NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[Don Kresch]

In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:34:07 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>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.
>> >> >> > /bert 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
>
>If you want to use profanity,

I will.


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"

 

[Libertarius]

duke wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:11:25 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
>
>
>>>>The only "supreme being" that can and does really exist
>>>>through eternity was identified by Baruch Spinoza.
>>>>Of course he was cursed by Jews and denounced by Christians
>>>>for it, because he shows the deities described in the Bible
>>>>are just man-made fantasy creations. -- L.
>
>
>
>>>Everkybody but you knows he's wrong.
>
>
>>===>Ah, so now you think of yourself as "everybody"???
>>Your sickness is getting worse, Duckie! -- L.
>
>
> No, I'm only me, libby. Everybody but YOU knows he's wrong.

===>WHOM do you call "everybody", silly boy? -- L.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 4:17�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 15:11:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172445067.443820.54...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 1:15?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> >wrote:
> >> After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 12:42
> >> pm Free Lunch perhaps from l...@nofreelunch.us wrote:
>
> >> > On 25 Feb 2007 07:58:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> > <1172419090.759680.19...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
> >> >>On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >>> On 23 Feb 2007 18:09:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> >>> <1172282994.677931.75...@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.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 4:19�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 15:07:23 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172444843.712292.252...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 12:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 25 Feb 2007 10:23:11 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> >> <1172427791.307648.106...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Feb 25, 10:58 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> > You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
> >> >> > support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>
> >> >> Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
> >> >> which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
> >> >> and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.
>
> >> >The Supreme Court has ruled that in petty misdeameanor cases the
> >> >defendant has no right to trial by jury. _Lewis v. United States,_ 518
> >> >U. S. 322 (1996)
> >> >See: (ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-6465.ZS.html
>
> >> >Justice Thurgood Marshall voted with the majority in _Duncan v.
> >> >Louisiana,_ a misdemeanor assault case in which the Louisiana judge
> >> >denied Duncan a jury trial.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 4:21�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 15:04:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172444647.286662.253...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 11:23?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 25, 10:58 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 4:21�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 14:57:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172444233.997528.321...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 10:42?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 25 Feb 2007 07:58:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1172419090.759680.19...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> On 23 Feb 2007 18:09:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> >> <1172282994.677931.75...@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.

 

[Gospel Bretts]

On 25 Feb 2007 17:27:37 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

>On Feb 25, 4:21?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2007 15:04:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1172444647.286662.253...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 25, 11:23?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 25, 10:58 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> ...]
>> >> > > You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> >> > > support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>>
>> >> > Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
>> >> > which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
>> >> > and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.
>>
>> >> The Supreme Court has ruled that in petty misdeameanor cases the
>> >> defendant has no right to trial by jury. _Lewis v. United States,_ 518
>> >> U. S. 322 (1996)
>> >> See: (ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-6465.ZS.html
>>
>> >> Justice Thurgood Marshall voted with the majority in _Duncan v.
>> >> Louisiana,_ a misdemeanor assault case in which the Louisiana judge
>> >> denied Duncan a jury trial. (en this case came before the Supreme
>> >> Court of the United States, the justices voted 7 to 2 that the 6th
>> >> Amendment guaranteed Duncan a jury trial. (e judgment was reversed
>> >> and remanded for a new trial.
>>
>> >> Maybe you have Thurgood Marshall confused with Justice Potter Stewart
>> >> or Justice John Harlan, who dissented, voting to uphold the decision
>> >> of the Louisiana judge.
>>
>> >> Here is the Duncan case paraphrased so hopefully you can understand
>> >> it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_v._Louisiana
>>
>> >> hether or not
>>
>> >> > Thurgood Marshall was the first Supreme Court justice to advocate
>> >> > denying this right is irrelevant. (ere were probably others before
>> >> > him, but when he did it
>>
>> >> Cite?
>>
>> >> , lawyers as a group endorsed his opinion as
>>
>> >> > authoritative.
>>
>> >> Cite?
>>
>> >> he other members of the Supreme Court who have
>>
>> >> > continued on in this injustice are equally responsible.
>> >> > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> Contemplate annihilation, Robert. /u have annihilated your
>> >> credibility.
>>
>> >It does not interest me in the least which cases the Supreme Court
>> >used to deny right to trial by jury.
>>
>> But you lied about it.
>>
>> >The fact is that they did it,
>> >which even your explanation shows. o here is where the matter
>> >stands: s the Supreme Court the Supreme law of the Land? o, the
>> >Supreme Court is not the Supreme law of the land. he Constitution of
>> >the United States is the Supreme Law of the land. f there are
>> >lawyers who cannot understand the English language, they should not
>> >become Supreme Court judges.
mendment 6 of the Constitution says
>> >that in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant is guaranteed right
>> >to trial by jury. he Constitution cannot be amended by the Supreme
>> >Court. t has to be done by the Congress of the United States.
>>
>> You are an absolute fool. I am confident that the police who 'harrassed'
>> you had actually given you a break, but you were too ornery to realize
>> it.- Hide quoted text -
>They did not give me any break. They all came to court as witnesses
>and committed perjury about what happened.
>I was still declared not guilty because the judge did not want me to
>appeal the case.
>Robert B. Winn

