NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

stumper wrote:
> JessHC wrote:
> > stumper wrote:
> >> Michael Gray wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:35 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> - Refer: <75WdnXqXUp7BBXLYnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@ptd.net>
> >>>> Michael Gray wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:36:27 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> - Refer: <kLSdncz2_8r-0XLYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@ptd.net>
> >>>>>> JessHC wrote:
> >>>>>>> stumper wrote:
> >>>>>>>> JessHC wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>> Are you familiar with the Christian God?
> >>>>>>>>> Why do you ask?
> >>>>>>>> Just wondering how he can be so certain that the Christian God does not exist.
> >>>>>>> The exact same way you can be so certain Zeus doesn't exist.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you know what it means
> >>>>>> for someone to believe in God?
> >>>>> Yes.
> >>>>> It is the same as any belief that is not supported by a scrap of
> >>>>> evidence.
> >>>>>
> >>>> What is the evidence for "(-2)(-3) = 6"?
> >>>> What is the evidence for "Matter is in space and time"?
> >>> How do those utterly facile questions justify your irrational belief
> >>> in one god out of an infinite possible selection?
> >> Who said I believe in any god?
> >
> > Pretty much you did with your fuzzy questions.
> >
> >> Do you even know what it is?
> >
> > Doesn't matter. Atheists don't believe in them.
>
> Do you believe in non-existence of God?

I lack belief in deities. All of them.

> Don't you have to know what it is to believe in non-existence of it?

Do you know what Xzyianpoli is? Do you believe in the non-existence
of it?
 
On 2007-03-09 19:13:51 +0000, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

> stumper wrote:
>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:58:19 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> - Refer: <oumdnZlvocZvCW3YnZ2dnUVZ_ujinZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>> Are you always logical and reasonable?
>>>
>>> Not always.
>>> Especially when I am being annoyed by pointlessly disconnected
>>> chakra-babble from an infant-school philosopher.
>>>
>>> You never did answer my question as to whether or not you were lying
>>> when you implied that you are an atheist.
>>> But then again, I do not expect to get any form of reality or honesty
>>> from you.
>>> I see that you have not disappointed me in that respect.
>>>
>>> I think that I have got better things to do than engage in a battle of
>>> wits with an unarmed opponent.
>>
>> Unlike some clueless people, I don't feel the need to answer all
>> questions once and for all.
>
> Since you don't bother to substantively answer any, that works out.
>
>> Things change. People change. Knowledge increases. Science gets better.
>> Even theology advances.
>
> How?

Same way Science does. It looks at what's happening in the world and at
what we've learned and adapts theology accordingly. That's not to say
that the Bible is not regarded as normative; but that the way the Bible
is understood changes.

>
>> You would feel a lot better once you learn to live with uncertainty.
>
> Yes, that's one of the benefits of being an atheist; we don't wallow
> in the false comfort of the promise of a super sky daddy who'll
> protect us from himself.

Which is about as far from an understanding of Christianity as it's
possible to be.

>
>> Do you know when you are going to die?
>
> There's a relevant question.
 
On 2007-03-09 19:51:07 +0000, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
>> news:45EC96DA.7A18@armory.com...
>>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Actual power"? You must be kidding. Don't you know amor vincit
>>>> omnia?
>>>> Show me something that has more power than love.
>>> -----------------
>>> That's just another crap phrase people recite because they might
>>> wish it so, but "love" doesn't conquer ANYTHING, that isn't what
>>> it does, in the first place, and many things can destroy love quite
>>> easily, torture, guns, affairs, minor squabbles, egotism, etc.
>>> Steve
>>>
>> You are not answering the question, are you? What is more powerful that
>> love?
>
> Something that can destroy love. Bullets and hate spring to mind.
>
>> All those things you list would only result in extinction.
>
> Does love exists after extinction?

Ask the bereaved

>
>> Only love keeps us in being.
>
> You mean "food and water."

No - that's just "staying alive". A microbe can do that. "Being"
involves our sense of what we are as human beings
 
JessHC wrote:
> stumper wrote:
>> JessHC wrote:
>>> stumper wrote:
>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:19:03 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> How do you know that you exist?
>>>>>> Do you even know what you are?
>>>>> ****ing idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was right:
>>>>> You are an annoying and pointless wanker.
>>>>>
>>>> I gather you didn't read widely.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
>>> You mean woo-woo books?
>
> Why didn't you answer this question?
>
>>>> But that would not excuse your bad manners.
>>> So "wide reading" is your excuse for yours?
>
> Why did you ignore this question?
>
>>>> Is your life worth living?
>>> Life is MORE valuable without deities.
>> Life is too valuable to be bothered with things you don't believe in, unless you get paid to do so.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
>> Do you believe in anything?
>
> Not ANYTHING; SOME things.
>

Is your life worth living?

