NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 5, 3:35?pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > Atheists reject the Bible and say it proves nothing even though some
> > > will actually admit that the Bible exists. ?
> >
> > ===>RIDICULOUS!
> > There is no "atheist" that would deny that the Bible exists.
> >
> > You're such a pathetic ignoramus, your comments are good only
> > for a LAUGH! -- L.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> So what about you? Do you think the Bible exists?

Please cite anyone, atheist or otherwise, who claims your bible
doesn't exist.

> Here is a verse from Isaiah. This might help you decide.

Oh, we've already decided about you.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 5, 8:13 pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> > 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.

Exclusively? You sure?

> Latin is a dead language used by people who have nothing to say.

You mean like priests, doctors, lawyers, scientists, and professors?

 

[Mettas Mother]

So it is entertaining then

"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173287781.670692.107990@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Mettas Mother wrote:
>
> > "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1173273176.499928.288000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Because it is entertaining!
>
> No, what's entertaining is pointing out the gaping holes in logic
> theists keep stumbling into. Doesn't mean we have to take the
> mythology seriously.
>

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 5, 10:39?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Sure thing, little fella. Now why don't you go into the other room and
> > watch some cartoons so the adults can talk...
>
> Are you claiming to be an adult?

Compared to you?

> As one of you atheists would say, you have shown no evidence.

Evidence of what?

> Why don't you go play your game with someone else?

You came to us, punkin.

 

[stumper]

Michael Gray wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:12:40 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <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>
>>>> 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?
>
> Which god?
>

Do you believe in any?

--
~Stumper

 

[stumper]

Mistylien wrote:
> "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.
>

Have you talked to God recently?

--
~Stumper

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 5, 11:53?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.

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of an immortal human.

> He did not say anything about the dead words of
> lawyers except that lawyers lade people with burdens heavy to be
> borne, but they themselves will not help to bear the burden.

Is that supposed to be a lawyer joke?

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> You were the ones who were trying to promote me to the position of
> apostle.

Liar. What does your book say about lying, again?

> You have no authority to make any such promotion. I am not
> being sent with the same responsibility the apostles were given.

Because you say so, of course.

> I have yet to see you use any verse of the Bible in context.

What you mean is that we have yet to cite a bible verse you can
rationalize.

> All you ever do is take random verses and apply them according to your interpretation.

Nope.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 6, 5:15?am, "justiz" <izstan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, it does not seem to be irrelevant to you.

It doesn't seem to be relevant to you, either. Why is that?

> My point is that if you do not know what a scripture means, then you
> do not know what you are talking about.

Does it mean something other than what it actually says?

> Trying to apply instructions given to the twelve apostles concerning their
> specific calling to all people is just ignorant.

Why, because you say so?

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:21?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> > 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?

What do YOU think you're doing?

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:26?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > It's all a part of his deliberate, intentional, willful, and
> > self-imposed ignorance.
> >
> So what is it that you claim I am ignorant of?

Everything except how to type, it seems.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:29?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On 6 Mar 2007 04:15:10 -0800, "justiz" <izstan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ? - Refer: <1173183310.911820.288...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > >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?
> >
> Atheists use the Bible selectively because they do not understand any of it.

As opposed to theists, who use the bible selectively because they're
dishonest hypocrites.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 6, 1:58?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> > 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- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, you Europeans like to come here and pretend to be knowledgable
> by quoting Latin words.

Bob seems to think Europeans and knowledge are BAD.

> Here is a verse from Isaiah you can add to your knowledge.

Too late.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:28?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 7:28?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, atheists have taken upon themselves the task of enforcing
> Christ's instructions to his twelve apostles upon all people.

Look at that. Lying again. You just can't seem to follow any of
your book's rules.

> Why do atheists find this necessary to do if they do not believe anything in the Bible?

It isn't "necessary;" we just enjoy pointing out your dishonest
hypocrisy.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:32?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > 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:
> > > > > > 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.