Hi Robert. Don't take this wrong, cuz I'm not trying to give you a
hard time, but I just want to ask an honest and innocent quesion. If
folks committed perjury to hurt you, then what can you do about it?
Can you get the D.A. to file criminal charges against them?

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 5:15�pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:29:31 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 5:16�pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:32:15 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >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:
> >> >> >>rbwinnwrote:
> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> >>

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 5:17�pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:34:07 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >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:
> >> >> >>rbwinnwrote:
> >> >> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > >rbwinnwrote:
> >> >> >> > > > 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.
> >> >> >> > /bert 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.
>
> >> >>

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 6:36�pm, Gospel Bretts <bretts1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 17:27:37 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 4:21?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 25 Feb 2007 15:04:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1172444647.286662.253...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Feb 25, 11:23?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 25, 10:58 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> ...]
> >> >> > > You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
> >> >> > > support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>
> >> >> > Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
> >> >> > which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
> >> >> > and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.
>
> >> >> The Supreme Court has ruled that in petty misdeameanor cases the
> >> >> defendant has no right to trial by jury. _Lewis v. United States,_ 518
> >> >> U. S. 322 (1996)
> >> >> See: (ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-6465.ZS.html
>
> >> >> Justice Thurgood Marshall voted with the majority in _Duncan v.
> >> >> Louisiana,_ a misdemeanor assault case in which the Louisiana judge
> >> >> denied Duncan a jury trial. (en this case came before the Supreme
> >> >> Court of the United States, the justices voted 7 to 2 that the 6th
> >> >> Amendment guaranteed Duncan a jury trial. (e judgment was reversed
> >> >> and remanded for a new trial.
>
> >> >> Maybe you have Thurgood Marshall confused with Justice Potter Stewart
> >> >> or Justice John Harlan, who dissented, voting to uphold the decision
> >> >> of the Louisiana judge.
>
> >> >> Here is the Duncan case paraphrased so hopefully you can understand
> >> >> it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_v._Louisiana
>
> >> >>

 

[Gospel Bretts]

