NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

Pastor Frank wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1172556961.386584.45770@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 8:25�pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> I don't. I just think it's amusing how childish you are.
>>
> I have never thought you were amusing. And you are not childish. You
> are evil.
> Robert B. Winn
> ---------
>
> These insults are just refuting ploys by Satan's minions to make people
> STOP talking about Jesus. Will we let them? Hell NO!!!! We will shout His
> most holy and perfect name from the roof tops if need be, and no atheists
> are going to stop us!!!!!
>

Just like suicide bombers in Iraq?

--
~Stumper
 
On 1 Mar 2007 03:19:44 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172747984.468831.264370@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 28, 8:23?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 28 Feb 2007 18:41:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1172716888.888174.142...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 28, 4:39?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On 28 Feb 2007 04:00:05 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> <1172664005.690889.184...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 27, 8:27?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> On 27 Feb 2007 19:06:15 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> >> <1172631975.817817.307...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 27, 6:59?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 22:06:17 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> <1172556377.226916.64...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 8:20?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 19:08:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> <1172545725.523360.319...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 5:32 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On 25 Feb 2007 17:23:09 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> <1172452989.091439.309...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >The Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that a runaway slave
>> >> >> >> >> >> >had to be returned to his owner if he fled to another state. (at was
>> >> >> >> >> >> >the last Supreme Court ruling on slavery. / now you are saying that
>> >> >> >> >> >> >the Supreme Court has made another erroneous decision. %ll, that
>> >> >> >> >> >> >does not really surprise me.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> What an absurd claim. At the time, the decision was correct, even though
>> >> >> >> >> >> it was absolutely repugnant from the modern viewpoint for almost all
>> >> >> >> >> >> Americans. The Congress and states changed the Constitution so that the
>> >> >> >> >> >> Dred Scott case is no longer valid.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> You really have no idea what you are talking about, whether in religion
>> >> >> >> >> >> or law. I would not be surprised based on your behavior here if you were
>> >> >> >> >> >> an ignorant blowhard in other areas of knowledge as well.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >If you want to return runaway slaves, that would be your choice.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> You, of course, know you are making an utterly absurd claim.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >My opinion is that you have no right to try to practice slavery.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Yet the Bible that you worship approves of slavery. Why do you disagree
>> >> >> >> >> with the Bible?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> >I don't worship the Bible. !ul's instructions on the subject were to
>> >> >> >> >a slave who had run away from a church member who had slaves and to
>> >> >> >> >the slaveowner himself. )s concern at the time was to prevent an
>> >> >> >> >outbreak of runaway slaves that would bring persecution on the
>> >> >> >> >church. !ul was not in favor of slavery.
>>
>> >> >> >> So you reject the teachings found in the Old Testament and you deny that
>> >> >> >> the Southern Baptists and all other proponents of slavery in 1860 were
>> >> >> >> Christian.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >Well, if Satan has put that accusation in your mind, then it is in
>> >> >> >your mind along with whatever other accusations Satan has put there.
>> >> >> >Too bad that is all you have in your mind.
>>
>> >> >> I have no reason to believe that Satan exists. No evidence supports your
>> >> >> claim that he did anything or even that he does exist.- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >Well, here is another atheist claiming that evil does not exist in the
>> >> >world.
>>
>> >> Hoe many times will I have to remind you that I have not said that and
>> >> that you are lying when you recharacterize my comments that way? Why
>> >> should I bother with your repeated dishonesty? Why should anyone here
>> >> think that you are remotely a follower of Jesus when lies fall from your
>> >> posts so easily?
>>
>> >> >According to atheists, whatever happens is good except for
>> >> >those things done by Christians.
>>
>> >> Another one of your unlimited reservoir of lies. What a waste.
>> >> --
>>
>> >> "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
>> >> to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
>> >> Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
>> >> take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
>> >> which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
>> >> it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >I was not the one claiming that God has disappeared.
>>
>> Nor have I. There is no evidence that any gods were ever around, so
>> there is no evidence that they could have disappeared.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>Oh, I guess you have never read the Bible. Would you like me to send
>you a copy?

Apparently you are a bot of very little memory. If you had any memory at
all, you would know that you had already tried this lie on me and that I
pointed out that I own a number of Bibles and have read it through. You
would also remember that the Bible does not qualify as evidence in
support of the claim that gods exist. It is no more evidence than any of
the other religious and religiously-inspired books. Many people, some
just for kicks, have written religious texts. None are supported by any
evidence.

