NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[rbwinn]

On Mar 9, 8:19�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 9, 12:11�pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 9, 12:11?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK. You said you were going to concern yourself in trying to oppose
people who speak about religious beliefs. Evidently you believe that
this one group of people should not have freedom of speech.
Robert B. Winn

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 9, 12:11�pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 9, 12:12?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, that would be your opinion. Isaiah actually said something when
he put words together.
Robert B. Winn

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 9, 1:45�pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:56 pm, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>
> > "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>
> >news:ijapu2hpqemgb5942fpgn11tc5uba0t3fu@4ax.com...> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:59:47 +0800, in alt.atheism
> > > "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> > > <45ebceae$0$16281$88260...@free.teranews.com>:
>
> > >>

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 9, 4:09�pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 9, 4:13�pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:20 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 1:51?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 9, 5:14�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2007 07:15:24 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> wrote:
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 9, 5:24�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2007 11:12:49 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> wrote:
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 9, 6:27�pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2007 07:08:42 -0800, "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?

 

[Paul Ransom Erickson]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:31:59 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu>
wrote:

>"Paul Ransom Erickson" <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:d7dfu21j71k9kjufn1qo796guqo1of0d17@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:04:48 +1030, Michael Gray
>> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Feb 2007 04:23:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
>>>wrote:
>>> - Refer: <45E011C4.6CA710C2@netvigator.com>
>>>>Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>> On 24 Feb 2007 00:18:03 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> - Refer: <45DFD81F.528F576C@netvigator.com>
>>>>> >Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On 23 Feb 2007 04:54:02 -0600, bob young
>>>>> >> <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> - Refer: <45DEC75B.8B3E5B1D@netvigator.com>
>>>>> >> >Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>> >> >> On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young
>>>>> >> >> <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
>>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com>
>>>>> >> >> >Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>>> >> >> >> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>>>> >> >> >> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com...
>>>>> >> >> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>> >> >> >> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>>>>> >> >> >> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I
>>>>> >> >> >> >> just said, as
>>>>> >> >> >> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system,
>>>>> >> >> >> >>instead of a
>>>>> >> >> >> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove
>>>>> >> >> >> >>it, or admit
>>>>> >> >> >> >>your
>>>>> >> >> >> >>just lying for atheism again.
>>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call
>>>>> >> >> >> > you on your
>>>>> >> >> >> > lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not
>>>>> >> >> >> > a system.
>>>>> >> >> >> > You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that?
>>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above,
>>>>> >> >> >> that atheism
>>>>> >> >> >> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for
>>>>> >> >> >> you are forever
>>>>> >> >> >> listing all the things you don't believe and never get around
>>>>> >> >> >> to telling us
>>>>> >> >> >> anything about what you DO believe.
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate
>>>>> >> >> >constantly that
>>>>> >> >> >they are liars and
>>>>> >> >> >charlatans. That's what I believe
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> I do NOT believe that.
>>>>> >> >> Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100%
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >One must allow for the ordinary person longing for security
>>>>> >> >thinking they can find
>>>>> >> >it with an imaginary god, reinforced by following what their