On 25 Feb 2007 18:23:02 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

>On Feb 25, 6:36?pm, Gospel Bretts <bretts1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2007 17:27:37 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 25, 4:21?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On 25 Feb 2007 15:04:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> <1172444647.286662.253...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 25, 11:23?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Feb 25, 10:58 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> ...]
>> >> >> > > You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> >> >> > > support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>>
>> >> >> > Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
>> >> >> > which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
>> >> >> > and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.
>>
>> >> >> The Supreme Court has ruled that in petty misdeameanor cases the
>> >> >> defendant has no right to trial by jury. _Lewis v. United States,_ 518
>> >> >> U. S. 322 (1996)
>> >> >> See: (ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-6465.ZS.html
>>
>> >> >> Justice Thurgood Marshall voted with the majority in _Duncan v.
>> >> >> Louisiana,_ a misdemeanor assault case in which the Louisiana judge
>> >> >> denied Duncan a jury trial. (en this case came before the Supreme
>> >> >> Court of the United States, the justices voted 7 to 2 that the 6th
>> >> >> Amendment guaranteed Duncan a jury trial. (e judgment was reversed
>> >> >> and remanded for a new trial.
>>
>> >> >> Maybe you have Thurgood Marshall confused with Justice Potter Stewart
>> >> >> or Justice John Harlan, who dissented, voting to uphold the decision
>> >> >> of the Louisiana judge.
>>
>> >> >> Here is the Duncan case paraphrased so hopefully you can understand
>> >> >> it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_v._Louisiana
>>
>> >> >> (ether or not
>>
>> >> >> > Thurgood Marshall was the first Supreme Court justice to advocate
>> >> >> > denying this right is irrelevant. (ere were probably others before
>> >> >> > him, but when he did it
>>
>> >> >> Cite?
>>
>> >> >> , lawyers as a group endorsed his opinion as
>>
>> >> >> > authoritative.
>>
>> >> >> Cite?
>>
>> >> >> (e other members of the Supreme Court who have
>>
>> >> >> > continued on in this injustice are equally responsible.
>> >> >> > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> Contemplate annihilation, Robert. /u have annihilated your
>> >> >> credibility.
>>
>> >> >It does not interest me in the least which cases the Supreme Court
>> >> >used to deny right to trial by jury.
>>
>> >> But you lied about it.
>>
>> >> >The fact is that they did it,
>> >> >which even your explanation shows. / here is where the matter
>> >> >stands: 3 the Supreme Court the Supreme law of the Land? /, the
>> >> >Supreme Court is not the Supreme law of the land. (e Constitution of
>> >> >the United States is the Supreme Law of the land. & there are
>> >> >lawyers who cannot understand the English language, they should not
>> >> >become Supreme Court judges.
>>
>> mendment 6 of the Constitution says
>>
>> >> >that in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant is guaranteed right
>> >> >to trial by jury. (e Constitution cannot be amended by the Supreme
>> >> >Court. t has to be done by the Congress of the United States.
>>
>> >> You are an absolute fool. I am confident that the police who 'harrassed'
>> >> you had actually given you a break, but you were too ornery to realize
>> >> it.- Hide quoted text -
>> >They did not give me any break. hey all came to court as witnesses
>> >and committed perjury about what happened.
>> >I was still declared not guilty because the judge did not want me to
>> >appeal the case.
>> >Robert B. Winn
>>
>> Hi Robert. Don't take this wrong, cuz I'm not trying to give you a
>> hard time, but I just want to ask an honest and innocent quesion. If
>> folks committed perjury to hurt you, then what can you do about it?
>> Can you get the D.A. to file criminal charges against them?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>Not in a European style police state, which is what they are running
>at the present time. There is no D.A. who is going to file felony
>charges against police officers for committing perjury in a
>misdemeanor case. The most they will do is say the police officers
>did not remember correctly.
>Robert B. Winn
>

Ah, I see. Thanks, Robert.

 

[Al Klein]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:23:21 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:a931u29j8j0tov0249ng5dlvu0ap7h8t52@4ax.com...
>> That is good. I hope that is true, except we know that people justify
>> their attacks on abortion clinics, murders of doctors and murders of
>> gays with their supposed Christianity. Some Christians rightly condemn
>> such vile acts, but others claim that the victims are condemned by God
>> and, essentially, condone such attacks and murders.

>It isn't fair to associate the countless good, upstanding people with the
>few crackpots and fanatics.

Why not? Christianity claims the moral high ground for ALL
Christians. That includes the abortion clinic bombers, the child
rapist priests and the Hitlers of the world.

> The overwhelming majorityof Christians
>condemn these murder under any circumstance.

Which has nothing to do with the Christian claim of moral high ground
for ALL Christians. O N E bad Christian negates that claim.

>> I understand that, but the Southern Baptist Convention, among other
>> slavery-friendly institutions, intentionally broke from their other
>> American Baptist fellows because they wanted to defend slavery. They
>> claimed that it was just fine to own a slave and kill it.

>I do not believe they said it is just fine to kill anyone slave or free.

They did, so either you believe a lie, or you refuse to believe a
truth. No difference in the amount of dishonesty.

>> Those were the
>> kinds of people who broke away from the Union and attacked the Union.

>Slavery was not the issue with most of the people in the south.

Economy - and the slave labor without which that economy would crash
and burn in months, at most - was.

> Indeed only a small percentage of the southern population was wealthy enough
>to buy slaves.

Only a small percentage of the population of the US is wealthy enough
to be capitalists, but this is a capitalist economy, much as the
pre-war south was a slave economy.

>It's hard to imagine the logic of non-slave owners fighting
>for the right of the rich to own slaves.

The economy they depended on to live depended on slave labor.

>> No, it isn't. The slaveholders thought that murdering their slaves was
>> just fine, they liked it so much that they changed the law to make
>> certain that it wasn't called murder.