--
~Stumper
 
JessHC wrote:
> stumper wrote:
>> JessHC wrote:
>>> stumper wrote:
>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>> What does that have to with your meaningless phrase:
>>>>> "Rather like Nothingness to some."??
>>>>> (Apart from more philosophical bullshit, that is.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Just what is your goal here?
>>>>> You are like an intellectual mosquito.
>>>>> Distracting, mildly annoying, a completely useless parasite, and when
>>>>> any light is shone on the subject, you are nowhere to be seen.
>>>> I'm here to lessen the needless suffering of some people.
>>> Whose suffering do you think you're lessening?
>
> Why didn't you answer this question?
>
>>>> What is your issue?
>>> People who think they know how to "lessen the needless suffering of some people."
>> Why don't you help them
>
> Who?
>
>> instead of increasing your own suffering?
>
> Unsupported assertion.
>


Are you suffering?

--
~Stumper
 
JessHC wrote:
> stumper wrote:
>> JessHC wrote:
>>> stumper wrote:
>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:35 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> - Refer: <75WdnXqXUp7BBXLYnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:36:27 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> - Refer: <kLSdncz2_8r-0XLYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>>>>>> JessHC wrote:
>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> JessHC wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiar with the Christian God?
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask?
>>>>>>>>>> Just wondering how he can be so certain that the Christian God does not exist.
>>>>>>>>> The exact same way you can be so certain Zeus doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you know what it means
>>>>>>>> for someone to believe in God?
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>> It is the same as any belief that is not supported by a scrap of
>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the evidence for "(-2)(-3) = 6"?
>>>>>> What is the evidence for "Matter is in space and time"?
>>>>> How do those utterly facile questions justify your irrational belief
>>>>> in one god out of an infinite possible selection?
>>>> Who said I believe in any god?
>>> Pretty much you did with your fuzzy questions.
>>>
>>>> Do you even know what it is?
>>> Doesn't matter. Atheists don't believe in them.
>> Do you believe in non-existence of God?
>
> I lack belief in deities. All of them.
>
>> Don't you have to know what it is to believe in non-existence of it?
>
> Do you know what Xzyianpoli is? Do you believe in the non-existence
> of it?
>

I don't know what it is.
Therefore I have no opinion about its existence.

Do you know what God is?

--
~Stumper
 
On 9 Mar 2007 07:16:18 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1173453377.947176.245610@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
>
>Semper Lib
 
On 9 Mar 2007 11:14:31 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1173467671.172075.264340@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>stumper wrote:
>> Michael Gray wrote:
>> > On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:19:03 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> How do you know that you exist?
>> >> Do you even know what you are?
>> >
>> > ****ing idiot.
>> >
>> > I was right:
>> > You are an annoying and pointless wanker.
>> >
>>
>> I gather you didn't read widely.

Accusing me of not being widely read is the zenith of ignorance.

>You mean woo-woo books?
>
>> But that would not excuse your bad manners.
>
>So "wide reading" is your excuse for yours?
>
>> Is your life worth living?
>
>Life is MORE valuable without deities.

Exactly.
We know that we have only this life, and do not waste it on gaining
points for a non-existent second go.

--
 
On 9 Mar 2007 11:58:42 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1173470322.103333.23720@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
>
>Michael Gray wrote:
>> On 8 Mar 2007 07:21:45 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> - Refer: <1173367305.277033.26150@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
>> >
>> >rbwinn wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Too bad; you could benefit from it. For example, it might help with
>> >your unfortunate comprehension problem.
>>
>> He's been on the run from Victor Frankenstein for some time now.
>
>Is Vic still trying to return that abby normal brain?

It has rotted completely by now.
And it has been returned to Bobby's skull.

--
 
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 04:56:08 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<45f17a4d$0$16269$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:ijapu2hpqemgb5942fpgn11tc5uba0t3fu@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:59:47 +0800, in alt.atheism
>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>> <45ebceae$0$16281$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>>
>>> You need to show at least some evidence to be taken seriously. But
>>> then
>>>we all get the impression you're just chanting atheist mantras again, and
>>>that's all you aspire to.
>>
>> For someone who makes all sorts of claims without ever providing a shred
>> of evidence, it's pretty rich for you to ask for evidence.
>>
> When will you get serious? Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16).
>Sorry that I don't provide evidence of love to your satisfaction, but Christ
>did, by laying down His life for you on the cross of Calvary.

