NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[justiz]

On Mar 6, 1:40 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:40 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:13:03 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
> > wrote:
> > - Refer: <j6SdnbyJ15LcQXHYnZ2dnUVZ_uXin...@comcast.com>
>
> > >rbwinn wrote:
> > >> On Mar 5, 11:48?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> > >>> On 4 Mar., 17:21, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>>>news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > >>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >>> snip
>
> > >>>>> Matthew 10:14
> > >>>>> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
> > >>>>> depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
>
> > >>>> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very
> > >>>> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones
> > >>>> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants
> > >>>> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to
> > >>>> point to this verse as a defense
>
> > >>> We have, and, just like you and the inane champion of the world
> > >>> (little Winn), they ignore it.
>
> > >> Well, as I told you before, that was Christ's instruction to his
> > >> twelve apostles. I am not an apostle.
> > >> I am just an ordinary person quoting verses from Isaiah.
> > >> Robert B. Winn
>
> > >Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
>
> > >"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
> > >refute one's theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
>
> > One has to actually have a theory in the first place.
> > Bobby has only crazed schizophrenic ramblings.
>
> You were the ones who were trying to promote me to the position of
> apostle. You have no authority to make any such promotion. I am not
> being sent with the same responsibility the apostles were given. I
> have yet to see you use any verse of the Bible in context. All you
> ever do is take random verses and apply them according to your
> interpretation.
> Robert B. Winn

Isn't that what christians do? Isn't that what makes it fun?
christians use the bible selectively, atheist shove it back in their
face selectively.
The best excuse I heard for using the bible selectively is that parts
are not relevant. gasp. I contend it is holy irrelevant to any
educated person.

 

[Scott Richter]

Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:

> Christ tells me not to judge people. All I am allowed is to judge
> actions. So you need to list what actions you want me to judge, and I will
> attempt to judge them by the standard of: What Would Jesus Do?

How about your own actions? What do you think the odds are that they
meet the standard?

"What Would Jesus Do" is a sham, the only standard you have is "What
Would Frank Do". You just don't have the character to call it what it
is, hiding instead behind your religious sanctimony...

 

[e]

"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:8jjqu2ha4uvv7rr93fn3dqs97vtdpk3965@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:49:22 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
>
>>Of course there is "evidence".
>>Ask any believer.
>>His/her answer is evidence there is a "god" --
>>created and residing inside his/her mind. -- L.
>
> Can you offer support that there is no God?
>

"Lack of belief"

What does "Lack belief in God" mean?

"Lack" means, deficiency or absence. "Belief" means, acceptance and
conviction that something is true or valid. Therefore, lack of belief would
mean, basically, an absence of belief that something is true. But even this
is debatable on what "absence of belief" can mean. Someone can say, "I have
absence of belief in screaming blue ants" but it is a meaningless statement.
If "Lack of belief" is complete ignorance about something, then it is a
state of non-awareness about it.

It is not a purposeful chosen neutrality about something since this is a
intellectual categorization which implies awareness of a concept or thing --
even if the category is called neutrality. We lack belief in concepts we are
not aware of and we categorize/assess concepts we are aware of.

If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses to not make an intellectual
commitment to a position, but to remain intellectually neutral regarding
belief or disbelief, that would be more logical. However, complete
neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect
upon the hearer and illicit a response. Once you have been exposed to a
concept, you categorize it as True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you
do not return to a complete mental neutrality or state of ignorance. We do
not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a
mentally neutral position of the concept. We make a decision to categorize
them as True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc. based upon our scope of
knowledge and experience. To the extent that this categorization occurs,
belief or disbelief is associated with it.

If True, then positive belief is applied. If False, then disbelief (the
positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Ridiculous, then disbelief
(the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Unsure, then belief
and disbelief are pending with either as the outcome. This is because we
realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible as also is
disbelief (rejection) depending on further information. Being unsure about
something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get but even
this is a categorization with pending commitment to belief or disbelief.
Actions reflect belief We act based upon what we do believe, not upon what
we do not believe. In other words, I do something because I believe
something whether it be that my house is on fire or that there is food in my
refrigerator. However, to say that I believe there is no food in my
refrigerator and therefore, I do not get up to go get food is actually the
active belief that there is no food there and the resulting decision
(action) to remain where I am is the result.

I lack belief in concepts I am unaware of. Therefore, I do not and cannot
act based upon them since I am unaware of them. I can only act or not act
based upon concepts I am aware of. If I believe there are invisible pink
unicorns, I would act accordingly and either defend their existence or
behave in a manner consistent with the belief that they exist. If I believe
there are no such things as invisible pink unicorns, I may or may not defend
my position depending on the circumstances. But, I do not promote their non
existence since it is not necessary to do so anymore than it is necessary to
promote the assertion that there is no ice cream factory on Jupiter. If I
believe that the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns is ridiculous, I may
or may not assert that it is ridiculous, but I have categorized them and
believe they do not exist. If I am unsure about the existence of Invisible
Pink Unicorns, I would wait for further information before making my
decision.

In this, I would be agnostic about their existence. If an atheist
says he (or she) lacks belief in God, yet actively seeks to undermine
theistic proofs and promote atheistic principles, then we must conclude that
his actions are consistent with his beliefs; namely, that he actively
believes that God does not exist. Furthermore, if the atheist is actively
promoting the non-existence of God yet says he lacks belief in God, then his
words and actions are inconsistent. Atheists who say they lack belief in
God, or have disbelief in God, yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek
to promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs, not their "lack
of belief." It is more consistent to say the atheist who supports and
promotes the idea that there is no God, believes that there is no God, not
that he lacks belief in God. Otherwise, he is behaving either without a
reason, which is not logical, or with a reason; namely, the belief that God
does not exist. To say that you believe there is no God has problems To say

"I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what would the
atheist be basing his belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of
evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all? If evidence, then what
positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence? There can be no
such evidence since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect
and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove God's
existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from
it? (I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible). Testimony
is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God
does not exist. If lack of evidence, then it means he has not yet seen all
evidence and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's
existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really
is an agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with
his statement. If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates
God's existence? At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs.

Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means
that the proofs thus presented are insufficient. Logic can only disprove
theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is not a
refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all
possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not
disprove God's existence. If there were a logical argument that proved that
God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known
then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's
non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude
that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence. If
faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an
arbitrary position. If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith,
then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate
atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism. For
someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since
there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no
logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually
impossible to prove a negative.

=

Is Truth Relatively True or Absolutely True?

Have you ever heard comments like these?

Homosexuality? It's just another lifestyle. It's not for me, of course,
but if someone wants that kind of relationship, why shouldn't he? It's a
free country, isn't it?

Pornography? I think it's terrible. But we can't close down the peep
shows and adult bookstores just because it's smut. We have to protect
everyone's constitutional right of free speech.

Abortion? I don't agree with it personally, but a woman has a right to do
whatever she wants with her own body.

Christians? They're so narrow-minded and exclusive. Why should they have
a monopoly on God? God can reveal Himself in any religion. I believe that
all religions are paths to the same mountain top.

These comments have one thing in common. They reflect an increasingly
popular belief in Western culture, especially in the area of ethics and
religion. It is the claim that truth is relative; it flows from
individual beliefs, cultural worldviews, or circumstances rather than
from an objective standard (such as God) that exists beyond human
subjectivity (beyond personal opinion). In such a system, if beliefs,
worldviews, and circumstances vary depending on geography and period of
history, then truth must vary as well because it depends on these
entities to give it meaning. Truth, then, is not universal and
unchanging. Rather it is enslaved to a variety of interpretations.

The philosophy of relativism springs from two foundational
presuppositions (assumptions).?1? First, what was once true may not be
true anymore. Adultery was immoral in the 1950s but may not be in the
1990s. Homosexuality was a sin in the past but is an acceptable lifestyle
today. Second, what is true for me may not be true for you. Abortion may
be evil to me but not to you. God may reveal Himself to me in
Christianity, but He may reveal Himself to you in Hinduism.

Relativism is widely accepted because these two presuppositions are part
and parcel of modern pluralism. Take, for example, religious
pluralism-the belief that all religions reflect truth. Religious
pluralism can only be sustained if truth is relative. Why? Because the
world's major religions contradict one another in their essential
doctrines. Only the claim that truth is relative prevents religious
pluralism from crumbling.

If religious relativism is true, it follows that ethical relativism is
also true. Aren't ethics generally a product of religion? Thus, just as
there are no religious absolutes, there are no moral absolutes. Moral
truths change with time and circumstances and are determined by culture
or personal opinion, not God.

The philosophy of relativism teaches that absolute truth, truth that is
applicable to all people at all times, is non-existent. Over the past few
decades, this philosophy has become widely accepted and represents one of
the most significant worldview changes in modern Western society. More
and more people believe that truth and ethical behavior are neither
determined by God nor revealed as absolute principles through the Judeo-
Christian religion. Rather they are a result of personal beliefs and
experiences as interpreted by one's culture.

A recent survey by the Barna Research Group asked the question, Is there
absolute truth? The survey revealed that the majority of American adults
believe that there is no such thing as absolute truth and that different
people can define truth in contradictory ways and all be correct. Says
George Barna:

Last year's study [1991] discovered that the vast majority of Americans
do not believe in absolute truth. If you combine that insight with the
prevailing perceptions about sin, you might conclude that although
Americans believe in the idea of sin, they reject the notion of an
absolute definition of sin. Thus, an act that is a sin in my eyes may not
be something you would consider sinful. To most adults, this conflict in
perspective is perfectly permissible. When all truth is deemed relative,
so is the evaluation of our actions.?2?

This surprising (and alarming) fact becomes paradoxical when we consider
that 88 percent of American adults say they are Christians, and that two-
thirds of the nation's adults claim to have made a personal commitment to
Jesus Christ.?3? Add this to the fact that 56 percent of all adults
"strongly" agree that the Bible is the "written Word of God and is
totally accurate in all that it teaches" (and another 18 percent agree
with this statement "somewhat"?4?), and you are forced to conclude that
most Americans do not understand what being a Christian is. They fail to
recognize that biblical truth-claims are absolute statements about
reality and not open to personal opinion. Relativism has infiltrated
their thinking.

[1]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Geisler and Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason Together, 255. 2 Barna, The
Barna Report 1992-1993, 50. 3 Ibid., 76. 4 Ibid., 44.

[1]Story, D. (1998). Christianity on the offense : Responding to the
beliefs and assumptions of spiritual seekers (28). Grand Rapids, MI:
Kregel Publications.


=

HALLMARKS OF A FOOL-I

Proverbs
17:16 Why should a fool have a price in his hand to buy wisdom,
when he has no mind?

17:24 A man of understanding sets his face toward wisdom,
but the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth.

17:10 A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding
than a hundred blows into a fool.

27:22 Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle
along with crushed grain,
yet his folly will not depart from him.

15:14 The mind of him who has understanding seeks knowledge,
but the mouths of fools feed on folly.

26:11 Like a dog that returns to his vomit
is a fool that repeats his folly.

18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
but only in expressing his opinion.

28:26 He who trusts in his own mind is a fool;
but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.

12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
but a wise man listens to advice.

14:33 Wisdom abides in the mind of a man of understanding,
but it is not known in the heart of fools.


=

"Difficult Times Will Come" - Are We there Yet!