>I challenge this. People ard not as cold hearted as you pretend.

It had nothing to do with heart. Do you feel any pangs of remorse
when you junk an old car? Slaves weren't people, they were property,
like tractors and harvesters.

>Most people do not like to see anyone suffer, even animals
>are protected.

But animals aren't machinery - slaves were. Not only in the south.
There will always be more slaves, so if one dies, or has to be "put
down", that's a shame, but that's life (for the slave OWNERS).

> I agree that some slaveholders did mistreat their
>slaves, but killing a valuable investment?

A runaway slave isn't a valuable investment, it's a liability, like a
cow with Mad Cow disease. Will you kill it, or allow it to infect the
whole herd?

> It doesn't make sense even from a financial viewpoint.

Unless you know the slightest thing about economics.

>> After the revolt of the
>> slaveholders was put down, the intellectual and spiritual heirs of the
>> slaveholders still went around murdering blacks. Even though those
>> murders were indeed technically crimes, no one bothered to do anything
>> about it. As far as I can tell, using your criteria, there were no
>> Christians in the South until the laws against murdering blacks started
>> to be enforced. That seems to be sometime after 1964.

>You're implying that everyone in the South was engaged in such
>horrific crimes?

You're claiming that Christians spoke out against this in public in
the 1870s? That some Christian didn't own a slave isn't evidence that
Christianity was anti-slavery. (The Bible is evidence that it's
PRO-slavery.)

 

[Al Klein]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:23:28 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0m22u21idv2rstukooibipa9l5ddsok4ub@4ax.com...

>> >> Marriage itself does. Paul allows for it, but says that good
>> >> Christians should be celibate.

>> >I do not believe this!

>> How can a Christian come up with an argument like that about what's in
>> the Bible? "I've never read it but I don't believe it says that?"

>Where does Paul say it better for Christians to be celibrate?

Someone else posted chapter and verse yesterday, so I won't waste the
bandwidth.

>> > It this were true, Christianity would have disappeared.

>> Why? Christians don't do what Jesus and Paul told them to do. If
>> they did they'd all be Jews, for starters. Where, in the NT, for
>> example, does it say that "Sunday" has become the new name of Sabbath
>> (the day BEFORE Sunday)?

>It's immaterial, Christians I believe accept the first day of the week
>as their Sabbath

That's like saying that Christians have accepted Wednesday as the day
after Monday. "Sabbath" is the NAME of the 7th day of the week, it's
not any arbitrary day you choose.

 

[Al Klein]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:35:51 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>
>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:k442u2dt9j5oqpnhbp750tevq16oroj1dg@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:12:52 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:jb7rt2pt6a32ui9qa1aj6a5svai7gioume@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> He's only in one place - everyplace. Remember? He's omnipresent? But
>> saying "it's impossible physically to be two places at the same time"
>> IS limiting an omnipotent god. Or are you limiting him to logical
>> things?
>>
>This is in reference to the birthplace according to the Bible and the
>BOM.

And the objective evidence that the Bible is correct and the BOM is
wrong?

>> Did you REALLY graduate dental college?

>I did, probably before you were born.

If you're still practicing, you didn't graduate before I graduated.
Unless you're such a failure as a dentist that you're going to be
working until you die.

>There are some minor differences, I agree. But there are core beliefs
>shared by most of them.

Like the Northern Irish beliefs? The place where no one is killing
anyone else for being the wrong kind of Christian?

>> >> > 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.

>> Oh, you mean like Northern Ireland, where Protestants are killing
>> Catholics?

> One side wants a unified (one) Ireland and the people of Northern
>Ireland want to remain part of Great Britain. It isn't a issue of religion.
>It is basically a political conflict.

It's a basically a political argument of which religion should be the
official religion recognized by the government. Nothing to do with
religion at all.

Did you learn to lie through your teeth in dental college or in
church?

>This is my final post for a while. I have bigger fish to fry.

Translation: I think I'm going to get clobbered, so I'll come back
when they've forgotten this thread. That's so boring. I haven't seen
it before. This month.