What you don't provide evidence of is your claims. There is no evidence
that Jesus was anything but one of many teachers of the time, possibly
an admixture of a number of them. There is no evidence that any sort of
gods exist or that Jesus was any sort of god. That is the evidence that
you don't have. You know that.

> But regardless, your claim that love does not exist is ridiculous, or
>are you talking of the god of YOUR definition? We already agree that it
>doesn't exist, yet you still keep chanting the same inane atheists mantras
>you did years ago.

Of course love exists, but it doesn't prove that any gods exist. You
know that.
 
Michael Gray wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2007 11:14:31 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <1173467671.172075.264340@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>> stumper wrote:
>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:19:03 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> How do you know that you exist?
>>>>> Do you even know what you are?
>>>> ****ing idiot.
>>>>
>>>> I was right:
>>>> You are an annoying and pointless wanker.
>>>>
>>> I gather you didn't read widely.
>
> Accusing me of not being widely read is the zenith of ignorance.
>
>> You mean woo-woo books?
>>
>>> But that would not excuse your bad manners.
>> So "wide reading" is your excuse for yours?
>>
>>> Is your life worth living?
>> Life is MORE valuable without deities.
>
> Exactly.
> We know that we have only this life, and do not waste it on gaining
> points for a non-existent second go.
>

Isn't life too valuable
to spend in destroying something
that does not even exist?

You seem to know God does not exist.
What else do you know about God?

--
~Stumper
 
On 9 Mar 2007 07:15:24 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1173453324.815936.78730@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>
>rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 1:08?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>> > rbwinn wrote:
>> > > On Mar 8, 2:39?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:23:22 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> ? - Refer: <erCdnYJ9sbKWS3LYnZ2dnUVZ_trin...@comcast.com>
>> >
>> > >>> Michael Gray wrote:
>> > >>>> On 7 Mar 2007 14:43:40 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
>> > >>>> wrote:
>> > >>>> ? - Refer: <1173307420.007287.59...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>> > >>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>> > >>>>>> On 7 Mar 2007 09:49:42 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
>> > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>> ? - Refer: <1173289782.480046.72...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
>> > >>>>>>> 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?
>> > >>>>>> Bzzzt!
>> > >>>>>> Meaningless question.
>> > >>>>>> Bobby is quite incapable of thought.
>> > >>>>> Point taken; I withdraw the question.
>> > >>>> Objection sustained.
>> > >>>> Now, what about this defence of...
>> > >>>> <shuffles papers>
>> > >>>> Erm "Not guilty by way of insanity"?
>> > >>>> What does the defendent have to say?
>> > >>>> You will stand when you address the court Mr. Winn.
>> > >>>> Remove that canvas jacket from him will you, usher?
>> > >>> Take off his straight jacket? I object!
>> > >> The learned counsel's objection is sustained.
>> > >> Mr. Winn is a clear and present danger to rationality.
>> >
>> > >> The Jury will now consider it's verdict.
>> >
>> > > Well, here is some more atheistic mythology. ?So who do you claim has
>> > > ever had a trial by jury at a sanity hearing? ?
>> >
>> > ?>
>> > It's not a real trial, moron, it is just make believe on Usenet. We are
>> > just making fun of you. Can't you tell the difference? Errrm ... never
>> > mind. You aren't known for your ability to tell real from make believe,
>> > are you?-
>>
>> Well, why would I call it atheistic mythology if it was not make believe?
>
>Because you're an idiot.

And a compulsive liar and chronic confabulator.

--
 
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 04:59:41 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<45f17a4f$0$16269$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:0mapu2d0bc6o9edb8dbeog1e1ioa8tl27v@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:42:16 +0800, in alt.atheism
>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>> <45eb800e$0$30102$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>>news:e7ghu2li7og5pchn1mj0eu3q8s97anmkol@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:05:05 +0800, in alt.atheism
>>>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>>>>>
>>>>> Which "liberties" are those? And does Bush really "destroy" them?
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you haven't been following the President's decision to use the
>>>> NSA to spy in a way that is not allowed in the US. Too bad. It's scary
>>>> that people who don't even know what our president has been doing are
>>>> willing to give him the benefit of the doubt just because he makes a big
>>>> noise about being a Christian. I don't believe him for a minute, but
>>>> apparently he's only trying to con Christians.
>>>>
>>>>>Jesus is waiting to get your attention.
>>>>
>>>> There is no evidence that Jesus exists.
>>>
>>> Jesus resurrected in all our hearts and minds, only atheists make a
>>>point of ignoring Him.
>>
>> I guess I have to repeat this because you clearly are unwilling to
>> acknowledge this fact: There is no evidence that Jesus exists. You can
>> make any claim you like, but you don't have any evidence and you know
>> you don't have any evidence.
>>
> What evidence do I have, that YOU exist? We all know you are an
>automated refuting program, yet we pretend you exist. Jesus is a way of life
>which we know to exist, and you don't.