--

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
 
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 22:44:09 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<45e7076a$0$16281$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:2ho9u25n0bfth0pee9taf3gkua6vn3tev2@4ax.com...
>> On 26 Feb 2007 22:20:17 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
>>>
>>>In any event, if you think I am mocking Jesus, why don't you take your
>>>complaint to him when he returns to judge the earth?
>>
>> Because there is no evidence that Jesus will ever return and there is a
>> great deal of evidence that people are harmed by the teachings of those
>> who claim to be the followers of Jesus.
>>
> There you go again making broad accusations without presenting a shred
>of evidence.

Are you trying to deny that there have been people who claim to be
followers of Jesus but have caused serious harm in the world with their
evil?

>Why would we need to present evidence of the existence of our
>God, who btw is love (1 John 4:8,16) to you, if you don't even have the
>courtesy to support your serious accusations of wrong-doing with some
>evidence?

You have no evidence of any gods. Your simplistic attempt to dodge the
issue by trying to equate God and love, is silly and you have already
been called on it by others.

> We have no problem seeing and experiencing the extraordinary love our
>God has for us, while we were, and still are sinners deserving condemnation,
>and if you would only open your eyes and take your thumbs out of your ears,
>you could experience His love too.

You have no evidence that any gods exist.
--

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
 
"jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1172697884.697171.86100@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 9:04 am, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>> "bob young" <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
>> news:45DE75BE.81EF8CFF@netvigator.com...
>> > Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>> >> Our Christian "God is love" and there is nothing "pitiful" about
>> >> love.
>> >> Nor does love "lie". If atheism is not a philosophy of life, then why
>> >> are
>> >> you wasting your life arguing against our philosophy of life, unless
>> >> you
>> >> think your philosophy of life is better?
>> >> You just got yourself all muddled again.
>>
>> > You are the muddled one,
>> > 'He' was supposed to have sent his only begotten son down to earth and
>> > then had
>> > him ascend up to a heaven somewhere [just above the clouds back then]
>>
>> > 'Love' alone can do that?
>> > GROAN
>>
>> So you want to be a literalist. Let's see you interpret the Biblical
>> poetic format constructively. And no Jesus didn't just become weightless
>> and
>> float like a helium filled balloon up and away into the sky. LOL
>
> You are correct. The bones of Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Jesus's wife, Mary
> Magdalene, and Jesus's son Judah were just found in some ancient
> crypts in Jerusalem.
> One religion down, one to go, as soon as they find the filthy bones of
> Mahomet the Paedophile.
>
So tell us your reasons why you prefer to believe one kind of evidence
but not another. Or do atheists merely prefer to believe what they prefer to
be true?
Ask Jesus into your heart and you will know joy unspeakable.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Mar 1, 4:38�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2007 03:19:44 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172747984.468831.264...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 28, 8:23?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 28 Feb 2007 18:41:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1172716888.888174.142...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Feb 28, 4:39?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> On 28 Feb 2007 04:00:05 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> >> <1172664005.690889.184...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> >On Feb 27, 8:27?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> >> On 27 Feb 2007 19:06:15 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> <1172631975.817817.307...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> >> >On Feb 27, 6:59?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 22:06:17 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> <1172556377.226916.64...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 8:20?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 19:08:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> <1172545725.523360.319...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 5:32 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 25 Feb 2007 17:23:09 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> <1172452989.091439.309...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that a runaway slave
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >had to be returned to his owner if he fled to another state. (at was
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the last Supreme Court ruling on slavery. / now you are saying that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the Supreme Court has made another erroneous decision. %ll, that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >does not really surprise me.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> What an absurd claim. At the time, the decision was correct, even though
> >> >> >> >> >> >> it was absolutely repugnant from the modern viewpoint for almost all
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Americans. The Congress and states changed the Constitution so that the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dred Scott case is no longer valid.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> You really have no idea what you are talking about, whether in religion
> >> >> >> >> >> >> or law. I would not be surprised based on your behavior here if you were
> >> >> >> >> >> >> an ignorant blowhard in other areas of knowledge as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >If you want to return runaway slaves, that would be your choice.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> You, of course, know you are making an utterly absurd claim.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >My opinion is that you have no right to try to practice slavery.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Yet the Bible that you worship approves of slavery. Why do you disagree
> >> >> >> >> >> with the Bible?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> >> >I don't worship the Bible. !ul's instructions on the subject were to
> >> >> >> >> >a slave who had run away from a church member who had slaves and to
> >> >> >> >> >the slaveowner himself. )s concern at the time was to prevent an
> >> >> >> >> >outbreak of runaway slaves that would bring persecution on the
> >> >> >> >> >church. !ul was not in favor of slavery.
>
> >> >> >> >> So you reject the teachings found in the Old Testament and you deny that
> >> >> >> >> the Southern Baptists and all other proponents of slavery in 1860 were
> >> >> >> >> Christian.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> >Well, if Satan has put that accusation in your mind, then it is in
> >> >> >> >your mind along with whatever other accusations Satan has put there.
> >> >> >> >Too bad that is all you have in your mind.
>
> >> >> >> I have no reason to believe that Satan exists. No evidence supports your
> >> >> >> claim that he did anything or even that he does exist.- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >Well, here is another atheist claiming that evil does not exist in the
> >> >> >world.
>
> >> >> Hoe many times will I have to remind you that I have not said that and
> >> >> that you are lying when you recharacterize my comments that way? Why
> >> >> should I bother with your repeated dishonesty? Why should anyone here
> >> >> think that you are remotely a follower of Jesus when lies fall from your
> >> >> posts so easily?
>
> >> >> >According to atheists, whatever happens is good except for
> >> >> >those things done by Christians.
>
> >> >> Another one of your unlimited reservoir of lies. What a waste.
> >> >> --
>
> >> >> "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
> >> >> to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
> >> >> Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
> >> >> take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
> >> >> which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
> >> >> it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >I was not the one claiming that God has disappeared.
>
> >> Nor have I. There is no evidence that any gods were ever around, so
> >> there is no evidence that they could have disappeared.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Oh, I guess you have never read the Bible.
 