 

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 6:49 pm
rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 25, 3:16?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> wrote:
>> After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007
>> 11:20 amrbwinnperhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 24, 3:58?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:37 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> ?? - Refer: <rhp0u2tkecj62dap0cnp9240cisu886...@4ax.com>
>>
>> >> >On 24 Feb 2007 06:26:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> ><1172327214.029352.172...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>> >> >>On Feb 23, 11:02?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>>rbwinnwrote:
>> >> >>> > On Feb 22, 9:44?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
>> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >>> > >rbwinnwrote:
>> >> >>> > > > On Feb 15, 9:08?pm, bob young
>> >> >>> > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> > > > >rbwinnwrote:
>> >> >>> > > > > > 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. ??If I ask you about Isaiah's account of
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > the Assyrian invasion of Judea, you reply with
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > an inane question about fictional characters.
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > ??o, the conversation is over. ??ou are claiming
>> >> >>> > > > > > > > that the Bible does not exist.
>>
>> >> >>> > > > > > > Little Bobby is such a pathetic twit, but we
>> >> >>> > > > > > > should be nice to him; he does such good work for
>> >> >>> > > > > > > atheism.
>>
>> >> >>> > > > > > Your personal attacks show everyone who you work
>> >> >>> > > > > > for. Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> >>> > > > > These - wizards, satans, evil spirits, $evils,
>> >> >>> > > > > lucifers, ghouls, diabolous, Auld Hornies, Fiends, Old
>> >> >>> > > > > Nicks etc., $o not exist ...........any more than your
>> >> >>> > > > > god exists.
>>
>> >> >>> > > > > They, along with your god, were all manufactured by
>> >> >>> > > > > fearful humans long before you were borne Robert - get
>> >> >>> > > > > used to it- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >>> > > > Well, the most common lie told by Satan is that the
>> >> >>> > > > devil does not exist.
>> >> >>> > > > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> >>> > > Seen him have you? 9ou really do need help- Hide quoted
>> >> >>> > > text -
>>
>> >> >>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >>> > Why would a person who has seen Satan need help?
>>
>> >> >>> You are a moat dishonest person. 4he question was whether you
>> >> >>> have seen him.
>>
>> >> >>> Deviating again, because your god is nothing
>>
>> >> >>Well, the problem with telling a person like you what I have
>> >> >>seen or not seen is that you would use it in a dishonest way.
>> >> >>??It is none of your business what I have seen or not seen.
>>
>> >> >So you are just making unsupportable claims.
>>
>> >> No change there.
>> > If I say that I am going to church today, you would say that I have
>> > made an unsupportable claim. ??Anything I say or do would be an
>> > unsupportable claim to you.
>>
>> Not at all. ??You could support your claim by sending us a copy of
>> your driver's license and a picture (with date on it) of you in
>> church. ??You could also support your claim by giving us a letter
>> from your bishop that you attended church that day and a phone number
>> of that bishop so we could verify it.
>>
>> There are any number of ways you could support your claim and provide
>> evidence that we could verify and that does not include arrogant
>> assertions.
>>
>> > OK, if that is how you want to use the
>> > term, "unsupportable claim", go ahead and use it that way.
>>
>> The problem is that you make assertion but provide nothing other than
>> your baseless opinion bolstered by your lack of education and dismiss
>> every single educated scholar on the subject.
>>
>> > Far be it
>> > from me to interfere with what you want to do. ??It just goes to
>> > show that attempting to communicate with an atheist is not a
>> > worthwhile objective.
>>
>> Do you realize that many of the people that are replying to your
>> posts are not atheists and are in fact mainstream Christians who hold
>> their faith dearly? ??It is just that they are botheed by your
>> intellectually deficient, baseless assertions and are calling you on
>> it. ??They do not fear to question their faith nor fear that some
>> parts of their religion have no support other than pure faith, nor
>> are they bothered that some primitive goatherders got some facts
>> wrong, or that there truly are inconsistencies in the bible.
>>
>> > Robert B. Winn
>>
> There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to provide evidence to
> you that I attended church.

Robbie, do you practice being that dense and lacking reading
comprehension or does it come natural to you? Please take time to read
what was actually written.

You wrote: "If I say that I am going to church today, you would say
that I have made an unsupportable claim. Anything I say or do would be
an unsupportable claim to you."

Nobody ASKED you for evidence of going to church. My reply was to
counter your claim that anything you said would be unsupportable. I
merely explained to you under what circumstances you would be believed.
But so far no one actually asked you for that evidence. It was only
suggested what we might accept to believe you.

> I do not care whether you believe I went to church or not.