The Coming Apostasy

(2 Timothy 3:1-5 NASB)

"Difficult Times Will Come"

1 But realize this, that ?a?in the last days difficult times will come.
2 For men will be ?a?lovers of self, ?b?lovers of money, ?c?boastful,
?c?arrogant, ?d?revilers, ?c?disobedient to parents, ?e?ungrateful, ?f?unholy,
3 ?a?unloving, irreconcilable, ?b?malicious gossips, without self-control,
brutal, ?1??c?haters of good,
4 ?a?treacherous, ?b?reckless, ?c?conceited, ?d?lovers of pleasure rather
than lovers of God,
5 holding to a form of ?1??a?godliness, although they have ?b?denied its
power; ?c?Avoid such men as these. [1]

LIVING IN THE LAST DAYS

If society is doomed to degeneration, what should believers do as they live in the
"last days"? Paul offered advice in several of his letters:

Reference - Romans 13:11-14
Application - Keep close to the Lord.

Reference - 2 Corinthians 11:13-15
Application - Avoid those masquerading as servants of God.

Reference - Ephesians 5:11
Application - Have nothing to do with evildoers and their wicked deeds; instead,
expose them. Believers need not allow evil to continue unchecked, but should
actively work against it.

Reference - Ephesians 5:18
Application - Redeem the time.

Reference - Colossians 4:2, 5
Application - Believers are to pray, be watchful, be thankful, and be wise in the
way they act toward unbelievers, making the most of every opportunity to share
the gospel.

Reference - 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15
Application - Church members who are lazy and idle must be warned. Christians
should not be sitting around waiting for the Lord to return, but should continue
working in the ministry.

[2]

In verses 2-5, nineteen characteristics of mankind during the last days are given.
We shall simply list them and give synonyms that explain their meaning:

Lovers of themselves-self-cen tered, conceited, egotistical.
Lovers of money-greedy for mon ey, avaricious.
Boasters-braggarts, full of great swelling words.
Proud-arrogant, haughty, overbearing.
Blasphemers-evil speakers, profane, abusive, foulmouthed, contemptuous,
insulting.
Disobedient to parents-rebellious, undutiful, uncontrolled.
Unthankful-ungrateful, lacking in appreciation.
Unholy-impious, profane, irreverent, holding nothing sacred.

3:3 Unloving-hard-hearted, unnaturally callous, unfeeling.
Unforgiving-"implacable, refusing to make peace, refusing efforts toward
reconciliation."
Slanderers-spreading false and malicious reports.
Without self-control-men of uncontrolled passions, dissolute, debauched.
Brutal-savage, unprincipled.
Despisers of good-haters of whatever or whoever is good; utterly opposed to
goodness in any form.

3:4 Traitors-treacherous, betrayers.
Headstrong-reckless, self-willed, rash.
Haughty-making empty pretensions, conceited.
Lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-those who love sensual pleasures
but not God.

[3]

2 Timothy 3:1

Knowing his death was imminent, I believe Paul nonetheless thought the Rapture
would happen either in his lifetime or shortly thereafter. So do I. I believe the
Rapture will happen in my lifetime.

"Well," you say, "if Paul thought the Rapture would happen in his lifetime, and it
didn't-and if men of God throughout the ages have felt as though they were
living in the last days and the Rapture would happen in their lifetimes, and it
didn't-doesn't it seem foolish to think the Rapture will happen in your lifetime?"

Not at all. Throughout the history of the church, the greatest men and women of
the faith have all lived their lives believing that the Lord's coming was nigh. And
even though the Lord didn't come when they thought He would, looking for His
return impacted their lives in such a way that they left their mark on history and
will be rewarded greatly in eternity (2 Timothy 4:8). Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon,
Finney, Moody, Torrey all felt the Lord's coming was close at hand. Put me in
their company any day!

I choose to live my life looking for the Lord's coming. And if I am wrong, even if
He doesn't come back for another five hundred years, I would rather go through
the days I have left looking for the sudden appearing of Jesus Christ because I
know the effect it has upon the life of any man or woman who believes He could
come today: One's heart does not get troubled as easily. One is not prone to sin
so readily. If you want to live a zealous, exciting, fulfilling, pure Christian life, live it
looking for the Lord's coming (1 John 3:3).

[4]

2 Timothy 3:2 (a)

For men shall be lovers of their own selves.

Of the students in the ten leading industrialized nations, American high-school
students scored either ninth or tenth in every academic category. But in the
category of self-esteem, they came in first. In other words, our culture is very
good at teaching our kids to say, "I'm okay. I'm somebody. I'm proud."

2 Timothy 3:2 (b)

..covetous, boasters.

The Greek word translated "boasters" is alazon, which speaks of a claim made
by a quack promising something but unable to deliver that which was promised.

2 Timothy 3:2 (c)

..proud, blasphemers.

The idea of blasphemy literally refers to those who use the Lord's name in vain.
People say "God" constantly-but seldom with reverence. Even by people
interviewed on news programs, the Lord's name is used in vain constantly.

2 Timothy 3:2 (d), 3 (a)

..disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection.

I believe nothing identifies us more clearly as those who have fallen into unnatural
affection than the sad statistics relating to abortion. We're horrified when we read
that the Canaanites placed their babies on the incandescent arms of idols. How
can this be? we wonder. And yet we burn our babies with saline solutions in the
wombs of mothers-a practice even more horrific, a practice that goes against
every natural instinct to protect one's offspring.

2 Timothy 3:3 (b)

..trucebreakers.

The idea here is of people ignoring covenants or contracts.

2 Timothy 3:3 (c)

..false accusers, incontinent, fierce.

After being confronted by a student upset with an assignment, the teacher of an
anger management class lost his temper and hit the student in the face. Now, if
even teachers of anger management are hitting people, without the Lord, what
hope is there for the rest of our angry world?