Feel free to post your delusions. I'll stop responding to them for a
while.
 
On 8 Mar 2007 20:34:12 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1173414852.802650.61520@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>
>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>

:

>> >Well, I have an idea. hy don't you e-mail some mental patients?
>> >am sure they would be happy to hear from you.
>>
>> Good idea.
>> What's your email address?
>>
>Well, I have two of them.

One for each of the mental hospitals that you are forcibly
incarcerated in, I take it.

> The Chinese people write to me using this
>one: rbwinn3@juno.com.

And Isaiah and Jesus email you on that one too, right?
Put your shrink on danger money!

>Did you know that atheists and Chinese people use the English language
>in a very similar manner?

According your notoriously unreliable delusions, perhaps.

>additional provide require.

What?
Nurse! Thorazine, stat!

--
 
On 9 Mar 2007 11:12:49 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1173467568.901846.277350@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>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.

Perhaps not.

I partially quote from a scholarly analysis of the great Qumran Isaiah
Scroll:
"An example of other frequently found editorial corrections: A good
example of an unmarked redundancy is in Isaiah 38:19 and 20. In verse
20, (line 12) after the second word "le-hoshiy'eniy" (to save me) the
whole of verse 19 is repeated as well as the first two words of verse
20. There is nothing to indicate the repetition which is an obvious
error. But an omission in the next two verses is corrected in the
margin. The last word of verse 21 and the first 6 words of 22 were
omitted and an editor with a different hand and stroke and spelling
(kiy without the aleph) entered the omitted words in the left margin
vertically. There is no way to account for a careful editor spotting
the omitted words and not noting the redundancy which he could not
have avoided seeing."

As one can plainly see, Robby the Robot's Isaiah is chock full of
errors, corrections and mistakes.

(But I am referring to an original 1st century scroll, in Hebrew and
Aramaic. Obviously inferior to Bobbie's little "illustrated book of
bible stories for boys and girls" that he uses when he is lucid enough
to be able to read.)

--
 
On 8 Mar 2007 07:08:42 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@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.

Robert's definition of "freedom of speech" is "freedom to force you to
accept what he says", and you're against that.
 
On Mar 8, 10:07�pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> GOD is the SON of GOD?
 
On Mar 9, 7:58�am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > God is eternal.
>
> > > Unsupported assertion.
>
> > Wrong.
 
On Mar 9, 8:15?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 1:08?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Mar 8, 2:39?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:23:22 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> ? - Refer: <erCdnYJ9sbKWS3LYnZ2dnUVZ_trin...@comcast.com>
>
> > > >>> Michael Gray wrote:
> > > >>>> On 7 Mar 2007 14:43:40 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>> ? - Refer: <1173307420.007287.59...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > > >>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On 7 Mar 2007 09:49:42 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> ? - Refer: <1173289782.480046.72...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
> > > >>>>>>> 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?
> > > >>>>>> Bzzzt!
> > > >>>>>> Meaningless question.
> > > >>>>>> Bobby is quite incapable of thought.
> > > >>>>> Point taken; I withdraw the question.
> > > >>>> Objection sustained.
> > > >>>> Now, what about this defence of...
> > > >>>> <shuffles papers>
> > > >>>> Erm "Not guilty by way of insanity"?
> > > >>>> What does the defendent have to say?
> > > >>>> You will stand when you address the court Mr. Winn.
> > > >>>> Remove that canvas jacket from him will you, usher?
> > > >>> Take off his straight jacket? I object!
> > > >> The learned counsel's objection is sustained.
> > > >> Mr. Winn is a clear and present danger to rationality.
>
> > > >> The Jury will now consider it's verdict.
>
> > > > Well, here is some more atheistic mythology. ?So who do you claim has
> > > > ever had a trial by jury at a sanity hearing? ?
>
> > > ?>
> > > It's not a real trial, moron, it is just make believe on Usenet. We are
> > > just making fun of you. Can't you tell the difference? Errrm ... never
> > > mind. You aren't known for your ability to tell real from make believe,
> > > are you?-
>
> > Well, why would I call it atheistic mythology if it was not make believe?
>
> Because you're an idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, you are certainly welcome to your unsupported assertations.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Mar 9, 8:17�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> 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.
 

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