joined hate groups.
Even you can recognize that the history of Christianity includes murders
supposedly done in the name of God. What changed the "good Christians"
who decided to engage in a war with the United States rather than give
up their right to enslave other people? What changed their children and
grandchildren and great-grandchildren who were murdering the descendents
of the slaves and and getting away with it? When did Christians stop
murdering other Christians and justifying their murders?

 

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:06:48 -0500, in alt.atheism
"Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in <gRODh.16614$z6.629@bigfe9>:
>
>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:n17rt2hne74up3olepgl9dbhuin18u99u4@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:35:13 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes, nevertheless, the practice of polygamy places these Mormon
>> >offshoots outside the Christian fold.
>>
>> Marriage itself does. Paul allows for it, but says that good
>> Christians should be celibate.
>>
>I do not believe this! It this were true, Christianity would have
>disappeared.
>
>Dan

What have you read in the Bible?

 

[bob young]

rbwinn wrote:

> On Feb 22, 9:21�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 10:09�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > 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.

 

[bob young]

rbwinn wrote:

> On Feb 22, 9:44�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > 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.

 

[bob young]

Darrell Stec wrote:

> After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 10:07
> pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 10:56?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >> > On Feb 17, 7:17?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> > > On 17 Feb 2007 04:32:59 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> > > <1171715579.252212.188...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
> >>
> >> > > >On Feb 16, 10:09?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
> >> > > >wrote:
> >> > > >> rbwinn wrote:
> >> > > >> > On Feb 13, 5:57?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> > > ...
> >> > > >> > > How many more times will you repeat that lie.- Hide quoted
> >> > > >> > > text -
> >>
> >> > > >> > You atheists all play the same game. ?? ?? ??f you want to
> >> > > >> > claim the Bible does not exist go ahead and say it does not
> >> > > >> > exist. Robert B. Winn
> >>
> >> > > >> Well Christian 'Nut cases' sure do- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> > > >Well, here is a verse from Isaiah to cheer you up, Bob.
> >> > > >Isaiah 1:25 ??And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely
> >> > > >purge thy dross, and take away all thy tin.
> >>
> >> > > Clearly Isaiah was talking to you.
> >>
> >> > I still have tin, Lunch.
> >> > Isaiah 2:2 ??And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the
> >> > mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the
> >> > mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations
> >> > shall flow unto it.
> >> > Robert B. Winn
> >>
> >> Yes that is where the primitives thought their god was, just above
> >> the clouds atop of the nearest mountain.
> >>
> >> One reason, of course, why the Moses myth was written, [with no
> >> witnesses] about his so called ??meeting with his god. ??Moses, like
> >> all prophets, was a charlatan; IOW 'a liar' [assuming of course that
> >> Moses actually existed.]- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> > Well, why don't you just wait until after the resurrection and tell
> > Moses your complaints in person?
>
> I am sure Bob has great comfort in knowing that you believe he will be
> in the same place as Moses and that Moses will devote a part of
> eternity to carry on a conversation with him, just as I am comforted by
> your believe I will end up in the same place as Matthew and that
> Matthew will devote part of his eternity to carry on a conversation
> with me.
>
> Sorry that I forgot to mention all the other readers here who can take
> great comfort in knowing that Robert believes they are going to heaven
> to talk with the saints. He has promised such to so many. Did you
> not, Robert? Otherwise how would any of us get to talk to Moses,
> Matthew, John and Joshua? Will heaven and hell have an intercom
> between them, or will we be using our cell phones?

no need - they will al be in the same padded cell

>
>
> > Robert B. Winn
>
> --
> Later,
> Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com
>
> Webpage Sorcery
> http://webpagesorcery.com
> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

 

[bob young]

Free Lunch wrote:

> On 23 Feb 2007 04:21:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172233293.851121.149140@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>:
> >On Feb 22, 9:52?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> >> "thomas p." 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. n what way do you acknowedge that the
> >> > > Bible exists?
> ob has a list that he keeps posting. oes the Bible
> >> > > exist the same way something on Bob's list exists?
> >>
> >> > And the twit continues to make a fool of himself.
> >>
> >> The fact that he exists confirms it- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >Ask a question an atheist does not want to answer, and he will call
> >you a fool.
>
> You are a fool. You are the one who foolishly claims that there are
> atheists who deny that the Bible exists. You are a tremendous fool....