2 Timothy 3:3 (d), 4

..despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of
pleasures more than lovers of God.

People love pleasure. But it's a love that leads only to the "Been there, done that,
now what?" mentality, as they find they have to continually do something bigger,
better, farther, faster, and higher in order to get the same thrill they once did.

2 Timothy 3:5

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

We're to turn away from those who are without natural affection, from those who
despise things that are good, from those who love pleasure more than God, from
those who talk about NewAge spirituality but who know nothing of the power of
the Holy Spirit and the Resurrected Jesus.

[5]

IS IT BAD ENOUGH YET?

Our concerns about the "last days" tend to be very personal. They usually arise,
not because we are actually suffering, but because we dread suffering. Concerns
focus not so much on the destructiveness of evil around us, but whether or not
evil will affect our way of living. Such narrow concerns reveal our blindness to
evil. Christians must not withdraw from the world entirely or use the wrong
methods to defend themselves against it. Believers who attempt to insulate
themselves from the moral degradation of the last days must not insulate
themselves from God. Whenever material prosperity or pleasure are used in place
of God's protection, we fool ourselves. But God loves us too much to leave us in
our delusion. If it takes the loss of everything to get our attention, God has been
known to allow that to happen. Does your life exhibit an awareness of the
desperate condition of the world? Are you using God's methods for dealing with
terrible times?

[6]

CHECK THE LIST

In many parts of the world today, it's not too tough to be a follower of
Christ-Christians aren't jailed for reading the Bible or executed for preaching
Christ. But Paul's descriptive list of behavior in the last days describes our
society-even, unfortunately, the behavior of some Christians. Every one of these
can be found in churches today. Check your life against Paul's list. Don't give in
to society's pressures. Don't settle for comfort without commitment. Stand up
against evil by living as God would have his people live.

[7]

CHOOSING TO LOVE

Why is it so tempting to be a lover of pleasure rather than a lover of God?

.. Pleasure is something we can control; God cannot be controlled. Most
pleasures can be obtained easily; love for God requires effort and sometimes
sacrifice.

.. Pleasure benefits us now; the benefits of loving God are often in the future.

.. Pleasure has a narcotic effect; it takes our minds off ourselves and our
problems. Love for God reminds us of our needs and our responsibilities.

.. Pleasure cooperates with pride. It makes us feel good when we look good in
the eyes of others. To love God we must lay aside our pride and our
accomplishments.

[8]

PLAYING SOLDIER

Imitation Christianity has dangerous consequences. Putting on an appearance of
faith often leads people to believe a person is a true believer. In an actual incident
during the Korean War, a lieutenant inspecting a new platoon over which he was
about to take command reported that several soldiers carried rifles that had
rusted shut. Yet they were scheduled to go into battle the next day! They looked
like soldiers; they carried weapons. But they were unprepared and unable to
fight.

Some churchgoers rely on superficial appearances. Many people today carry
Bibles, attend church, mouth the right words, yet evidence no spiritual power in
their lives. They have no direct, personal, intimate connection with God.

[9]

"Self-love is the basic shortcoming mentioned in the list of vices in 3:2-5. This
vice leads to action in vv. 6-9 that is deceitful, determined to dominate, stubborn,
and rejected by God." 64

[10]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a 1 Tim 4:1
a Phil 2:21
b Luke 16:14; 1 Tim 3:3; 6:10
c Rom 1:30
d 2 Pet 2:10-12
e Luke 6:35
f 1 Tim 1:9
a Rom 1:31
b 1 Tim 3:11
1 Lit not loving good
c Titus 1:8
a Acts 7:52
b Acts 19:36
c 1 Tim 3:6
d Phil 3:19
1 Or religion
a 1 Tim 4:7
b 1 Tim 5:8
c Matt 7:15; 2 Thess 3:6

[1]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (2 Ti 3:1). LaHabra, CA:
The Lockman Foundation.

[2]Barton, B. B., Veerman, D., & Wilson, N. S. (1993). 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy,
Titus. Cover title: 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus. Life application Bible commentary
(204). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

[3]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary
: Old and New Testaments (2 Ti 3:2). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[4]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (1408).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

[5]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (1408).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

[6]Barton, B. B., Veerman, D., & Wilson, N. S. (1993). 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy,
Titus. Cover title: 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus. Life application Bible commentary
(204). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

[7]Barton, B. B., Veerman, D., & Wilson, N. S. (1993). 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy,
Titus. Cover title: 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus. Life application Bible commentary
(206). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

[8]Barton, B. B., Veerman, D., & Wilson, N. S. (1993). 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy,
Titus. Cover title: 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus. Life application Bible commentary
(207). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

[9]Barton, B. B., Veerman, D., & Wilson, N. S. (1993). 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy,
Titus. Cover title: 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus. Life application Bible commentary
(208). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

64 64. Lea, p. 230.

[10]Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the
Bible (2 Ti 3:5). Galaxie Software.


.. So much predictive Truth in just five [5] lines of Scripture!