If it isn't a game, why are you punting?

> > So you think it's a good idea to deliberately disobey orders straight
> > from your deity. ?How's that working out for you?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, since you do not believe in God, what I do or don't do does not concern you, does it?

Non sequitur. My lack of belief in deities has nothing to do with my
concern regarding what you might or might not do; your "god" can't
hurt anyone, but you could.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:33?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > 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.

Why do you refuse to cite the atheist who made that claim? Could it
be because you were LYING?

> > > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> I was not shooting for anything. Did you think I was an NRA member?

I know one group you're a member of.

 

[Sippuuden]

Mettas Mother wrote:

> "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
>
> Agreed that burden of proof should not be shifted
>
It's not a suggestion (should not) it's a requirement (CANNOT be
shifted) because shifting the burden of proof to the non-believers is
logical fallacy.
>
> to those who question the claimers!
> But that does not mandate any default status
> other then 'undetermined at the moment'.
>
Straw man. I didn't say, 'default status', I said that the only
reasonable default PRESUMPTION (like the default presumption of 'No
guilt' in court) is the null, 'NO ET', NO GOD', no whatever, because the
non-believers never have anything (any thing) to prove.
Didn't you look at those links? This is the way the scientific method of
investigation works.

 

[Mettas Mother]

Scientifically I would accept something as true false or undetermined!
Presumptions or assumptions could be made but that had to be rationalised
later via Modus ponens or tollens or by induction or by inferences or by associations
or by any method that could prove.

"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:vfqdnQZOAdVSl3LYnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Mettas Mother wrote:
>
> > "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
> >
> > Agreed that burden of proof should not be shifted
> >
> It's not a suggestion (should not) it's a requirement (CANNOT be
> shifted) because shifting the burden of proof to the non-believers is
> logical fallacy.
> >
> > to those who question the claimers!
> > But that does not mandate any default status
> > other then 'undetermined at the moment'.
> >
> Straw man. I didn't say, 'default status', I said that the only
> reasonable default PRESUMPTION (like the default presumption of 'No
> guilt' in court) is the null, 'NO ET', NO GOD', no whatever, because the
> non-believers never have anything (any thing) to prove.
> Didn't you look at those links? This is the way the scientific method of
> investigation works.
>
>

 

[Sippuuden]

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 -
>
> Well, I have quoted from the Bible. How is that proselyting?
>
http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/proselytizing

http://www.flashback.se/archive/atheism_faq.html
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions
Newsgroups: alt.atheism , alt.atheism.moderated , news.answers , alt.answers

Archive-name: atheism/faq
Alt-atheism-archive-name: faq
Last-modified: 3 June 1994
Version: 2.0

ALT.ATHEISM FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Introduction

This document contains responses to points which have been brought up
repeatedly in the Usenet newsgroup alt.atheism. Points covered here
are ones which are not covered in the "Introduction to Atheism"
document; you are advised to read that article as well before posting
to the newsgroup.

These answers are not intended to be exhaustive or definitive. The
purpose of FAQ documents is not to stifle debate, but to raise its
level. If you have something to say concerning one of these questions
and which isn't covered by the answer given, please feel free to make
your point in the newsgroup.

Overview of contents:

What is the purpose of the alt.atheism newsgroup?
Adolf Hitler was an atheist!
The Bible proves it
Pascal's Wager (Why God is a safe bet)
Lord, Liar or Lunatic?
What is Occam's Razor?
Why it's good to believe in Jesus
Why I know that God exists
Einstein and "God does not play dice"
Everyone worships something
Why there must be a causeless cause
The universe is so complex it must have been designed
Independent evidence that the Bible is true
G

 

[Michael Gray]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:27:03 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <osadnQnmyuJNaHPYnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@ptd.net>
>Michael Gray wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:12:40 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>> wrote:
>> - Refer: <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>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> Which god?
>>
>
>Do you believe in any?

No.

--