NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:02:17 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<45e85c80$0$16391$88260bb3@free.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?

No, it's because I've actually read Paul's writings.

> This, having such id
 
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:05:05 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<45e85c83$0$16391$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>"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.

I guess you haven't been following the President's decision to use the
NSA to spy in a way that is not allowed in the US. Too bad. It's scary
that people who don't even know what our president has been doing are
willing to give him the benefit of the doubt just because he makes a big
noise about being a Christian. I don't believe him for a minute, but
apparently he's only trying to con Christians.

>Jesus is waiting to get your attention.

There is no evidence that Jesus exists.
 
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:09:24 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<45e85c85$0$16391$88260bb3@free.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?

I test statements against reality. You can, too.

>You sound more and more like some infallible atheist potentate.

His lies have nothing to do with atheism.

> Jesus is there to give you direction. Take His advice and follow Him.

There is no evidence that Jesus exists.
 
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1172716888.888174.142960@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 28, 4:39�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >> 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?
>
How is it, even now you don't know what the word Satan or devil means?
Satan means all that is evil, i.e. Satan is the principle of evil which
ALWAYS comes in human form, and that which you keep denying exists. You even
deny that the devil can possess people, though history clearly shows us
Satan possessed people killing millions.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Mar 2, 8:13�am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, you are an apostate Christian.
 
"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C20BB1C4.82C2%p.duca@comcast.net...
> in article 1172662369.154545.34300@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com, rbwinn at
> rbwinn3@juno.com wrote on 2/28/07 6:32 AM:
>> On Feb 27, 10:19?pm, Paul Duca <p.d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> in article 1172546142.249794.79...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com, rbwinn
>>> at
>>> rbwi...@juno.com wrote on 2/26/07 10:15 PM:
>>>> On Feb 26, 7:54 pm, Paul Duca <p.d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> in article 1172454559.575420.50...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com,
>>>>> rbwinn at
>>>>> rbwi...@juno.com wrote on 2/25/07 8:49 PM:
>>>>>> 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. aul stated that in the last days men
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be turned to fables, being unable to abide sound doctrine.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> jesus = fable.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The person to explain your idea to would be Jesus Christ.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> jesus = fable.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> IOW: you can repeat that "you can talk to jesus when he comes
>>>>>>>>> back", but that pathetic attempt at a threat means nothing. You'll
>>>>>>>>> have to find something valid.
>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not a threat
>>>
>>>>>>> It's an attempt at a threat. And it's so pathetic as to be
>>>>>>> laughable.
>>>
>>>>>> Well, it is not a threat. You will have a chance to express your
>>>>>> views to Jesus Christ.
>>>
>>>>> I certainly will...and I won't be disappointed, because there is
>>>>> NOTHING Jesus Christ can offer me I would actually WANT.
>>>
>>>> Well, Jesus Christ would be the one to tell your idea. Strangely, the
>>>> scriptures say that none of you people are going to take advantage of
>>>> the opportunity.
>>>
>>> I told you, I will...at the very least, I am NEVER going to be
>>> alongside someone like you, on my knees sucking up to Him and begging
>>> for
>>> His crumbs.
>>>
>> Well, why don't you run along then and wo what you want to do?
>
> What I want to do includes laughing at your simpering stupidity...
> Paul
>
An intolerant little Onanist, ain't you? Paul loves "laughing at", not
with other people.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:45E65CB3.BC76D022@netvigator.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
>> news:l597u2lni8032lkjd0nvt0im7q0k0gpfec@4ax.com...
>> > In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:46:29 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> > <rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:
>> >>
>> >> What is there to argue about? We
>> >>have freedom of religion here in the United States. You are free to
>> >>be an atheist if that is what you want to be. You decided to try some
>> >>profanity on me.
>> >
>> > No, since there's no such thing. And I told you what it means
>> > to argue style-over-substance, which is what you did.
>> > Don aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
>> > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
>> >
>> Typical atheists to always know what there isn't, but being clueless
>> as
>> to what there is.
>
> Does that statement not strike you as being painfully banal?
>
>> So now we are told thet there "is no such thing" as
>> profanity, and according to atheists dictionaries and Bibles are lying,
>> for
>> only atheists know the truth, ...only privately so however, for they
>> can't
>> seem to evidence this truth.
>
> Atheists are not 'all knowing',
> but they do use their common sense and logic
> - THAT is the big difference
>
There is no way values on the scale of good vs. evil, can be determined
by "common sense and logic".



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:eumdnS9prupYvHrYnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@ptd.net...
> 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
>
Notice the Golden Rule of Christ below. Are you telling us you would
never become a terrorist were your country bombed and invaded. Would you be
suitably shocked and awed and become immediately compliant and docile?
If not that, what would you do?

Pastor Frank

The most important, yet most ignored commandments of Christ, which would
make war, if not ALL of man's inhumanity to man extinct, nay totally
unthinkable:
THE ROYAL LAW OF CHRIST
Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment.
31: And the second is alike, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Jesus in Mat 22:40 "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
commandments."
THE GOLDEN RULE OF CHRIST, or Ethic of Reciprocity
Jesus in Matt. 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them...."