--
There's no hurry?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrmDWn6awMA
"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will
not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and
flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."
http://bibleweb.info/ftp/ftp-members-0001.html
Born once, die twice. Born twice, die once.
Wisdom of a Lifetime - Audio MP3 Collection -
http://bibleweb.info/ftp/ftp-members-0002.html
The Last (5th) Horseman
http://bibleweb.info/ftp/ftp-members-0003.html
The Facts About Jesus, the Bible & the Afterlife
http://bibleweb.info/ftp/ftp-members-0004.html
The Way - http://john-14-6.com/john-14-6.pdf
A Tribute to THE KING
http://bibleweb.info/public-a-tribute-to-the-king.pdf
My Main Collection - http://Bibleweb.Info/

 

[Pastor Frank]

"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1173108528.110960.291180@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Mar., 18:27, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1173019052.691420.283990@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>>
>> > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim? If so, whose responsibility
>> > > is proof? I would contend there is no way to prove such a
>> > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
>> > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
>>
>> > No, it's more a statement about the absolute dearth of actual,
>> > legitimate, objective, verifiable evidence for any deities ever in the
>> > universe.
>
"Deity"? What's a deity? You sound like one who argues that there is no
evidence that comic book characters Galacticus or Odin exists. LOL



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

 

[stumper]

Michael Gray wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:42:01 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <lK6dnd916aE-AXHYnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@ptd.net>
>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:07:11 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> - Refer: <FOidnYaw9ND0G3HYnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>>> "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:N7OdnXGAFvDSUXTYnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@ptd.net...
>>>>>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>>>>> "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...."
>>>>>> First thing first. Would you stone adulterers?
>>>>>> ~Stumper
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's a stupid question about Judaism. Jesus saved the adulteress from
>>>>> getting stoned. But then some butt heads like getting stoned, ...and pay
>>>>> good money for it too!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't you obey the Ten Commandments?
>>> Which version?
>>>
>> Which one do you have in mind?
>
> Ve ask ze qvestions here!
>
> There are two versions at least in the Hebrew, many, many more if you
> "rely" on the excresent English or Latin translations.
>

Are you trying to say that
you can read Hebrew?

Can you speak Aramaic as well?
I heard Benny Hinn does.

--
~Stumper

 

[Sippuuden]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 5, 8:13 pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 5, 11:48?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>>> On 4 Mar., 17:21, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> snip
>>>>>> Matthew 10:14
>>>>>> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
>>>>>> depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
>>>>> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very
>>>>> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones
>>>>> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants
>>>>> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to
>>>>> point to this verse as a defense
>>>> We have, and, just like you and the inane champion of the world
>>>> (little Winn), they ignore it.
>>> Well, as I told you before, that was Christ's instruction to his
>>> twelve apostles. I am not an apostle.
>>> I am just an ordinary person quoting verses from Isaiah.
>>> Robert B. Winn
>> Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
>>
>> "An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
>> refute one's theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html- Hide quoted text -
>>
> We speak English here in the United States. Latin is a dead language
> used by people who have nothing to say.
> Robert B. Winn
>
English is eclectic [coming from many sources] by nature. There are lots
of Latin terms used. Everybody seems to know how to look them up if they
do not understand them, except for you, moron?

Here's a clue: http://tinylink.com/?W5JQwWpsz7

 

[Michael Gray]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:44:18 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <WIudndB4R9rhWXDYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@ptd.net>
>Michael Gray wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:42:01 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>> wrote:
>> - Refer: <lK6dnd916aE-AXHYnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@ptd.net>
>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:07:11 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> - Refer: <FOidnYaw9ND0G3HYnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>>>> "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:N7OdnXGAFvDSUXTYnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@ptd.net...
>>>>>>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>> "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...."
>>>>>>> First thing first. Would you stone adulterers?
>>>>>>> ~Stumper
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a stupid question about Judaism. Jesus saved the adulteress from
>>>>>> getting stoned. But then some butt heads like getting stoned, ...and pay
>>>>>> good money for it too!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't you obey the Ten Commandments?
>>>> Which version?
>>>>
>>> Which one do you have in mind?
>>
>> Ve ask ze qvestions here!
>>
>> There are two versions at least in the Hebrew, many, many more if you
>> "rely" on the excresent English or Latin translations.
>>
>
>Are you trying to say that
>you can read Hebrew?

I can read the Bible in Hebrew, yes.

>Can you speak Aramaic as well?

I don't "speak" it, but can read it, after a fashion.

>I heard Benny Hinn does.

Benny Hinn only speaks the pure bullshit language of a heartless
con-artist.
He is a criminally fraudulent money vampire who is responsible for
much suffering and premature death in his single-minded pursuit of the
dollar.
He makes Dracula look like Albert Schweitzer.

--

 

[Sippuuden]

Michael Gray wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:13:03 -0800, Sippuuden <sipp@macrosoft.net>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <j6SdnbyJ15LcQXHYnZ2dnUVZ_uXinZ2d@comcast.com>
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 5, 11:48?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>>> On 4 Mar., 17:21, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>>> Matthew 10:14
>>>>>> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
>>>>>> depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
>>>>> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very
>>>>> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones
>>>>> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants
>>>>> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to
>>>>> point to this verse as a defense
>>>> We have, and, just like you and the inane champion of the world
>>>> (little Winn), they ignore it.
>>> Well, as I told you before, that was Christ's instruction to his
>>> twelve apostles. I am not an apostle.
>>> I am just an ordinary person quoting verses from Isaiah.
>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>
>> Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
>>
>> "An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
>> refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
>
> One has to actually have a theory in the first place.
> Bobby has only crazed schizophrenic ramblings.
>
He has a 'theory' [using the term very loosely] that he is not bound by
instructions in his manual to beat a speedy retreat from alt.atheism.
The facts seem to refute his theory. That's why he resorts to the
logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis, to try to explain away the facts
that seem to refute his theory.

Now he resorts to another one, that the term, 'ad hoc' is not an
acceptable English term. Go figure.