.....a fool of the worst kind, a dishonest fool, I have yet to see his equal here
for dodging and weaving when faced with logical questions about his beliefs.

I have opened his posts up to now to get a good laugh, but these days the funny
side of his pathetic rhetoric is far surpassed by the boredom and drudgery of
his repetitive side stepping cowardice.

Well I have god news for Robert, no longer will he need to think of how to side
step any more of my questions about his sky pixie and it's biblical hanger's on,
as I will not be reading any more of his trash.

[I wont plonk him though, it would be too high a compliment]

Bob
Humanist Brit.

>
> --
>
> "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
> to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
> Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
> take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
> which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
> it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

 

[bob young]

Michael Gray wrote:

> On 23 Feb 2007 04:54:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <45DEC75B.8B3E5B1D@netvigator.com>
> >
> >
> >Michael Gray wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "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.
> >> >
> >> >I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate constantly that
> >> >they are liars and
> >> >charlatans. That's what I believe
> >>
> >> I do NOT believe that.
> >> Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100%
> >
> >One must allow for the ordinary person longing for security thinking they can find
> >it with an imaginary god, reinforced by following what their parents and
> >grandparents believed. These are not charlatans, the charlatans are the
> >propagators that lie and deceive.
>
> So, they do not lie when they claim that Jesus was born of a virgin?
> Flew up into the sky after being tortured to death?
> Came back down again and quietly chatted with a few people who never
> existed, and then went back up into the sky, and will come back down
> after 2,000 years?
> That when a priest raves some mumbo jumbo over a biscuit and some
> cheap vino, that it ACTUALLY turns into half-human flesh, and REAL
> blood of ONE person?
> Fot they quite simply MUST believe all this fraudulent crap to be
> considered Christian.

I aghree they do, but it hardly makes them inferior or bad to others, which was my
point. It is the priets you mention who are the charlatans as they do it as a
profession.

Cheers

>
>
> Their very best defence against lying is that they are quite insane.
> I'm judging that of the semi-sane christians, none of them are stupid
> enough to actually fully believe that crock-o-****, at least not deep
> down.
>
> --

 

[bob young]

Michael Gray wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:03:45 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <iksut292bes3l6vbipk2211132p6hjvmm4@4ax.com>
> >On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:48:24 +1030, in alt.atheism
> >Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in
> ><p85tt21v7s8ma863a82duja9b2vgas289s@4ax.com>:
> >>On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
> >>wrote:
> >> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Pastor Frank wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "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.
> >>>
> >>>I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate constantly that
> >>>they are liars and
> >>>charlatans. That's what I believe
> >>
> >>I do NOT believe that.
> >>Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100%
> >
> >I think you are being far too hard on religionists. Some of them, Albert
> >Schweitzer for example, were wonderful people who have done great things
> >for the world (whether or not they were religious).
>
> I hear what you say, but even Albert Schweitzer had to lie outright
> about reality and science to be a Christian.
> Whatever great works he may have performed, that in no way takes away
> from the fact that he had to lie to himself, and others, to remain a
> Christian.
> In his case, it is a far worse crime, as he didn't have the excuse of
> ignorance.
>
> You seem to be saying that I should not call certain people liars, not
> because they don't lie, but because they are otherwise good, or
> because it is politically correct?
>
> Sorry.
> That ain't my way.
> A liar is a liar.

What are your views on Hindus and Muslims then?

>
>
> --