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:croeu25amqqusj8b7cv0qcff7tul8hho4e@4ax.com...
>
> 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.
>
There you go again specifying that a God to exists, he must be evidenced
to your specifications and approval. There is no such requirement. It's a
free country and everyone can regard anything or anyone as their god, no
matter whether abstract or concrete.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:70qeu21934vf7sp50ejdu2g6eduqn4ljtb@4ax.com...
> 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?
>
Are you simple minded, that you should believe Satan's minions who claim
to be followers of Christ, yet do the opposite from what Christ commanded,
as well as justify doing so. That's why Jesus said: By their actions ye
shall know them. Yet you believe their words instead of their actions?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Paul Ransom Erickson" <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d7dfu21j71k9kjufn1qo796guqo1of0d17@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:04:48 +1030, Michael Gray
> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
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.
>
So what's your conclusion? Should we all just give up and do what comes
natural, and to hell with the consequences?
What are you advocating?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:l2ofu25j3689oqkknitg214b0cebi0anqq@4ax.com...
>
> 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.
>
Precisely! For atheism allows people to define the god they reject as
ridiculously as possible so as to make existence of such a creature totally
impossible. Therefore: There ain't no god(s) is automatically always true
and there is no need to lie.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1huado7.z1ch1cxy6xb9N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> 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?
>
So what are you advocating? Should we all just do what comes natural? Or
should we all become atheists each inventing his own brand of morality,
ethics, common sense, logic and reason, and most of all not listen to anyone
who advocates a consensus on the meaning of good behaviour, such as Jesus
Christ?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:02:36 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

>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.

Well, I don't think we disagree too much about this. Personally I
don't know that religious people lie significantly more often than
non-religious people. The thing is that religion enshrines certain
kinds of lies amid an aura of virtue, and so makes them very visibly
hypocritical.

And one lie leads to another. Sure.

Anybody who listens to political talk is seriously tempted in much the
same way.
 
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:46:07 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<45e8f9fe$0$16381$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:croeu25amqqusj8b7cv0qcff7tul8hho4e@4ax.com...
>>
>> 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.
>>
> There you go again specifying that a God to exists, he must be evidenced
>to your specifications and approval. There is no such requirement. It's a
>free country and everyone can regard anything or anyone as their god, no
>matter whether abstract or concrete.

Go ahead, define any god and show the evidence for his existence. You
will either end up with a trivially true god, e.g. god is the universe,
or a god unsupported by the evidence, e.g. the god defined in the Nicene
Creed.

Feel free to avoid false equivocation however. You don't get to invent
one definition for god to show that evidence exists for it and then
redefine god to claim that an afterlife exists.
 
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:37:03 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<45e8f9ea$0$16381$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:1172716888.888174.142960@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 28, 4:39�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> >> 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?
>>
> How is it, even now you don't know what the word Satan or devil means?
>Satan means all that is evil, i.e. Satan is the principle of evil which
>ALWAYS comes in human form, and that which you keep denying exists. You even
>deny that the devil can possess people, though history clearly shows us
>Satan possessed people killing millions.

Your teachings really are heterodox. Are you really teaching that Satan
is merely the personification of evil and that God is merely the
personification of good?
 
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:50:19 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<45e8fa01$0$16381$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:70qeu21934vf7sp50ejdu2g6eduqn4ljtb@4ax.com...
>> 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?
>>
> Are you simple minded, that you should believe Satan's minions who claim
>to be followers of Christ, yet do the opposite from what Christ commanded,
>as well as justify doing so. That's why Jesus said: By their actions ye
>shall know them. Yet you believe their words instead of their actions?

I don't believe their words. I never claimed to. I'm perfectly willing
to accept that Falwell, Robertson, Bush, Cheney, Franklin Graham, and
the rest of these supposed Christians are not Christian in any way. Your
problem is offering objective evidence about who is Christian and who is
not.
 
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?
>
> I see. Well, we Christians are supposed to return good for evil, so
> here is a verse from Isaiah to brighten your day.

It appears that you confuse talk about evil with the evil itself, and
that you do not recognize yourself in that evil.


> Isaiah3:13 The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the
> people.

And so you retreat to your warm fairy tales.

Interesting choice of verse, by the way. After all, Christianity (as
most religions) employs judgement has a primary tool of control. As I've
said before, Christians all seem to LOVE to judge people; I guess you're
no exception...
 
Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:

> >> So now we are told thet there "is no such thing" as profanity, and
> >> according to atheists dictionaries and Bibles are lying, for only
> >> atheists know the truth, ...only privately so however, for they can't
> >> seem to evidence this truth.
> >
> > Atheists are not 'all knowing', but they do use their common sense and
> > logic - THAT is the big difference
> >
> There is no way values on the scale of good vs. evil, can be determined
> by "common sense and logic".

Nor can be it determined by nonsense and superstition. But that hasn't
stopped you from trying, now has it?
 
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > There you go again specifying that a God to exists, he must be evidenced
> >to your specifications and approval. There is no such requirement. It's a
> >free country and everyone can regard anything or anyone as their god, no
> >matter whether abstract or concrete.
>
> Go ahead, define any god and show the evidence for his existence. You
> will either end up with a trivially true god, e.g. god is the universe,
> or a god unsupported by the evidence, e.g. the god defined in the Nicene
> Creed.
>
> Feel free to avoid false equivocation however. You don't get to invent
> one definition for god to show that evidence exists for it and then
> redefine god to claim that an afterlife exists.

Frank's "God" created the entire universe AND knows whether you've been
naughty or nice. Or is that Duke's "God"? It's so hard to keep these
guys' vaguely defined imaginary friends apart!
 

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