 

[stumper]

Michael Gray wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:44:18 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <WIudndB4R9rhWXDYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@ptd.net>
>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:42:01 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> - Refer: <lK6dnd916aE-AXHYnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:07:11 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> - Refer: <FOidnYaw9ND0G3HYnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>>>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>>>>> "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:N7OdnXGAFvDSUXTYnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "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...."
>>>>>>>> First thing first. Would you stone adulterers?
>>>>>>>> ~Stumper
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a stupid question about Judaism. Jesus saved the adulteress from
>>>>>>> getting stoned. But then some butt heads like getting stoned, ...and pay
>>>>>>> good money for it too!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't you obey the Ten Commandments?
>>>>> Which version?
>>>>>
>>>> Which one do you have in mind?
>>> Ve ask ze qvestions here!
>>>
>>> There are two versions at least in the Hebrew, many, many more if you
>>> "rely" on the excresent English or Latin translations.
>>>
>> Are you trying to say that
>> you can read Hebrew?
>
> I can read the Bible in Hebrew, yes.
>
>> Can you speak Aramaic as well?
>
> I don't "speak" it, but can read it, after a fashion.
>
>> I heard Benny Hinn does.
>
> Benny Hinn only speaks the pure bullshit language of a heartless
> con-artist.
> He is a criminally fraudulent money vampire who is responsible for
> much suffering and premature death in his single-minded pursuit of the
> dollar.
> He makes Dracula look like Albert Schweitzer.
>

Can God speak Chinese?

--
~Stumper

 

[Sippuuden]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:40 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:13:03 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
>> wrote:
>> - Refer: <j6SdnbyJ15LcQXHYnZ2dnUVZ_uXin...@comcast.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>> On Mar 5, 11:48?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>>>> On 4 Mar., 17:21, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>> Matthew 10:14
>>>>>>> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
>>>>>>> depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
>>>>>> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very
>>>>>> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones
>>>>>> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants
>>>>>> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to
>>>>>> point to this verse as a defense
>>>>> We have, and, just like you and the inane champion of the world
>>>>> (little Winn), they ignore it.
>>>> Well, as I told you before, that was Christ's instruction to his
>>>> twelve apostles. I am not an apostle.
>>>> I am just an ordinary person quoting verses from Isaiah.
>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>> Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
>>> "An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
>>> refute one's theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
>> One has to actually have a theory in the first place.
>> Bobby has only crazed schizophrenic ramblings.
>>
> You were the ones who were trying to promote me to the position of
> apostle. You have no authority to make any such promotion. I am not
> being sent with the same responsibility the apostles were given. I
> have yet to see you use any verse of the Bible in context. All you
> ever do is take random verses and apply them according to your
> interpretation.
> Robert B. Winn
>
Robert, why would you believe that you are somehow exempt from a simple
instruction in your manual: to beat a speedy retreat from any place like
alt dot atheism where your proselytizing is not welcome, and 'shake the
dust of that place off your feet' [don't have anything further to do
with it]?

Your hypothesis that things in your manual only apply to the original
twelve apostles is just the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis. If they were
to apply only to the original twelve apostles then there would be no
proselytizing today, would there?

 

[Michael Gray]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:58:26 -0800, Sippuuden <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <5--dncyjScFpSHDYnZ2dnUVZ_qunnZ2d@comcast.com>
>rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 8:13 pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>> On Mar 5, 11:48?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>>>> On 4 Mar., 17:21, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>> Matthew 10:14
>>>>>>> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
>>>>>>> depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
>>>>>> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very
>>>>>> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones
>>>>>> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants
>>>>>> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to
>>>>>> point to this verse as a defense
>>>>> We have, and, just like you and the inane champion of the world
>>>>> (little Winn), they ignore it.
>>>> Well, as I told you before, that was Christ's instruction to his
>>>> twelve apostles. I am not an apostle.
>>>> I am just an ordinary person quoting verses from Isaiah.
>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>> Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
>>>
>>> "An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
>>> refute one's theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>> We speak English here in the United States. Latin is a dead language
>> used by people who have nothing to say.
>> Robert B. Winn
>>
>English is eclectic [coming from many sources] by nature. There are lots
>of Latin terms used. Everybody seems to know how to look them up if they
>do not understand them, except for you, moron?
>
>Here's a clue: http://tinylink.com/?W5JQwWpsz7

It's all a part of his deliberate, intentional, willful, and
self-imposed ignorance.

--

 

[Michael Gray]

On 6 Mar 2007 04:15:10 -0800, "justiz" <izstanbul@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1173183310.911820.288670@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>On Mar 6, 1:40 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 2:40 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:13:03 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > - Refer: <j6SdnbyJ15LcQXHYnZ2dnUVZ_uXin...@comcast.com>
>>
>> > >rbwinn wrote:
>> > >> On Mar 5, 11:48?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>> > >>> On 4 Mar., 17:21, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >>>>news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>> > >>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>> > >>>>>> On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > >>> snip
>>
>> > >>>>> Matthew 10:14
>> > >>>>> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
>> > >>>>> depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
>>
>> > >>>> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very
>> > >>>> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones
>> > >>>> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants
>> > >>>> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to
>> > >>>> point to this verse as a defense
>>
>> > >>> We have, and, just like you and the inane champion of the world
>> > >>> (little Winn), they ignore it.
>>
>> > >> Well, as I told you before, that was Christ's instruction to his
>> > >> twelve apostles. I am not an apostle.
>> > >> I am just an ordinary person quoting verses from Isaiah.
>> > >> Robert B. Winn
>>
>> > >Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
>>
>> > >"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
>> > >refute one's theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
>>
>> > One has to actually have a theory in the first place.
>> > Bobby has only crazed schizophrenic ramblings.
>>
>> You were the ones who were trying to promote me to the position of
>> apostle. You have no authority to make any such promotion. I am not
>> being sent with the same responsibility the apostles were given. I
>> have yet to see you use any verse of the Bible in context. All you
>> ever do is take random verses and apply them according to your
>> interpretation.
>> Robert B. Winn

I rest my case!
If that ain't the craziest bit of bullshit I have heard today!
That paragraph alone is enough to get him committed.