Oh child, you do in fact care. Otherwise you would not have bothered to
comment unless you are trolling and are a disingenuous hypocrite.

> This is true of almost everything about which you
> demand evidence. I am not aware of any mainstream Christians who are
> trying to communicate with me, just some atheists trying to run their
> little game.

There have been several people here that replied to you that have either
posted they were Christian in the past or have directly told you they
were not atheists.

You seem to think that anyone that does not agree with your theological
dribble is an atheist. I've got news for you. A good many
knowledgeable Christians wholeheartedly disagree with your gibberish
ideas and that includes scholars of your own Church.

> Are you claiming to be a mainstream Christian?

See right there you have shown that you have problems with reading
comprehension. Just a few days ago I mentioned that I had a formal
education in theology and in the biblical languages. How many
non-Christians do you think would go after that type of education?

What probably really confused you is that you seem to have a problem wit
tenses. You used the wrong one for the verb "are".

>
> Robert B. Winn

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

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

 

[Michael Gray]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:18:54 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <54fmvuF20djeaU1@mid.individual.net>
>After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 6:49 pm
>rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 3:16?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>> wrote:
>>> After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007
>>> 11:20 amrbwinnperhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Feb 24, 3:58?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:37 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> ?? - Refer: <rhp0u2tkecj62dap0cnp9240cisu886...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>> >> >On 24 Feb 2007 06:26:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>> >> >"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>>> >> ><1172327214.029352.172...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>> >> >>On Feb 23, 11:02?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
>>> >> >>wrote:
>>> >> >>>rbwinnwrote:
>>> >> >>> > On Feb 22, 9:44?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
>>> >> >>> > wrote:
>>> >> >>> > >rbwinnwrote:
>>> >> >>> > > > On Feb 15, 9:08?pm, bob young
>>> >> >>> > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>> > > > >rbwinnwrote:
>>> >> >>> > > > > > 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. ??If I ask you about Isaiah's account of
>>> >> >>> > > > > > > > the Assyrian invasion of Judea, you reply with
>>> >> >>> > > > > > > > an inane question about fictional characters.
>>> >> >>> > > > > > > > ??o, the conversation is over. ??ou are claiming
>>> >> >>> > > > > > > > that the Bible does not exist.
>>>
>>> >> >>> > > > > > > Little Bobby is such a pathetic twit, but we
>>> >> >>> > > > > > > should be nice to him; he does such good work for
>>> >> >>> > > > > > > atheism.
>>>
>>> >> >>> > > > > > Your personal attacks show everyone who you work
>>> >> >>> > > > > > for. Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> >> >>> > > > > These - wizards, satans, evil spirits, $evils,
>>> >> >>> > > > > lucifers, ghouls, diabolous, Auld Hornies, Fiends, Old
>>> >> >>> > > > > Nicks etc., $o not exist ...........any more than your
>>> >> >>> > > > > god exists.
>>>
>>> >> >>> > > > > They, along with your god, were all manufactured by
>>> >> >>> > > > > fearful humans long before you were borne Robert - get
>>> >> >>> > > > > used to it- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> >>> > > > Well, the most common lie told by Satan is that the
>>> >> >>> > > > devil does not exist.
>>> >> >>> > > > Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> >> >>> > > Seen him have you? 9ou really do need help- Hide quoted
>>> >> >>> > > text -
>>>
>>> >> >>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> >>> > Why would a person who has seen Satan need help?
>>>
>>> >> >>> You are a moat dishonest person. 4he question was whether you
