NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:07:20 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:

>"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. What about
>YOU? How and why did YOU change "much"?

Mostly it's been a slow process.

>> As I and others have told you many times before, atheism really
>> doesn't imply a whole lot about the rest of a person's beliefs.
>>
> As usual atheists always know and never tire listing what is not, does
>not, cannot etc. etc. ad infinitum and ad nauseam. When will you tell us
>what atheism DOES "imply" and how that makes you a better person?

No. Because atheism has no business being a person's motivation.
Other motivations will be behind our actions. But I've told you this
before.

>> But you don't really care about the truth of the matter, it seems.
>>
> Again, why list something that "don't"? List the thing that DO.

I will do as i please.

>> It's just so much easier to talk about "atheists" as a borg-like
>> entity than to respond to individuals as individuals.
>>
> An atheist is an indiviual who specialises in listing negatives,
>...exclusively. That's "borg-like" alright.

I don't know why i sometimes feel the need to bother with you.

>> Love is not bigoted, and does not force people into ill-considered
>> stereotypes, Frank.
>>
> Are you quoting Christ here or Paul?

I'm not quoting anybody, but I am alluding to scripture.

>> Your god "love" is generous and eager to see the good...
>>
> No "my" love, but the love of Christ that dwells in me.
>
>> Why aren't you?
>>
> But I am, or rather Christ in me is!!! It's only that you don't look for
>that. As an atheists you are forced to consider ONLY errors and faults.
>Hence, every time you come across something "good" you cannot but miss it
>altogether.

What better proof could I ask for that you are not generous and that
you have a squeezed and squished view of us. Show some good qualities
and I will praise them.

> It's the curse of the Borg which makes you fate-driven, whereas we
>Christians are faith based and purpose-driven. Join us and see for
>yourself!! All you need to do is in a spirit of repentance and supplication,
>ask Jesus to take over you life and do His works through you. When the
>Kingdom of Heaven dawns on you, you will know Christ has assumed power. For
>wherever Jesus is, there His Kingdom of Heaven is also.

indeed. Sigh.
 
On 24 Feb 2007 00:00:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <45DFD3F4.7B1681CD@netvigator.com>
>
>
>rbwinn wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 9:21??
 
Darrell Stec wrote:

> 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.

I have just told the arrogant little ******* that his posts now go unread
by me -

It should be like a breath of fresh air from now on

>
>
> --
> Later,
> Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com
>
> Webpage Sorcery
> http://webpagesorcery.com
> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:53:25 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:

>"Paul Ransom Erickson" <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:u4qft2ppbprus69bal5qdcjtjptkp7inf6@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:51:58 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
>> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:35:48 +0800, in alt.atheism
>>>"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>>><45d6f3c4$0$16389$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>>>news:021at2dduc81elh421vfel0tr3he94oqc0@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 15 Feb 2007 04:31:43 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
>>>>> <1171542703.680913.131700@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, Thomas, here we see the last refuge of the atheist, the personal
>>>>>>attack. We were discussing the Bible here in alt.bible. Now everyone
>>>>>>can see your purpose in intruding in our conversation. If you do not
>>>>>>want to talk about the Bible, why don't you go live the happy life of
>>>>>>an atheist?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in alt.atheism watching you tell your lies. Why are you posting
>>>>> your
>>>>> lies in alt.atheism.
>>>>>
>>>> Because a.a. is ABOUT atheism, not a refuge FOR atheists. Also,
>>>> atheist
>>>>doctrine demands, that what we consider the truth, atheists MUST call
>>>>lies
>>>>or face excommunication and confiscation of their number.
>>>
>>>As people have pointed out again and again, yet you, in your hubris
>>>refuse to acknowledge, there is no such thing as atheist doctrine.
>>>
>>>It appears that you hate people.
>>
>> Indeed. He spends a lot of time on alt.atheism telling us how awful
>> he thinks we are.
>>
> Non sequitur to what I wrote. My comments concerned atheism as a
>philosophy of life, not atheists as persons. But then atheism requires
>atheists to ALWAYS emphasis faults, errors, shortcomings, insufficiencies
>etc. to the exclusion of affirming what is good, right, desirable, and
>salutary.
> That is what hell is all about, all negative and despairing and nothing
>positive and hopeful. And that is also why Christ came to bring us the Good
>News.

No, no. I'm done with you.
 