>Isn't that what christians do? Isn't that what makes it fun?
>christians use the bible selectively, atheist shove it back in their
>face selectively.

Not this atheist.
I shove the whole damn thing in their faces.

>The best excuse I heard for using the bible selectively is that parts
>are not relevant. gasp. I contend it is holy irrelevant to any
>educated person.

"holy irrelevant"?
Freud or fraud?

--

 

[JessHC]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> > > >
> > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim? If so, whose responsibility
> > > > is ?proof? ?I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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...- Hide quoted text -
> > > >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > >
> > > Atheists reject the Bible
> >
> > No. We reject the unsupported supernatural claims made in the bible.
> >
> > > and say it proves nothing
> >
> > Because begging the question is a logical fallacy.
> >
> > > even though some will actually admit that the Bible exists.
> >
> > Please name one atheist who claims the bible doesn't exist.
> >
> I would say he misspoke.

You're more generous than me.

> > > One atheist told me he had
> > > thirty Bibles, but what good is having a book if you do not read it?
> >
> > Did this person state they hadn't read it? Although it's a fine
> > question to put to theists, now that you bring it up; I'm guessing
> > better than 80% haven't read it cover to cover, judging by what
> > nutcases like you say. An even better one would be "what sense does
> > it make to worship a character in a book you apparently haven't read?"
> >
> > > I try to help atheists get over their ignorance by quoting verses from
> > > the book of Isaiah.
> >
> > Considering that it seems more atheists are biblically well-read than
> > theists,
> >
> I would question this statement.

At one time, I might have, too. Then I started hanging out in
alt.atheism. As far as I can tell, the majority of atheists here are
far more familiar with the bible than virtually any of the theists
wandering in. Not only that, atheists don't feel the need to
"explain" what the text "really" means, which was something else I
hadn't really noticed before hanging out here.

> Sincere, devout Christians usually are
> well read. However, there are some who are noninal Christians who
> ususlly attend Church, others who are Christian for personal gain
> who flaunt their faith in order to gain trust, expecially where they
> hope for personal gain. I personally know an elderly couple who
> were deprived of their life's savings by a Bible quoting "care giver"
> who worked hard to gain their trust. Then she disappeared. She
> had no interest in the couple except for what she could steal.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Matthew 10:14
> > And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
> > depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
> >
> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very
> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones
> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants
> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to
> point to this verse as a defense.

Agreed. It's surprising how many xians rationalize why the verse
doesn't really mean what it says.

 

[JessHC]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1173019052.691420.283990@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > >
> > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim? If so, whose responsibility
> > > is proof? I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
> >
> > No, it's more a statement about the absolute dearth of actual,
> > legitimate, objective, verifiable evidence for any deities ever in the
> > universe.
> >
> There is no proof. Absolute certainty is not available where the
> Deity is concerned.
> People of faith accept the Existence of God as a matter of faith,
> and not because of hard empirical evidence. If this is what is
> demanded by you, then you are demanding this of God because
> he has not provided it.

No, I'm demanding it of the people who make the claim. There is no
legitimate reason for anyone to accept supernatural claims without
evidence.

> If you have some, please feel free to present it; many of
> > us atheists have politely asked for such evidence literally for years
> > if not entire lifetimes, and so far have been perpetually sorely
> > disappointed.
> >
> You want absolute certainty, a guarantee,

You're putting words in my mouth.

> but you have no
> certainty in anything: your job, your mate, your future or
> a long happy life.

You're wrong. I'm certain I have a job right now. I'm certain I'm
alive right now. There's all kinds of evidence for these mundane
things. Why should a deity be held to a lower standard?

> But you demand more from God.

I demand at least that much from "god." How much evidence do you
demand from Krishna? Zues?

> Why? I find this surprising.

You find it surprising anyone wants evidence that some super sky daddy
will burn people forever if they don't believe in him?

> Be aware, though, that the standards of evidence for
> > such supernatural claims is pretty high; statements like "I don't
> > understand something, therefore god must have done it" or "I get a
> > warm fuzzy feeling when I pray" won't cut it.
> >
> I can understand you want a idyllic existence where there is
> only perfect knowledge, proof of everything even direct
> empirical the existence of God, but it does not exist
> so you will not find it.

I agree, since deities don't exist.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:28?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Did this person state they hadn't read it? ?Although it's a fine
> > question to put to theists, now that you bring it up; I'm guessing
> > better than 80% haven't read it cover to cover, judging by what
> > nutcases like you say. ?An even better one would be "what sense does
> > it make to worship a character in a book you apparently haven't read?"
> >
> > > I try to help atheists get over their ignorance by quoting verses from
> > > the book of Isaiah.
> >
> > Considering that it seems more atheists are biblically well-read than
> > theists, what "ignorance" are you trying to help them get over? ?Is
> > Isaiah the only book you've read? ?Are the verses you quote relevant
> > to the conversation?
> >
> > > Isaiah 3:19 ?The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
> >
> > Have you read this one?
> >
> > Matthew 10:14
> > And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
> > depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, those instructions were to the twelve apostles. I am not an
> apostle. I am just an ordinary person quoting verses from the book of
> Isaiah.

Look at that. Rationalization, just like I predicted.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:38?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 3, 11:06?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@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...- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Actually, I was just going through the book of Isaiah verse by verse.
> > > The next one is ?Isaiah 3:14.
> > > The Lord will enter ?into judgment with the ancients of his people,
> > > and the princes thereof: ?for ye have eaten up the vineyard: ?the
> > > spoil of the poor is in your houses.
> > > I discovered some time ago that you can have a conversation with
> > > atheists just by answering each atheist in turn with a verse from
> > > Isaiah. ?This results in a much better conversation than relying on
> > > your own knowledge in trying to answer each accusation. ?Isaiah was a
> > > much better judge than anyone living today.
> >
> > So rather than think about something and answer someone, you punt?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, no, it is not a game. I just quote verses from Isaiah until all
> of the atheists are gone.

