NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

Mettas Mother wrote:
> Not in yours?
>
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1173366398.574586.111490@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 4:21?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > So did the storm come?
> > > >
> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@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- Hide quoted text -
> > > >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > >
> > > The storm did come.
> >
> > Only in your brain.
> >

No.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 1:53?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On 7 Mar 2007 18:52:30 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > ? - Refer: <1173322349.894718.61...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>
> >
> > >On Mar 7, 6:22?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > >> rbwinn 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. ? ? 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." -- (ttp://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. ?o what is your theory, that mental
> > >> > patients are provided with computers nowadays?
> >
> > >> Why not? ?ven mental patients can get email.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > >Well, I have an idea. ?Why don't you e-mail some mental patients? ?I
> > >am sure they would be happy to hear from you.
> >
> > Good idea.
> > What's your email address?
> >
> Well, I have two of them. The Chinese people write to me using this
> one: rbwinn3@juno.com.
> Did you know that atheists and Chinese people use the English language
> in a very similar manner?
> additional provide require.

"additional provide require." Is that an example of Chinese, or of
English?
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 1:51?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:45:02 -0500, "Robibnikoff"<witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> >
> > ? - Refer: <55ap1eF23djd...@mid.individual.net>
> >
> > >"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1173304704.711023.6770@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >> rbwinn wrote:
> > >>> On Mar 6, 8:40?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.
> >
> > >> Lucky break for you.
> >
> > >>> I am talking to atheists.
> >
> > >> No, you're babbling at atheists, in an atheist newsgroup. ?Have you
> > >> noticed how none of your theist buddies are coming to your defense?
> >
> > >They never have and I highly doubt they ever will.
> >
> > Christians all like a bribe, and respond nicely to threats.
> > Perhaps if he threatens them with his eternal blather they might
> > relent, just to be rid of him.
>
> Isaiah is all the defense I ever need.

But you aren't "defending" anything; you're just babbling. Babbling
isn't defense.

> I never saw an atheist yet who could hang with Isaiah.

I think you mean "I never saw an atheist yet who didn't get bored with
my pointless babbling."
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:45?am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> > "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1173304704.711023.6770@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > >> On Mar 6, 8:40?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.
> >
> > > Lucky break for you.
> >
> > >> I am talking to atheists.
> >
> > > No, you're babbling at atheists, in an atheist newsgroup. ?Have you
> > > noticed how none of your theist buddies are coming to your defense?
> >
> > They never have and I highly doubt they ever will.
> > --
> Hey, Robyn, how is it going? So why am I supposed to need a Christian
> lawyer?

Probably for the same reason you need a psychiatrist; you need someone
to help you with your self-destructive, irrational behaviour.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:29?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 6:42?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 6, 3:48?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 4, 7:02?pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 7:18 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 3:59?pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > ?[...]
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > > > > > > > Poor Winnie. ?No need for the Tower of Babel to tie his tongue. ?The
> > > > > > > > thing is in a knot.
> >
> > > > > > > > Huh? ?What's this, Winnie, about the glasses and the fine linen? ?Some
> > > > > > > > kind of masonic ritual or are you a Mormon Klanster, a wizard under
> > > > > > > > the sheets?
> >
> > > > > > > > Time to go now, Winnie. ?James Cameron is putting on his show about
> > > > > > > > all those bones he found in the coffins of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Mary
> > > > > > > > Magdalen, and Judah, son of Jesus. ?Tune in: ?Discovery Channel at 9.
> > > > > > > > EST.
> >
> > > > > > > Why are all atheists buying into this hoax? ? I thought atheists did
> > > > > > > not believe in Jesus Christ.
> > > > > > > Isaiah 3:24 ?And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell
> > > > > > > there shall be stink, instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well
> > > > > > > set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth;
> > > > > > > and burning instead of beauty.
> >
> > > > > > Not believing in deities doesn't mean people named Jesus don't exist.
> > > > > > If you lived in the real world, you'd know that.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > So why are you pretending that you have found the tomb of the Jesus
> > > > > Christ who was crucifed and resurrected?
> >
> > > > You should read the part of the bible where it tells you lying is a
> > > > sin.
> >
> > > > Exodus 20:16
> > > > Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
> >
> > > > Exodus 23:1
> > > > Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the
> > > > wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
> >
> > > > Proverbs 19:9
> > > > A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies
> > > > shall perish.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > See how much better things go when we follow the scriptures?
> >
> > But you aren't following the scriptures, as proven by your lying.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, Jess.

