NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:53:34 -0800, scottrichter422@yahoo.com (Scott
Richter) wrote:
- Refer: <1hukpsp.1pxrmuu1t335k3N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com>
>rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> > > Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the
>> > > earth?
>> >
>> > That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if he
>> > existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just too
>> > cute for words!
>> >
>> > No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's not
>> > cute at all, it's just ridiculous.
>>
>> Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with. Why
>> don't you take an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ after he
>> returns to judge the earth?
>
>Like I said, a grown man saying these things: ridiculous.
>
>Here's a tip, Skippy. For a threat to work, the person at whom the
>threat is directed has to believe the threat is real. Otherwise, you
>come across like a four year old child trying to scare his parents by
>claiming a monster is in the closet.
>
>Does any of this make sense to you?

Too many big words.
Too much threatening reality.
Too much sanity for pathetic little Bobby.

--
 
On 6 Mar 2007 14:52:00 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1173221520.689544.138290@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>
>rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 1:27?am, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>> > On Mar 5, 3:36 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
>> >
>> > >news:1173060933.990849.262500@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > > > On Mar 4, 6:05 pm, "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?
>> >
>> > > > Yes.
>> >
>> > > > > If so, whose responsibility
>> > > > > is ?proof?
>> >
>> > > > Anybody can prove it wrong at any time by presenting evidence.
>> > > > Nobody can ever prove it correct.
>> >
>> > > > > ?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.
>> >
>> > > > "The claim cannot be proved - so therefore it is the claiments
>> > > > responsibility to prove it."
>> > > > That doesn't sound at all logical to me - forcing the impossible onto
>> > > > a party as an obligation.
>> >
>> > > If the claiment cannot prove his claim, he is a fool to make it;
>> > > trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't get him off the hook!
>> >
>> > I would like to point out that calling every belief a person has a
>> > "claim" would be misleading.
>> > If someone says "I believe I saw a cat." - in some technical sense
>> > this is a claim - but to insist that every thought, belief or
>> > impression one has ever had about the truth of something needs "proof"
>> > is unreasonable.
>> >
>> > The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without "proof"
>> > - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable.
>> >
>> > So if someone genuinely believes "there is no evidence of Gods
>> > existence" then it would seem to me that to call this a "claim" is to
>> > exagerate.
>> >
>> > Indeed if it was expressed as "I believe there is no evidence for God"
>> > then instead of trying to get them on some technicality of rhetoric it
>> > would be a lot more straightforward just to produce the evidence.
>> > (Assuming the evidence existed of course.)
>> >
>> > Cheers, Mark.- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> Well, what about this scripture from Isaiah, Mark? Have you
>> considered this scripture?
>> Isaiah 3:25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the
>> war.
>
>Have you considered you're just making an ass of yourself?

That appears to be an avowed goal of his.

--
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:21�pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>> 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?- Hide quoted text -
>>
> Who told you I was proselytizing?
> Robert B. Winn
>
You did, Robert, when you started quoting your book of myth to us
non-believers.
 
Agreed that burden of proof should not be shifted to those who question the claimers!
But that does not mandate any default status other then 'undetermined at the moment'.

"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:y5edna5NbpcM93PYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Mettas Mother wrote:
> > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
> >
> No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of proof
> cannot be shifted to the non-believers.
>
> The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the
> null, 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever.
>
> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
>
> http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
 
"stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:wsidnZhOtZCvRHDYnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@ptd.net...
> Michael Gray wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:44:18 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>> wrote:
>> - Refer: <WIudndB4R9rhWXDYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@ptd.net>
snip<

>>> 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?

God is the giver of all languages.

Have you ever heard of the Tower of Babble?

It was God that confused their languages and gave some one language
and other a differnt one so they could not even comunicate and keep on trying
to buld the towser that the top could even reach into heaven.


>
> --
> ~Stumper
 
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 02:29:56 -0600, "Mistylien"
<yardholler@charter.net> wrote:
- Refer: <3MuHh.198$_l5.76@newsfe03.lga>
>
>"stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>news:wsidnZhOtZCvRHDYnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@ptd.net...
>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:44:18 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> - Refer: <WIudndB4R9rhWXDYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@ptd.net>
>snip<
>
>>>> 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?
>
>God is the giver of all languages.