So you think it's a good idea to deliberately disobey orders straight
from your deity. How's that working out for you?

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:40?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 1:56?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:05:25 -0500, "H. Wm. Esque"<HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > ? - Refer: <08uGh.2340$Dw2.1...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
> >
> > > > >"Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> > > > >> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim? If so, whose responsibility
> > > > >is ?proof? ?I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > > >claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > > >responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
> >
> > > > Most sane thinking adults would take it as rhetoric.
> > > > I.e.: A "Put up or shut up" challenge.
> >
> > > > Those who demand "evidence" of the non-existence of impossible
> > > > infantile fantasies are most likely not in the categories of sane,
> > > > thinking, or adult.
> >
> > > Well, I think atheists should get over their fantasy that the Bible is
> > > going to disappear.
> >
> > Could you please cite the atheist that made that claim?
> >
> > > Isaiah 3:20 ?The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the
> > > headbands, and the tablets, and the earings,
> >
> > That's nice; rather than babbling yourself, you quote babbling.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, I certainly sorry that you did not like Isaiah.
> Isaiah 3:21 The rings, and the nose jewels,
> Maybe that verse will help you get the vision of it.

I have a vision of something, but I don't think it's what you're
shooting for.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:36?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > I discovered some time ago that you can have a conversation with
> > > atheists just by answering each atheist in turn with a verse from
> > > Isaiah. This results in a much better conversation than relying on
> > > your own knowledge in trying to answer each accusation.
> >
> > Presumably, few of those atheists continue the conversation for long,
> > since by your own admission you aren't interested in discussion, but
> > pontification.
> >
> > > Isaiah was a much better judge than anyone living today.
> >
> > If you want to judge people, you should at least have the character to
> > do so directly, rather than hiding behind Biblical figures.
> >
> > But you miss the key point of your own sentence--Isaiah is NOT living
> > today. You and I are. And I have no interest in talking to the dead
> > because they are notoriously poor conversationalists.
> >
> Not as poor as atheists.
> Isaiah 3:22 The changable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the
> wimples, and the crisping pins,

You enjoy making xians look like ill-mannered idiots, don't you?

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:59?pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 11:00 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >news:1173013529.010538.60630@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> >
> > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim? If so, whose responsibility
> > > > is proof? I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > 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...- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Atheists reject the Bible and say it proves nothing even though some
> > > will actually admit that the Bible exists.
> >
> > > Really: certainly, the Bible is real this is the only certainity in a very
> > > uncertain world. What sane person would deny the existance of
> > > certainity?
> >
> > > ?One atheist told me he had
> > > thirty Bibles, but what good is having a book if you do not read it?
> > > I try to help atheists get over their ignorance by quoting verses from
> > > the book of Isaiah.
> >
> > > Good point!
> >
> > Wait a minute! ?Darrell Stec said he read his 30 bibles. ?I read mine
> > too, including the King James bible my father used in the pulpit.
> >
> > The point is the more you read the bible, if you read it carefully,
> > the more you find it is full of contradictions. Folks, it is a hokey
> > book. ?Just as Mark Twain said, it has some beautiful poetry, some
> > stories little boys can use in lieu of pornography, some interesting
> > parables, and over 1,000 lies.
> >
> >
> Well, if Darrell Stec read his 30 Bibles, why didn't he know anything
> about them? The same question applies to you. I'll tell you what, I
> will quote a verse from Isaiah, and then you can say you have read a
> verse from the Old Testament.
> Isaiah 3:23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the
> vails.

Another point goes sailing right over your head.

 

[JessHC]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> newsrimu299ibc2cds6rks32no9md17ina5ee@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:56:59 -0500, "H. Wm. Esque"
> > <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > - Refer: <e%BGh.3715$Wc.1872@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
> > >
> > >"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> > >news62lu2lpmr5f8ecfstlertdao57rvkb32c@4ax.com...
> > >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:05:25 -0500, "H. Wm. Esque"
> > >> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> - Refer: <08uGh.2340$Dw2.1537@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
> > >> >
> > >> >"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> >news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> > >> >> rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim? If so, whose responsibility
> > >> >is proof? I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > >> >claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > >> >responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
> > >>
> > >> Most sane thinking adults would take it as rhetoric.
> > >> I.e.: A "Put up or shut up" challenge.
> > >>
> > >> Those who demand "evidence" of the non-existence of impossible
> > >> infantile fantasies are most likely not in the categories of sane,
> > >> thinking, or adult.
> > >>
> > >This is a very ambiguous statement.
> >
> > No it wasn't.
> >
> > >Are you implying that those
> > >who demand "....." are sane? Or is is that you are defining God?
> >
> > What? Who is being unclear now?
> > I cannot make head nor tail of what you are asking.
> > "defining God"?? What the ****?
> > That is a warning to the kiddies out there in usenet land: don't touch
> > the sacramental wine before noon.
> >
> > I shall rephrase it for the English comprehension challenged:
> >
> > Those who say "Prove that an impossible object does not exist", are
> > bonkers.
> >
> > Is that clear enough for you?
> >
> Is this how you think you can win points, ie by insulting rather than
> trying to prove the claim?
> It is exactly as I suspected, the ones making the claim attempt to
> shift the burden of proof. If you cannot prove a claim don't make
> it. It makes you look like a fool.

You have admitted there is no objective, verifiable evidence for
deities. When there is no evidence for a given assertion, such as the
existence of deities, it is dismissed. To then claim that the
observation of the lack of of evidence for deities must be supported
with evidence is irrational. Sorry.