Facts aren't opinions. Scripture says don't lie. It's been
repeatedly proven you lie. Therefore you don't follow scripture. Too
bad, you lose again.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:28?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 6:31?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 6, 8:40?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.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?
> >
> > > > > > I'd say.... almost everything.
> >
> > > > > > But, hey, I'm just going on what you write. Maybe you're a lot smarter
> > > > > > than you sound...
> >
> > > > > Why does it matter how I sound to atheists?
> >
> > > > Two reasons I can think of off the top of my head:
> >
> > > > 1. ?You're posting to alt.atheism.
> > > > 2. ?You aren't the only theist who thinks the way you do.
> >
> > > Well, those do not seem like reasons for anything to me.
> >
> > Of course not; you're an ill-mannered lout.
> >
> > > This is the United States.
> >
> > Maybe for you, but everybody else is on usenet.
> >
> > > We have freedom of speech here.
> >
> > You have freedom of stupidty, too; nobody said it's a good idea,
> > though.
> >
> > > Who is the other theist you claim thinks the way I do?
> >
> > Pastor Frank springs to mind. ?There are many, many others. ?Andy
> > Chung likes to randomly quote scriptures at us, for example. ?Earl
> > Webber is also an amusing idiot.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, I don't quote them randomly. I quote them verse by verse,
> chapter by chapter.

Which has nothing to do with the posts you respond to. Just like
Frank and Andy and Earl.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:24?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 6:27?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > 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. ?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?
> >
> > > > > Nothing any atheist has ever said to me made any sense. ?You are no
> > > > > exception.
> >
> > > > That explains so much about you.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Enough about me, let's study this verse from Isaiah.
> >
> > Run and hide, Bob.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Run and hide? From what?

The truth about yourself.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:23?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 6:26?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > 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. ?
> >
> > > > > > Well, then "Mission Accomplished"...
> >
> > > > > Oh, I see. ?You were on a mission. ?How did that come about?
> >
> > > > Have one of your attendants teach you how to read.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Oh, I never read much other than Isaiah.
> >
> > That explains your comprehension problem.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> What is it that you think I do not understand?

Anything.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:18?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 6:15?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > I am just pushing back a little.
> >
> > Oops, sorry, that lie has been refuted.
> >
> > > Any time atheists get too pushy, I quote some verses from Isaiah.
> >
> > Baffle them with bullshit, eh?
> >
> > > That gets rid of most of them.
> >
> > Hasn't worked so far.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> It worked every time so far. james g. keegan lasted about two
> chapters. Al Klein did not even last a chapter.

Two people bored with your idiocy is "most of them"?
 
"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.
> >
>
> > 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.
>
> If someone claims that some god exists, I see nothing wrong with
> asking for evidence.
>
But this was _not_ the claim! Admittedly, the claim was "NO EVIDENCE
OF GODS".

I certainly do not demand evidence; asking is
> not demanding, nor is asking a believer for evidence the same as
> asking god or demanding of god anything.
>
But this was not the title of the origional thread. I took issue with
the actual statement.
>
> >
> > 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, but you have no
> > certainty in anything: your job, your mate, your future or
> > a long happy life. But you demand more from God. Why?
> > I find this surprising.
>
> I wish that I found it surprising that you said that absolute
> certainty was asked for, but sadly that kind of distortion is very
> common. Evidence of anything does not provide "absolute certainty".
> The request was for evidence not certainty.
>
But why request it of me? I made absolutely no claim. Thus I
have _no_ burden of proof.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Could you possibly respond without distorting what was said? Please
> point out where certainty was requested.
>
This is just my impression of your desire.
 
"jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1173109440.860877.7980@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 11:36 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 (sic) 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!
>
> See what I mean? This one is shifty. He (Wm. H. Esque), with sly
> words multifplied for the purpose, has shifted the burden of proof
> from the plaintiff to the defendant and, with so much shystering leger
> de main, required the defendant to file and prove a counterclaim, when
> it is incumbent upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff alone to prove
> his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant may stand mute and
> say nothing. He is not required to pursue an affirmative defense.
>
You are confused!! The party making the _claim_ "NO EVIDENCE
OF GOD" _is_ the plaintiff. They carried it to trial. The party making the
claim is the ones who has to make the case. Here it is the party the
plaqintiff i.e. the party making the claim trying to shift the burden
of proof to the innocent. (But this happens)
The fact is, I take no position as to whether or not GODS exist. I
have no case to prove. Furthermore, I made no counterclaim.

> Hell, plaintiff can't even prove his case by the preponderance of the
> evidence, since no evidence exists and the case was taken on faith and
> faith alone.
>
The party is totally confused. I am not the party bringing the accusation,
charge or making any claim. I bring no claim to this trial at all
whatsoever.
>
> The judge has stricken Esque's case, has issued a directed verdict.
> It didn't even make it to the jury. Costs are taxed against the
> plaintiff because he didn't even have a scintilla of evidence and
> certainly nothing to get by a motion to dismiss. Just be glad you
> didn't get sanctioned for filing a frivolous complaint.
>
You are confused as to who brought the claim to be proven.
Since I make no claim and take no position I have nothing to
prove. I am, in this case, perhaps more like the jury. I am
undecided, I want to see the party making the claim present his
argument and make his case.

>
> Call your next case, counselor. This one is dead and incapable of
> resurrection.

This judge your attorney chose, is completely incompetent. He
confuses the plaintiff for the defendant. I must take it to a higher
court.