On 1 Mar 2007 17:50:38 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172800238.359704.173240@31g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
>On Mar 1, 4:38?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 1 Mar 2007 03:19:44 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1172747984.468831.264...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 28, 8:23?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On 28 Feb 2007 18:41:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> <1172716888.888174.142...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 28, 4:39?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> On 28 Feb 2007 04:00:05 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> >> <1172664005.690889.184...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 27, 8:27?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 27 Feb 2007 19:06:15 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> <1172631975.817817.307...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 27, 6:59?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 22:06:17 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> <1172556377.226916.64...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 8:20?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 19:08:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> <1172545725.523360.319...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 5:32 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 25 Feb 2007 17:23:09 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> <1172452989.091439.309...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> ...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that a runaway slave
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >had to be returned to his owner if he fled to another state. (at was
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the last Supreme Court ruling on slavery. / now you are saying that
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the Supreme Court has made another erroneous decision. %ll, that
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >does not really surprise me.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> What an absurd claim. At the time, the decision was correct, even though
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> it was absolutely repugnant from the modern viewpoint for almost all
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Americans. The Congress and states changed the Constitution so that the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dred Scott case is no longer valid.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> You really have no idea what you are talking about, whether in religion
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> or law. I would not be surprised based on your behavior here if you were
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> an ignorant blowhard in other areas of knowledge as well.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >If you want to return runaway slaves, that would be your choice.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> You, of course, know you are making an utterly absurd claim.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >My opinion is that you have no right to try to practice slavery.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Yet the Bible that you worship approves of slavery. Why do you disagree
>> >> >> >> >> >> with the Bible?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >I don't worship the Bible. !ul's instructions on the subject were to
>> >> >> >> >> >a slave who had run away from a church member who had slaves and to
>> >> >> >> >> >the slaveowner himself. )s concern at the time was to prevent an
>> >> >> >> >> >outbreak of runaway slaves that would bring persecution on the
>> >> >> >> >> >church. !ul was not in favor of slavery.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> So you reject the teachings found in the Old Testament and you deny that
>> >> >> >> >> the Southern Baptists and all other proponents of slavery in 1860 were
>> >> >> >> >> Christian.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> >Well, if Satan has put that accusation in your mind, then it is in
>> >> >> >> >your mind along with whatever other accusations Satan has put there.
>> >> >> >> >Too bad that is all you have in your mind.
>>
>> >> >> >> I have no reason to believe that Satan exists. No evidence supports your
>> >> >> >> claim that he did anything or even that he does exist.- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >> >Well, here is another atheist claiming that evil does not exist in the
>> >> >> >world.
>>
>> >> >> Hoe many times will I have to remind you that I have not said that and
>> >> >> that you are lying when you recharacterize my comments that way? Why
>> >> >> should I bother with your repeated dishonesty? Why should anyone here
>> >> >> think that you are remotely a follower of Jesus when lies fall from your
>> >> >> posts so easily?
>>
>> >> >> >According to atheists, whatever happens is good except for
>> >> >> >those things done by Christians.
>>
>> >> >> Another one of your unlimited reservoir of lies. What a waste.
>> >> >> --
>>
>> >> >> "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
>> >> >> to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
>> >> >> Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
>> >> >> take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
>> >> >> which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
>> >> >> it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >I was not the one claiming that God has disappeared.
>>
>> >> Nor have I. There is no evidence that any gods were ever around, so
>> >> there is no evidence that they could have disappeared.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >Oh, I guess you have never read the Bible. ould you like me to send
>> >you a copy?
>>
>> Apparently you are a bot of very little memory. If you had any memory at
>> all, you would know that you had already tried this lie on me and that I
>> pointed out that I own a number of Bibles and have read it through. You
>> would also remember that the Bible does not qualify as evidence in
>> support of the claim that gods exist. It is no more evidence than any of
>> the other religious and religiously-inspired books. Many people, some
>> just for kicks, have written religious texts. None are supported by any
>> evidence.
>>
>Well, if you are going to go around saying that the Bible does not
>exist, it would be your problem, not mine.