>>> >> >>> have seen him.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Deviating again, because your god is nothing
>>>
>>> >> >>Well, the problem with telling a person like you what I have
>>> >> >>seen or not seen is that you would use it in a dishonest way.
>>> >> >>??It is none of your business what I have seen or not seen.
>>>
>>> >> >So you are just making unsupportable claims.
>>>
>>> >> No change there.
>>> > If I say that I am going to church today, you would say that I have
>>> > made an unsupportable claim. ??Anything I say or do would be an
>>> > unsupportable claim to you.
>>>
>>> Not at all. ??You could support your claim by sending us a copy of
>>> your driver's license and a picture (with date on it) of you in
>>> church. ??You could also support your claim by giving us a letter
>>> from your bishop that you attended church that day and a phone number
>>> of that bishop so we could verify it.
>>>
>>> There are any number of ways you could support your claim and provide
>>> evidence that we could verify and that does not include arrogant
>>> assertions.
>>>
>>> > OK, if that is how you want to use the
>>> > term, "unsupportable claim", go ahead and use it that way.
>>>
>>> The problem is that you make assertion but provide nothing other than
>>> your baseless opinion bolstered by your lack of education and dismiss
>>> every single educated scholar on the subject.
>>>
>>> > Far be it
>>> > from me to interfere with what you want to do. ??It just goes to
>>> > show that attempting to communicate with an atheist is not a
>>> > worthwhile objective.
>>>
>>> Do you realize that many of the people that are replying to your
>>> posts are not atheists and are in fact mainstream Christians who hold
>>> their faith dearly? ??It is just that they are botheed by your
>>> intellectually deficient, baseless assertions and are calling you on
>>> it. ??They do not fear to question their faith nor fear that some
>>> parts of their religion have no support other than pure faith, nor
>>> are they bothered that some primitive goatherders got some facts
>>> wrong, or that there truly are inconsistencies in the bible.
>>>
>>> > Robert B. Winn
>>>
>> There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to provide evidence to
>> you that I attended church.
>
>Robbie, do you practice being that dense and lacking reading
>comprehension or does it come natural to you? Please take time to read
>what was actually written.
>
>You wrote: "If I say that I am going to church today, you would say
>that I have made an unsupportable claim. Anything I say or do would be
>an unsupportable claim to you."
>
>Nobody ASKED you for evidence of going to church. My reply was to
>counter your claim that anything you said would be unsupportable. I
>merely explained to you under what circumstances you would be believed.
>But so far no one actually asked you for that evidence. It was only
>suggested what we might accept to believe you.
>
>> I do not care whether you believe I went to church or not.
>
>Oh child, you do in fact care. Otherwise you would not have bothered to
>comment unless you are trolling and are a disingenuous hypocrite.
>
>> This is true of almost everything about which you
>> demand evidence. I am not aware of any mainstream Christians who are
>> trying to communicate with me, just some atheists trying to run their
>> little game.
>
>There have been several people here that replied to you that have either
>posted they were Christian in the past or have directly told you they
>were not atheists.
>
>You seem to think that anyone that does not agree with your theological
>dribble is an atheist. I've got news for you. A good many
>knowledgeable Christians wholeheartedly disagree with your gibberish
>ideas and that includes scholars of your own Church.
>
>> Are you claiming to be a mainstream Christian?
>
>See right there you have shown that you have problems with reading
>comprehension. Just a few days ago I mentioned that I had a formal
>education in theology and in the biblical languages. How many
>non-Christians do you think would go after that type of education?
>
>What probably really confused you is that you seem to have a problem wit
>tenses. You used the wrong one for the verb "are".
>
>>
>> Robert B. Winn