Whih "god"?

>Have you ever heard of the Tower of Babble?

Yes. It's a juvenile fairy story.

>It was God that confused their languages and gave some one language
>and other a differnt one so they could not even comunicate and keep on trying
>to buld the towser that the top could even reach into heaven.

Is that why you do not make any sense, beyond your infantile babble?

--
 
So did the storm come?

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1173267775.211415.259560@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 7, 12:32?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

> Have you considered this verse from Isaiah?
> Isaiah 4:6 And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the
> daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge , and for a covert
> from storm , and from rain.
> Robert B. Winn
 
On Mar 6, 10:53�pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the
> > > > earth?
>
> > > That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if he
> > > existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just too
> > > cute for words!
>
> > > No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's not
> > > cute at all, it's just ridiculous.
>
> > Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with.
 
On Mar 6, 10:57�pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Latin is a dead language used by people who have nothing to say.
>
> > > > > Much like quoting from the Bible...
>
> > > > Well, Jesus Christ said, Search the scriptures, for in them ye think
> > > > ye have eternal life.
>
> > > You've long since proven you have nothing to say. No need to provide any
> > > more evidence, little fella...
>
> > Well, I don't need to have anything to say.
 
Theists are also inventive. Can you deny that theist invented god!

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1173266943.230137.85580@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Well, here we have people from medical science claiming to be my
> diety. Atheists are nothing if not inventive.
> Robert B. Winn
 
On Mar 6, 11:06�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2007 14:32:53 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> wrote:
>
 
On Mar 7, 12:07 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:07:51 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <19idnSxmGoq1RXDYnZ2dnUVZ_qmpn...@comcast.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Michael Gray 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.
>
> >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.
>
> I have figured.
> He is clinically insane.
>
> The prosecution rests, m'lud.
>
That one has already been tried. So what is your theory, that mental
patients are provided with computers nowadays?
Robert B. Winn
 
On Mar 7, 12:09�am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:53:34 -0800, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (ScottRichter) wrote:
>
>
 
On Mar 7, 12:10�am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2007 14:52:00 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> wrote:
>
 
On Mar 7, 12:32�am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> Mettas Mother wrote:
> > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
>
>
 
On Mar 7, 12:51?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 2:21?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> >> 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Who told you I was proselytizing?
> > Robert B. Winn
>
> You did, Robert, when you started quoting your book of myth to us
> non-believers.- Hide quoted text -

Oh, I see, you have forbidden all people from quoting from the Bible.
Here is a verse from Isaiah.
Isaiah 5:1 Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved
touching his vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very
fruitful hill.
Well, I have quoted from the Bible. How is that proselyting?
Robert B. Winn
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 7, 12:10?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On 6 Mar 2007 14:52:00 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > ? - Refer: <1173221520.689544.138...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > >Have you considered you're just making an ass of yourself?
> >
> > That appears to be an avowed goal of his.
> >
> Now why would an atheist be concerned about what my goals are?

Because you keep defecating in alt.atheism.

> Do atheists concern themselves with the goals of all people?

No, just the goals of people trying to impose their religious beliefs
on everyone.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 7, 12:32?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> > Mettas Mother wrote:
> > > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
> >
> > ?>
> > No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of proof
> > cannot be shifted to the non-believers.
> >
> > The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the
> > null, 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever.
> >
> > http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
> >
> > http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
>
> Have you considered this verse from Isaiah?
> Isaiah 4:6 And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the
> daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge , and for a covert
> from storm , and from rain.

Please provide a rational, legitimate reason for any atheist to
consider any quote from your book of mythology as anything other than
part of your mythology.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 7, 12:51?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 6, 2:21?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> > >> 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?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Who told you I was proselytizing?
> > > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > You did, Robert, when you started quoting your book of myth to us
> > non-believers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Oh, I see, you have forbidden all people from quoting from the Bible.

Oops. Lying is a sin.

> Here is a verse from Isaiah.
> Isaiah 5:1 Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved
> touching his vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very
> fruitful hill.
> Well, I have quoted from the Bible. How is that proselyting?

How is it not ?

http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/proselytize
1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith 2 : to recruit
someone to join one's party, institution, or cause transitive
verb : to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution,
or cause

If you aren't trying to convert anyone, what are you trying to do?
 

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