But, of course, you know that I am not going around saying that the
Bible does not exist. That is a lie you are telling.
 
In alt.atheism On 1 Mar 2007 03:17:09 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 28, 7:53?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 28 Feb 2007 16:29:23 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 28, 7:58?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >> In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 20:29:26 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 27, 8:31?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 18:55:55 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>

>> >> >> >Satan believes in God,
>>
>> >> >> No, there's no such thing as satan.
>>
>> >> >> Though if there were, you'd know that satan is merely a
>> >> >> description--a title. If you'd read Numbers chapter 22, specifically
>> >> >> from verse 20 through 26, you'd find that satan isn't what you think
>> >> >> it is.
>>
>> >> >> Don
>> >> >I thought you said you did not believe the Bible,
>>
>> >> You, OTOH, do. Ergo, you should believe the words in it. Ergo,
>> >> you should know what a satan is, according to Numbers 22:20-26.
>>
>> >> Don
>> >A satan is an accuser.
>>
>> Or an adversary. Which is what the angel of the lord was in
>> that section. In fact, you'll note that if you actually use a
>> concordance (like Strong's), the word listed is "satan".

>Well, Baalam was the one following Satan

No, the angel of the lord was a satan.

Read the text, Bobby. You'll see that I'm correct. Or don't,
and live in ignorance. Your choice.


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 1 Mar 2007 03:18:33 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 28, 7:54?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 28 Feb 2007 16:27:16 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 28, 7:57?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >> In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 20:41:53 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 27, 8:31?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 18:59:01 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 27, 6:43?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 22:17:59 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 8:26?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

>> >> >> >> ow, if you would bother to back your claim that atheists say
>> >> >> >> that the bible doesn't exist (which I know you can't), we can make fun
>> >> >> >> of you for being so ****ing stupid as to make such a statement.
>> >> >> >Atheists claim the Bible does not exist,
>>
>> >> >> Liar.
>>
>> >> >Well, what about profanity,
>>
>> >> Doesn't exist. But that has nothing to do with your lie that
>> >> atheists claim that the bible doesn't exist.
>>
>> >> Don
>>
>> >Well, you just take a more direct approach with profanity.
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>> Don
>So now you are saying that you did not say that profanity does not
>exist, Don?

Are you saying that you're not lying when you say that
atheists say that the bible doesn't exist?



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 Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:22:30 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:29:28 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson
><prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> - Refer: <spiau29seoku2bqvupnle67cs8haaqcf0h@4ax.com>
>>On 19 Feb 2007 03:02:46 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 18, 10:21?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:33:04 -0500, Darrell Stec
>>>> > <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
>>>> > - Refer: <53rnsvF1u88b...@mid.individual.net>
>>>> > >After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February 2007 10:53
>>>> > >am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > >> So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys,
>>>> > >> you claim that he was telling a "yarn"?
>>>> > >> Robert B. Winn
>>>>
>>>> > >I'm unfamiliar with that scripture. erhaps you might tells us what the
>>>> > >phantom bible you got that from says?
>>>>
>>>> > The Ladybird Illustrated Book of Bible stories for Children.
>>>>
>>>> Or the other one
>>>>
>>>> "How to brainwash your children into following The Father"
>>>>
>>>> We jest, but the truth is these things happen
>>>> and it should be declared a criminal offence
>>>>
>>>So if the government could be persuaded into burning all Bibles, there
>>>could be world peace?
>>>Robert B. Winn
>>
>>Who was it that said "those who begin by burning books will end up
>>burning men"?
>
>It was you, just then.