It is none of business, I know, but I fail to see why you devote so
much of your valuable time and scholarship engaging with this ignorant
madman and infantile liar.

Surely you have more productive and sane theists to converse with?

To quote Blackadder:
"It is like fitting wheels to a tomato:
Both time-consuming and entirely unnecessary!"

This is entirely rhetorical, of course.

--

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 26, 2:18�am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
> After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 6:49 pm
> rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 3:16?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> > wrote:
> >> After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007
> >> 11:20 amrbwinnperhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 24, 3:58?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:37 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> ?? - Refer: <rhp0u2tkecj62dap0cnp9240cisu886...@4ax.com>
>
> >> >> >On 24 Feb 2007 06:26:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >> >"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> >> ><1172327214.029352.172...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
> >> >> >>On Feb 23, 11:02?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
> >> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >>>rbwinnwrote:
> >> >> >>> > On Feb 22, 9:44?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> > >rbwinnwrote:
> >> >> >>> > > > On Feb 15, 9:08?pm, bob young
> >> >> >>> > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > > > >rbwinnwrote:
> >> >> >>> > > > > > 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. ??If I ask you about Isaiah's account of
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > the Assyrian invasion of Judea, you reply with
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > an inane question about fictional characters.
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > ??o, the conversation is over. ??ou are claiming
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > that the Bible does not exist.
>
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > Little Bobby is such a pathetic twit, but we
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > should be nice to him; he does such good work for
> >> >> >>> > > > > > > atheism.
>
> >> >> >>> > > > > > Your personal attacks show everyone who you work
> >> >> >>> > > > > > for. Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >> >>> > > > > These - wizards, satans, evil spirits, $evils,
> >> >> >>> > > > > lucifers, ghouls, diabolous, Auld Hornies, Fiends, Old
> >> >> >>> > > > > Nicks etc., $o not exist ...........any more than your
> >> >> >>> > > > > god exists.
>
> >> >> >>> > > > > They, along with your god, were all manufactured by
> >> >> >>> > > > > fearful humans long before you were borne Robert - get
> >> >> >>> > > > > used to it- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> >>> > > > Well, the most common lie told by Satan is that the
> >> >> >>> > > > devil does not exist.
> >> >> >>> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >> >>> > > Seen him have you? 9ou really do need help- Hide quoted
> >> >> >>> > > text -
>
> >> >> >>> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >>> > Why would a person who has seen Satan need help?
>
> >> >> >>> You are a moat dishonest person. 4he question was whether you
> >> >> >>> have seen him.
>
> >> >> >>> Deviating again, because your god is nothing
>
> >> >> >>Well, the problem with telling a person like you what I have
> >> >> >>seen or not seen is that you would use it in a dishonest way.
> >> >> >>??It is none of your business what I have seen or not seen.
>
> >> >> >So you are just making unsupportable claims.
>
> >> >> No change there.
> >> > If I say that I am going to church today, you would say that I have
> >> > made an unsupportable claim. ??Anything I say or do would be an
> >> > unsupportable claim to you.
>
> >> Not at all. ??You could support your claim by sending us a copy of
> >> your driver's license and a picture (with date on it) of you in
> >> church. ??You could also support your claim by giving us a letter
> >> from your bishop that you attended church that day and a phone number
> >> of that bishop so we could verify it.
>
> >> There are any number of ways you could support your claim and provide
> >> evidence that we could verify and that does not include arrogant
> >> assertions.
>
> >> > OK, if that is how you want to use the
> >> > term, "unsupportable claim", go ahead and use it that way.
>
> >> The problem is that you make assertion but provide nothing other than
> >> your baseless opinion bolstered by your lack of education and dismiss
> >> every single educated scholar on the subject.
>
> >> > Far be it
> >> > from me to interfere with what you want to do. ??It just goes to
> >> > show that attempting to communicate with an atheist is not a
> >> > worthwhile objective.
>
> >> Do you realize that many of the people that are replying to your
> >> posts are not atheists and are in fact mainstream Christians who hold
> >> their faith dearly? ??It is just that they are botheed by your
> >> intellectually deficient, baseless assertions and are calling you on
> >> it. ??They do not fear to question their faith nor fear that some
> >> parts of their religion have no support other than pure faith, nor
> >> are they bothered that some primitive goatherders got some facts
> >> wrong, or that there truly are inconsistencies in the bible.
>
> >> > Robert B. Winn
>
> > There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to provide evidence to
> > you that I attended church.
>
> Robbie, do you practice being that dense and lacking reading
> comprehension or does it come natural to you?

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 26, 2:48�am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:18:54 -0500, Darrell Stec<darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
>
>

 

[Pastor Frank]

"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrneto02l.qi.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com...
> In our last episode, <45d9c6bb$0$16269$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, the
> lovely and talented Pastor Frank broadcast on alt.atheism:
>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1htqhxh.18bgdpfzkc43tN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>>> Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is "reality" the god you worship? Reality worshippers are stoic
>>>> fatalists, ready to accept whatever reality dishes out. Only God's
>>>> people
>>>> are willing to make an effort to live up to ideals, in the hope of
>>>> improving
>>>> upon reality.
>>>
>>> Is "UNreality" the god you worship? Unreality worshippers are willful
>>> delusionists, ready to accept whatever their clery dishes out. Only
>>> realists are willing to make an effort to understand the world in which
>>> we live, in the hope of improving upon that reality.
>>
>> What is "UNreality"? You seem clueless as to the values Christ
>> represents. "clerics" indeed!!! See below
>
>> Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love
>> one
>> another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
>> Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my
>> disciples,
>> if ye have love one to another.
>> Jesus in Jn:15:12-13: This is my commandment: That ye love one
>> another,
>> as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay
>> down
>> his life for his friends.
>
> We only have to examine the behavior of Christians to see that these
> saying
> were not divinely inspired,
>
No Lars! There's nothing wrong with the "sayings", only with those
refusing to listen to them.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com