Bill


>
> Meanwhile, Winnie is whining that he was denied a jury trial.
> :)
>
 
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:7OednZpL1uUt2HHYnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com...
> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>
> > If the claiment cannot prove his claim, he is a fool to make it
>
> I think it's spelled 'claimant'.
>
Right, I've spelled it both ways.
>
> You mean like your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God
> anyway, even though you cannot produce any evidence of any such thing,
> because there is no proof your conjecture is false?
>
Since, I made no claim, have no opinion and take no position,
I have no burden to prove. I am more like a the jury at a trial
I want to see the argument of the party making the accusation
(in this case the claim).
 
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173453260.112921.87060@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:1173078562.784079.63380@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > 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!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sure.
> > > I have seen many people claim there is evidence for God and I know
> > > that I have never seen any such evidence so I dont feel the need to
> > > make any claims - I will just wait patiently for the positive side to
> > > show me the goods.
> > >
> > In this case, I personally made no counter claim. The claim I
challenged
> > is "NO EVIDENCE OF GOD". This is the _only_ claim.
>
> A claim supported by the lack of evidence. Until objective,
> verifiable evidence is presented, there is none. Therefore, there is
> no evidence of god.
>
> > Therefore,
> > I assume nothing. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the ones
> > making the claim.
>
> Perhaps you're confusing the claim "no evidence" with the claim "no
> deities."
>
> > I would like to see how you would attempt to prove
> > such an impossible claim. It's like trying to prove that there is NO
> > intelligent life anywhere ELSE in the universe, nowhere other than the
> > planet earth. It may not be but it's impossible to prove.
>
> There is no evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. There is
> no evidence of deities. That doesn't mean either exists or doesn't;
> it means there's no evidence.
>

>
> > A few years ago I subscribed to newsgroups, but quickly became
> > disenchanted and left the groups. I was hoping this "Christian"
> > newsgroup would be different.
>
> Which "christian" newsgroup would that be? Alt.atheism?
>
I am guilty of failure to look at the newsgroups listed above. I am not
subscribed
to alt atheism.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:07?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 4:25?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Theists are also inventive. ?Can you deny that theist invented god!
> >
> > > God is eternal.
> >
> > Unsupported assertion.
>
> Wrong. God sent his Only Begotten Son.

Circular argument.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:08?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 6:10?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > > As I understand it, you are saying that you are opposed to freedom of
> > > speech.
> >
> > Golly, did I say anything even remotely like that? ?Nope.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, I think you did.

Then show where I did.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:16?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 6:12?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Consider it any way you want to consider it.
> >
> > Non-responsive. ?You lose.
> >
> > > You had an atheist in alt.bible trying to convince people that the Bible does not exist.
> >
> > Unsupported assertion. ?You lose.
> >
> > > If the Bible does not exist, why are you atheists considering verses from
> > > the book of Isaiah?
> >
> > Non sequitur. ?You lose.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> European diversionary tactics. If you want to be European, why don't
> you move to Europe?

Logic is universal, bobby. You lose again.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> Well, here is some more atheistic mythology. So who do you claim has
> ever had a trial by jury at a sanity hearing? Doctors and lawyers
> incorporated directly from European police state proceedure in
> depriving people accused of mental illness of their rights. In most
> states under current interpretation of police state proceedure, it
> takes two medical doctors and a judge to deprive a person of all
> rights and institutionalize that person for the rest of that person's
> life.

You speak from experience?
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 4:08?am, "ZenIsWhen" <onesmalls...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1173322420.878055.7950@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 7, 6:24?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > 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:
> > > > > ? - Refer: <1173220373.586251.210...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > >So you think it's a good idea to deliberately disobey orders straight
> > > > > >from your deity. ?How's that working out for you?
> >
> > > > > The nurses tighten his jacket straps tomorrow.
> >
> > > > Well, here we have people from medical science claiming to be my
> > > > diety. Atheists are nothing if not inventive.
> >
> > > That's an unfortunate comprehension problem you've got. Too much
> > > medication, or not enough?
> >
> > I am fairly good at staying away from medical science.
> > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > and, obviously, your much needed psychiatrists
>
> Well, you may believe that you need a psychiatrist, but don't place
> the blame on me for that particular atheistic deception. I do not
> have any psychiatrists.

It shows.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:06?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > 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:
> >
> > > > ? - Refer: <1hukpsp.1pxrmuu1t335k3N%scottrichter...@yahoo.com>
> >
> > > > >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. ?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.
> >
> > > I have never seen an atheist say anything that had much meaning.
> >
> > That's the sad result of your inability to interact with reality.
> >
> > > Now, Isaiah was a person who could make meaningful statements.
> >
> > As is this statement.-
>
> Well, compare your statement with one from Isaiah.

Irrelevant.
 

Similar threads

R
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY GODS
Replies
5
Views
25
Richo
R
B
A CHALLENGE FOR RELIGIONISTS
Replies
6
Views
19
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
73
bob young
B
Back
Top