Heinrich Heine.

And me just then.
 
On 28 Feb 2007 03:37:28 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

>On Feb 28, 2:29?am, Paul Ransom Erickson <prerick...@houston.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> On 19 Feb 2007 03:02:46 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 18, 10:21?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >> Michael Gray wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:33:04 -0500, Darrell Stec
>> >> > <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
>> >> > - Refer: <53rnsvF1u88b...@mid.individual.net>
>> >> > >After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February 2007 10:53
>> >> > >am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys,
>> >> > >> you claim that he was telling a "yarn"?
>> >> > >> Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> > >I'm unfamiliar with that scripture. %rhaps you might tells us what the
>> >> > >phantom bible you got that from says?
>>
>> >> > The Ladybird Illustrated Book of Bible stories for Children.
>>
>> >> Or the other one
>>
>> >> "How to brainwash your children into following The Father"
>>
>> >> We jest, but the truth is these things happen
>> >> and it should be declared a criminal offence
>>
>> >So if the government could be persuaded into burning all Bibles, there
>> >could be world peace?
>> >Robert B. Winn
>>
>> Who was it that said "those who begin by burning books will end up
>> burning men"?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>Probably a Bhuddist priest. You atheists are always saying that
>Bhuddism is the best religion.
>Robert B. Winn

It was actually a German playwright named Heinrich Heine. But my
point was that I do not approve of burning books.

Why on earth would you jump to "Bhuhhist" priest from there?
 
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:04:48 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

>On 24 Feb 2007 04:23:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
>wrote:
> - Refer: <45E011C4.6CA710C2@netvigator.com>
>>
>>
>>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.
>
>The two things are totally separate.
>
>It is completely obvious to any normal human child that the wafer does
>not turn into anything different, let alone human flesh, the wine does
>NOT turn into blood when a priest mumbles incantations over it, and
>the child performs a scientific test with his or her mouth after every
>supposed miracle.
>The test always proves that the priest has lied.
>The wafer is still a wafer.
>The wine is still very cheap vino.
>
>And they are all able to identify flesh and blood orally.
>For the child who has not cut him or herself and seen and licked
>actual flesh, nor sucked their own blood from a cut finger, would be
>most rare indeed.
>
>This does not require any scientific sophistication in the youth
>whatsoever.
>Australian aboriginal kids living the traditional lifestyle are aware
>of this basic fact of their own physiology, for instance.
>
>To all children it would be obvious that the priest is lying to them,
>and DEMANDING that they repeat the lie weekly, if not daily, at the
>very least.
>
>This is so elementary that I fail to see why you consider that this
>form of lying, even in youth, would slip by unnoticed.
>Or even worse, that it is somehow rendered "excusable" by later good
>deeds.
>
>It is the role of the church to ensure that such lies ARE accepted and
>ingrained into the child to the point of unquestioned acceptance, yet
>a moment's thought on the matter would reveal it's fraudulent nature!
>
>And this is but ONE example of duplicity that is DEMANDED by the
>various churches, in order to remain communicate.
>There are hundreds more to choose from if this strikingly clear
>example does not suit your "taste", or perhaps the Xtian Cult of your
>contemplation.
>
>Once again, we appear to be at quite opposite and extreme ends of this
>particular spectrum.
>So far as I can determine it, your stance is to wave away the lying
>aspect, and apologetically assert that they are otherwise good.
>This assessment of "goodness" seems to completely ignore the very real
>fact that by simply being passive members of the religion, they
>tacitly approve of, fund, encourage, and support the more extreme
>actions of their church, up to and including genocide; even if by not
>actively restraining it.
>
>I'd hardly call that "being good".
>
>>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.
>
>That's as may be.
>
>But if it is to be germane to this topic, it is incumbent upon you to
>show that she never lied due to her Christianity, and/or that she
>never used her Christianity to con anyone, even elliptically.
>Don't forget that your kind old Aunt actively and knowingly supported,
>(even if by willful neglect of keeping tabs on what her donations of
>cash, time, effort etc were funding), the rape of little kiddies, the
>torture of orphans, the oppression of minorities etc etc.
>You know the litany all too well, but appear to be in severe denial.
>I can partly understand this attitude, but that in no way means that I
>have assent to it, and especially not that I must agree with it.
>
>>What are your views on Islam and Hinduism?
>
>I have outlined a brief response to these questions in another message
>(to you?).
>
>You may wish to excuse my peremptory tone, but I have little enough
>time to give you a considered reply, (at the moment), let alone one
>that is littered with the courtesy that you have so rightly earned.
>Accept my apologies, please.