On 24 Feb 2007 00:18:03 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <45DFD81F.528F576C@netvigator.com>
>
>
>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.

My reading is that you clearly consider those people who
deliberately lie insanely, but are otherwise good, to be "hardly"
inferior to those who do good, but retain probity?

That is where we differ, in spades!

>It is the priets you mention who are the charlatans as they do it as a
>profession.

Quite.
They are the ringleaders, like Fagin.
But that in no way relieves the "Oliver Twist" from the culpability of
his criminal offences, especially when most of them have an easy
choice:
Stay Christian and keep wilfully fabricating frauds, or drop the
Christianity, and become honest.
It doesn't take any change other than in one's mind, and at no
expense.

No, we seem to have very different opinions on this issue.
They are wilfull, deliberate and conscious liars.

--
 
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:34:28 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <549pvqF1vgjuhU1@mid.individual.net>
>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.

And from what I can gather, he is reading from the most egregious
translation available to the English reader.

--
 
On 24 Feb 2007 00:20:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <45DFD8B4.3F6AE75A@netvigator.com>
>
>
>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?

A quick guide.
Hindus: slightly more honest than the monotheistic Abrahamic con
artists.
Muslims: Exactly like Christians, (by definition): either liars or
demented, or both.

--
 
Michael Gray wrote:

> On 24 Feb 2007 00:18:03 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <45DFD81F.528F576C@netvigator.com>
> >
> >
> >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.
>
> My reading is that you clearly consider those people who
> deliberately lie insanely, but are otherwise good, to be "hardly"
> inferior to those who do good, but retain probity?
>
> That is where we differ, in spades!
>
> >It is the priets you mention who are the charlatans as they do it as a
> >profession.
>
> Quite.
> They are the ringleaders, like Fagin.
> But that in no way relieves the "Oliver Twist" from the culpability of
> his criminal offences, especially when most of them have an easy
> choice:
> Stay Christian and keep wilfully fabricating frauds, or drop the
> Christianity, and become honest.
> It doesn't take any change other than in one's mind, and at no
> expense.
>
> No, we seem to have very different opinions on this issue.
> They are wilfull, deliberate and conscious liars.

Someone brought up in the church and brainwashed as a child, on reaching his teens is
hardly lying about his belief, he is simply misguided, misdirected and misinformed; but
he can still be a very nice person.

One of my favorite aunties was a 'died in the wool' Christian and nothing would budge her
but she was a wonderful person. She lost her husband when he was fifty and went into
wearing black for the rest of her life 'until she could join Daddy'. This is what I
dislike about religion [not just Christianity] in a modern world [this took place forty
years ago] she could have remarried instead of waiting fruitlessly for nearly fifty years
before she herself finally passed away.

What are your views on Islam and Hinduism?

>
>
> --
 
In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:00:05 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 23, 7:07?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:19:49 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >Well, actually, it does. Paul stated that in the last days men would
>> >be turned to fables, being unable to abide sound doctrine.
>>
>> jesus = fable.
>>
> The person to explain your idea to would be Jesus Christ.

jesus = fable.

IOW: you can repeat that "you can talk to jesus when he comes
back", but that pathetic attempt at a threat means nothing. You'll
have to find something valid.


Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
 
In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:04:58 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 23, 7:10?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:31:53 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >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...
>> >> > So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys,
>> >> > you claim that he was telling a "yarn"?
>> >> > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> IDIOT there is nothing to show your Jesus said anything other than what other
>> >> foolish humans like you have claimed
>>
>> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Well, here we have another statement from an atheist denying the
>> >existence of the Bible.
>>
>> No, that's not what we have. We only have that if you, Bobby,
>> do not understand English. Are you admitting that you do not
>> understand English?

>You first, Don.

Oh please, Bobby. IKYABWAI is so kindergarten.


Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
 
In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:02:16 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 23, 7:09?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >> > > rbwinn wrote:
>> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?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. )ncoln said on
>> >> > > > > >several occasions that he believed the Bible.
>>
>> >> > > > > Source with complete context please.
>>
>> >> > > > I can give you the original source. !lk to Abraham Lincoln after the
>> >> > > > resurrection. % can tell you in person.
>> >> > > > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time - what a
>> >> > > wally- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. / need to get irrational.
>> >> > Isaiah 2:17
>>
>> nd 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.
>> >> > obert 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- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were
>> >monkeys telling me to grow up.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>> Every time a creationist says something like "you believe your
>> ancestors were monkeys", the creationist is exposed as the dumbest
>> ****ing person on the planet.

>Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

Crying about "profanity" is the last resort of one who has no
argument to begin with, and merely demonstrates the lack of
intelligence on the part of the complainer.


Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
 
On Feb 23, 9:09�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2007 18:27:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172284059.970326.74...@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.
 
On Feb 23, 11:00�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> 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.
 
On Feb 23, 11:02�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> 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.
 
On Feb 24, 6:47�am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:00:05 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
> >On Feb 23, 7:07?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:19:49 -0800, "rbwinn"
> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
> >> >Well, actually, it does.
 
On Feb 24, 6:47�am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:04:58 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 23, 7:10?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:31:53 -0800, "rbwinn"
> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
> >> >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...
> >> >> > So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys,
> >> >> > you claim that he was telling a "yarn"?
> >> >> > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >> IDIOT there is nothing to show your Jesus said anything other than what other
> >> >> foolish humans like you have claimed
>
> >> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >Well, here we have another statement from an atheist denying the
> >> >existence of the Bible.
>
> >>
 
On Feb 24, 6:49�am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:02:16 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 23, 7:09?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, "rbwinn"
> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
> >> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > rbwinn wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?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. )ncoln said on
> >> >> > > > > >several occasions that he believed the Bible.
>
> >> >> > > > > Source with complete context please.
>
> >> >> > > > I can give you the original source. !lk to Abraham Lincoln after the
> >> >> > > > resurrection. % can tell you in person.
> >> >> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time - what a
> >> >> > > wally- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. / need to get irrational.
> >> >> > Isaiah 2:17
>
> >> nd 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.
> >> >> >
 
On Feb 23, 5:22 pm, "Day Brown" <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
> Inasmuch as none of the Greek philosophers who invented the rules of
> logic that have been applied to this question were atheist, one has to
> pause for thot, as they certainly did. By and large, atheism is
> sophistry. If one thinks there is no god, then what is the motivation
> for trying to refute the premise that there is? Why should you ****ing
> care? You have no moral mandate to convert humanity.
>
> To argue that religion risks your own welfare with WMD may be so, but
> not all religion. The Buddhist monks who destroyed the moral high
> ground of the LBJ administration in Vietnam took pains to see that no
> body else (in stark contrast to the Jihadim or innumerable examples of
> Christian zealots) would be harmed when they immolated themselves in
> front of the TV cameras. Any atheist would be hard put to find any
> risk to his welfare from Buddhists, Taoists, Confucians and several
> other obscure religions.
>
> No, the problem the atheist focuses on are the Levantine religions
> based on various forms of scripture. If they could all agree on which
> texts, or which interpretations of the holy word, that would be one
> thing. But as David Hume pointed out, since they dont, how then can
> you expect any of them to compromise what they say is divine word? The
> result he saw was that they inevitably resort to the use of force, the
> survivors assumed to be on "the side of god". I beg to differ; they
> are on the side of the alpha males who have crafted a concept of the
> divine that panders to their sensibilities, and justifies their
> instinctive attempts to dominate others.
>
> These other Oriental, originally central asian Aryan, religions dont
> have idea of the divine as an alpha male tyrant, and dont have the
> problem. What they relied on, rather than scripture, was meditation,
> sacred sex, and sacred potions to alter the state of consciousness and
> have a direct experience of the divine presence. You dont need a
> pope, bishop, rabbi, or mullah, or any of the steep pyramidal power
> structures these men create to see the divine this way.

Very interesting comment and a pleasure to read.

I agree that the xian religion is an authoritarian design. Xianity
by its nature attracts tyrants and promotes a planet of the apes
dullness in its followers.
 
On Feb 23, 8:58 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Cite, cite, cite!
>
> State of Arizona v. Robert B. Winn 2004
> Robert B. Winn

Owing to the sloppy way you make unsupported assertions, I suspect
you're in the Warren Jeff crowd.

If you're in the Gordon Hinckley crowd, they ought to take you to the
woodpile.
 
On Feb 23, 9:09 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
> All I know about it is that states started denying trial by jury.
> When it all started everyone was quoting a minority opinion written by
> Thurgood Marshall. 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.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. That would be out of character for Marshall to
advocate erosion of rights to trial by jury, and you can't even
furnish a citation. Do you have no shame?
 

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