Lots of people are convined from a young age that the essence of
goodness lies in Christianity, and that any seeming problem with the
belief is either a misunderstanding or a mystery.

Such people are frightened away from investigating the doubts that
arise in their minds, and are therefore unlikely to follow seeming
problems to their conclusions. And who on earth really does follow up
completely on all the inconsistencies they notice in themselves? Even
the greatest of philosophers have trouble with consistency.

I do agree with you that all Christians are liars, but I don't think
they are unique in that. All atheists are liars too.

It only takes the least measure of introspection to know that. We all
have inconsistent beliefs and we all fudge it very often.

The problem with religion is that it creates structures to help people
fudge it.
 
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:07:37 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson
<prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote:
- Refer: <mvbfu25oj3rnk532ki810j3v5dmtnben92@4ax.com>
>
>On 28 Feb 2007 03:37:28 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 28, 2:29?am, Paul Ransom Erickson <prerick...@houston.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>> On 19 Feb 2007 03:02:46 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Feb 18, 10:21?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>> >> Michael Gray wrote:
>>> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:33:04 -0500, Darrell Stec
>>> >> > <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
>>> >> > - Refer: <53rnsvF1u88b...@mid.individual.net>
>>> >> > >After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February 2007 10:53
>>> >> > >am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > >> So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys,
>>> >> > >> you claim that he was telling a "yarn"?
>>> >> > >> Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> >> > >I'm unfamiliar with that scripture. %rhaps you might tells us what the
>>> >> > >phantom bible you got that from says?
>>>
>>> >> > The Ladybird Illustrated Book of Bible stories for Children.
>>>
>>> >> Or the other one
>>>
>>> >> "How to brainwash your children into following The Father"
>>>
>>> >> We jest, but the truth is these things happen
>>> >> and it should be declared a criminal offence
>>>
>>> >So if the government could be persuaded into burning all Bibles, there
>>> >could be world peace?
>>> >Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> Who was it that said "those who begin by burning books will end up
>>> burning men"?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>Probably a Bhuddist priest. You atheists are always saying that
>>Bhuddism is the best religion.
>>Robert B. Winn
>
>It was actually a German playwright named Heinrich Heine. But my
>point was that I do not approve of burning books.
>
>Why on earth would you jump to "Bhuhhist" priest from there?

Because Robbie has the intellect of an angry retarded infant.

--
 
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:41:27 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson
<prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote:
- Refer: <d7dfu21j71k9kjufn1qo796guqo1of0d17@4ax.com>
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:04:48 +1030, Michael Gray
><mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>On 24 Feb 2007 04:23:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
>>wrote:
>> - Refer: <45E011C4.6CA710C2@netvigator.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>The two things are totally separate.
>>
>>It is completely obvious to any normal human child that the wafer does
>>not turn into anything different, let alone human flesh, the wine does
>>NOT turn into blood when a priest mumbles incantations over it, and
>>the child performs a scientific test with his or her mouth after every
>>supposed miracle.
>>The test always proves that the priest has lied.
>>The wafer is still a wafer.
>>The wine is still very cheap vino.
>>
>>And they are all able to identify flesh and blood orally.
>>For the child who has not cut him or herself and seen and licked
>>actual flesh, nor sucked their own blood from a cut finger, would be
>>most rare indeed.
>>
>>This does not require any scientific sophistication in the youth
>>whatsoever.
>>Australian aboriginal kids living the traditional lifestyle are aware
>>of this basic fact of their own physiology, for instance.
>>
>>To all children it would be obvious that the priest is lying to them,
>>and DEMANDING that they repeat the lie weekly, if not daily, at the
>>very least.
>>
>>This is so elementary that I fail to see why you consider that this
>>form of lying, even in youth, would slip by unnoticed.
>>Or even worse, that it is somehow rendered "excusable" by later good
>>deeds.
>>
>>It is the role of the church to ensure that such lies ARE accepted and
>>ingrained into the child to the point of unquestioned acceptance, yet
>>a moment's thought on the matter would reveal it's fraudulent nature!
>>
>>And this is but ONE example of duplicity that is DEMANDED by the
>>various churches, in order to remain communicate.
>>There are hundreds more to choose from if this strikingly clear
>>example does not suit your "taste", or perhaps the Xtian Cult of your
>>contemplation.
>>
>>Once again, we appear to be at quite opposite and extreme ends of this
>>particular spectrum.
>>So far as I can determine it, your stance is to wave away the lying
>>aspect, and apologetically assert that they are otherwise good.
>>This assessment of "goodness" seems to completely ignore the very real
>>fact that by simply being passive members of the religion, they
>>tacitly approve of, fund, encourage, and support the more extreme
>>actions of their church, up to and including genocide; even if by not
>>actively restraining it.
>>
>>I'd hardly call that "being good".
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>That's as may be.
>>
>>But if it is to be germane to this topic, it is incumbent upon you to
>>show that she never lied due to her Christianity, and/or that she
>>never used her Christianity to con anyone, even elliptically.
>>Don't forget that your kind old Aunt actively and knowingly supported,
>>(even if by willful neglect of keeping tabs on what her donations of
>>cash, time, effort etc were funding), the rape of little kiddies, the
>>torture of orphans, the oppression of minorities etc etc.
>>You know the litany all too well, but appear to be in severe denial.
>>I can partly understand this attitude, but that in no way means that I
>>have assent to it, and especially not that I must agree with it.
>>
>>>What are your views on Islam and Hinduism?
>>
>>I have outlined a brief response to these questions in another message
>>(to you?).
>>
>>You may wish to excuse my peremptory tone, but I have little enough
>>time to give you a considered reply, (at the moment), let alone one
>>that is littered with the courtesy that you have so rightly earned.
>>Accept my apologies, please.
>
>Lots of people are convined from a young age that the essence of
>goodness lies in Christianity, and that any seeming problem with the
>belief is either a misunderstanding or a mystery.
>
>Such people are frightened away from investigating the doubts that
>arise in their minds, and are therefore unlikely to follow seeming
>problems to their conclusions.

And this is therefore willful ignorance.

> And who on earth really does follow up
>completely on all the inconsistencies they notice in themselves? Even
>the greatest of philosophers have trouble with consistency.
>
>I do agree with you that all Christians are liars, but I don't think
>they are unique in that. All atheists are liars too.

A very cogent summary, sir.

>It only takes the least measure of introspection to know that. We all
>have inconsistent beliefs and we all fudge it very often.
>
>The problem with religion is that it creates structures to help people
>fudge it.

But it forces them to do that, even if by willful ignorance, be that
through fear, or restricted opportunity, which is my entire point.
Atheism does not force people to lie.

--
 
On Mar 2, 1:28�am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:07:37 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson<prerick...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
 
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> > > Well, you are an apostate Christian. That means you are more
> > > dishonest than a person who was raised atheist.
> > > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > On the contrary, my dear Winnie, the ex-Christian has turned away from
> > dishonesty and embraced truth. He is to be more admired and esteemed
> > for having grappled himself up out of the stifling quicksands of
> > religion and walked in the verdant and enlightened fields of atheism.
>
> Well, if you atheists are so happy, why can't you stay away from
> trying to discredit religion?

Because our world is under assault by religious groups who invoke their
superstitions to control what others think and do. Did you miss 9/11?
Have you not listened to Pat Robertson and other power mad evangelicals?
Have you not watched the creationists trying to take America back to the
Dark Ages? Have you not heard the suicide bombers screaming "God is
great"?

It is increasingly clear that religion is a plague on civilization, so
why would we "stay away" from such an important issue?
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:394cu2tpt6togrpci9p4fh67ghn7b3j801@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 05:01:50 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45e5e38b$0$16375$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>><pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
>>news:1172554645.503230.296520@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 22 feb, 17:08, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> "Free Lunch" wrote in
>>>> messagenews:8vnpt2dbg15v1o4t4gi1od6t5c2d1r8el6@4ax.com...
>>>> >
>>>> > There is no evidence for God or Satan or any other gods of
>>>> > Christianity
>>>> > or any other religions.
>>>>
>>>> I respect this as a tenet of your belief that you religiously adhere to
>>>> and
>>>> evangelistically proclaim.
>>>
>>> You shouldn't
>>> If you disagree, you should produce the evidence.
>>> You do not, therefore I suspect you agree.
>>> Peter van Velzen
>>> February 2007
>>> Thung Song
>>> Thailand
>>>
>> You haven't been around much, or you would know that there are gods
>>aplenty in our museums and libraries, containing both concrete and
>>abstract
>>gods. In Thailand you will find people having altars stocked with gods of
>>all kinds.
>> What atheists mean is: There are no gods of atheist definition, and we
>>theists tend to agree with them.
>
> It would be interesting if you could point to evidence that those who
> have these statues think that the statues themselves are the gods rather
> than representations of the gods.
>
Are we seeing an atheist acknowledging gods, whether real or
representational etc. or not? You better be careful, or atheist central will
be yanking your number.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vl4cu25epsmhtjnoic8db1s0ogrt6lensp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 04:26:52 +0800, in alt.atheism
>
> Not only does Paul approve of slavery, but he expects women to act as if
> they are slaves as well.
>
And we got to believe you because....??? Is it because you say so and
you are infallible like the pope perhaps?
This, having such id
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:sn4cu25a0gmc2oslfcfih9dhfkbqslvffg@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 04:11:54 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45e5e37c$0$16375$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
>>news:1172545881.572790.37170@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You've made a claim that you cannot support. You've made prior claims
>>>> that are demonstrably wrong. It is appropriate and necessary to let
>>>> people know that you are untrustworthy. Your claim to be religious does
>>>> not change that.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> Spoken like an atheist. You have said that our freedom depends on
>>> permission from atheists. No, sorry, our freedom has nothing to do
>>> with you or your corrupt philosophies. Jeswus Christ was the one who
>>> said we were free.
>>> Robert B. Winn
>>
>> Exactly right. Our rights and freedoms rest in God, not in the law nor
>>in the courts, nor constitution, nor in government etc. That means they
>>cannot be recinded by man.
>
> So why are the most virulently radical American 'Christians' the ones
> who are willing to let President Bush destroy our civil liberties?
>
Which "liberties" are those? And does Bush really "destroy" them? Prove
it. Jesus is waiting to get your attention.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:lp4cu2h8i9ph3ffrkmfc7277b1po99ir3i@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 04:47:35 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45e5e387$0$16375$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>news:si97u2dnesiglif5hpsh73dmvn2v5a3ufv@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Do you have evidence that perjury was committed or are you just telling
>>> us stories the way you do when you make things up with your religious
>>> beliefs?
>>>
>> "Making things up" now with you atheist beliefs or rather disbeliefs?
>
> I asked a question because Mr. Winn has proven that he is unreliable. If
> you had bothered to follow his postings, you would know that he
> cheerfully lies about many items.
>
And you are an inerrant judge in matters of lies? You sound more and
more like some infallible atheist potentate.
Jesus is there to give you direction. Take His advice and follow Him.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:48:55 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<45e85c7a$0$16391$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:394cu2tpt6togrpci9p4fh67ghn7b3j801@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 05:01:50 +0800, in alt.atheism
>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>> <45e5e38b$0$16375$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>><pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
>>>news:1172554645.503230.296520@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On 22 feb, 17:08, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Free Lunch" wrote in
>>>>> messagenews:8vnpt2dbg15v1o4t4gi1od6t5c2d1r8el6@4ax.com...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > There is no evidence for God or Satan or any other gods of
>>>>> > Christianity
>>>>> > or any other religions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I respect this as a tenet of your belief that you religiously adhere to
>>>>> and
>>>>> evangelistically proclaim.
>>>>
>>>> You shouldn't
>>>> If you disagree, you should produce the evidence.
>>>> You do not, therefore I suspect you agree.
>>>> Peter van Velzen
>>>> February 2007
>>>> Thung Song
>>>> Thailand
>>>>
>>> You haven't been around much, or you would know that there are gods
>>>aplenty in our museums and libraries, containing both concrete and
>>>abstract
>>>gods. In Thailand you will find people having altars stocked with gods of
>>>all kinds.
>>> What atheists mean is: There are no gods of atheist definition, and we
>>>theists tend to agree with them.
>>
>> It would be interesting if you could point to evidence that those who
>> have these statues think that the statues themselves are the gods rather
>> than representations of the gods.
>>
> Are we seeing an atheist acknowledging gods, whether real or
>representational etc. or not? You better be careful, or atheist central will
>be yanking your number.

I acknowledge that people claim gods exist. I am completely open to
evidence to show that any god does exist. So far, no one, except 'Richo'
in <1172814337.257713.200830@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> in the Define
"God" thread, is willing to state that gods are nothing more than what
people worship as gods. If you want to define gods as nothing more than
that, I cannot argue with you. If God is only love for you, but has no
actual power, I cannot argue with you. I will consider you silly, but
nothing else.

--

"... There's glory for you."

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till
I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."
 

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