>>>>> >> >parents and
>>>>> >> >grandparents believed. These are not charlatans, the charlatans
>>>>> >> >are the
>>>>> >> >propagators that lie and deceive.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> So, they do not lie when they claim that Jesus was born of a virgin?
>>>>> >> Flew up into the sky after being tortured to death?
>>>>> >> Came back down again and quietly chatted with a few people who never
>>>>> >> existed, and then went back up into the sky, and will come back down
>>>>> >> after 2,000 years?
>>>>> >> That when a priest raves some mumbo jumbo over a biscuit and some
>>>>> >> cheap vino, that it ACTUALLY turns into half-human flesh, and REAL
>>>>> >> blood of ONE person?
>>>>> >> Fot they quite simply MUST believe all this fraudulent crap to be
>>>>> >> considered Christian.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I aghree they do, but it hardly makes them inferior or bad to others,
>>>>> >which was my
>>>>> >point.
>>>>>
>>>>> My reading is that you clearly consider those people who
>>>>> deliberately lie insanely, but are otherwise good, to be "hardly"
>>>>> inferior to those who do good, but retain probity?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is where we differ, in spades!
>>>>>
>>>>> >It is the priets you mention who are the charlatans as they do it as a
>>>>> >profession.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite.
>>>>> They are the ringleaders, like Fagin.
>>>>> But that in no way relieves the "Oliver Twist" from the culpability of
>>>>> his criminal offences, especially when most of them have an easy
>>>>> choice:
>>>>> Stay Christian and keep wilfully fabricating frauds, or drop the
>>>>> Christianity, and become honest.
>>>>> It doesn't take any change other than in one's mind, and at no
>>>>> expense.
>>>>> No, we seem to have very different opinions on this issue.
>>>>> They are wilfull, deliberate and conscious liars.
>>>>
>>>>Someone brought up in the church and brainwashed as a child, on reaching
>>>>his teens is
>>>>hardly lying about his belief, he is simply misguided, misdirected and
>>>>misinformed; but
>>>>he can still be a very nice person.
>>>
>>>The two things are totally separate.
>>>It is completely obvious to any normal human child that the wafer does
>>>not turn into anything different, let alone human flesh, the wine does
>>>NOT turn into blood when a priest mumbles incantations over it, and
>>>the child performs a scientific test with his or her mouth after every
>>>supposed miracle.
>>>The test always proves that the priest has lied.
>>>The wafer is still a wafer.
>>>The wine is still very cheap vino.
>>>And they are all able to identify flesh and blood orally.
>>>For the child who has not cut him or herself and seen and licked
>>>actual flesh, nor sucked their own blood from a cut finger, would be
>>>most rare indeed.
>>>This does not require any scientific sophistication in the youth
>>>whatsoever.
>>>Australian aboriginal kids living the traditional lifestyle are aware
>>>of this basic fact of their own physiology, for instance.
>>>To all children it would be obvious that the priest is lying to them,
>>>and DEMANDING that they repeat the lie weekly, if not daily, at the
>>>very least.
>>>This is so elementary that I fail to see why you consider that this
>>>form of lying, even in youth, would slip by unnoticed.
>>>Or even worse, that it is somehow rendered "excusable" by later good
>>>deeds.
>>>It is the role of the church to ensure that such lies ARE accepted and
>>>ingrained into the child to the point of unquestioned acceptance, yet
>>>a moment's thought on the matter would reveal it's fraudulent nature!
>>>And this is but ONE example of duplicity that is DEMANDED by the
>>>various churches, in order to remain communicate.
>>>There are hundreds more to choose from if this strikingly clear
>>>example does not suit your "taste", or perhaps the Xtian Cult of your
>>>contemplation.
>>>Once again, we appear to be at quite opposite and extreme ends of this
>>>particular spectrum.
>>>So far as I can determine it, your stance is to wave away the lying
>>>aspect, and apologetically assert that they are otherwise good.
>>>This assessment of "goodness" seems to completely ignore the very real
>>>fact that by simply being passive members of the religion, they
>>>tacitly approve of, fund, encourage, and support the more extreme
>>>actions of their church, up to and including genocide; even if by not
>>>actively restraining it.
>>>I'd hardly call that "being good".
>>>
>>>>One of my favorite aunties was a 'died in the wool' Christian and nothing
>>>>would budge her
>>>>but she was a wonderful person. She lost her husband when he was fifty
>>>>and went into
>>>>wearing black for the rest of her life 'until she could join Daddy'.
>>>>This is what I
>>>>dislike about religion [not just Christianity] in a modern world [this
>>>>took place forty
>>>>years ago] she could have remarried instead of waiting fruitlessly for
>>>>nearly fifty years
>>>>before she herself finally passed away.
>>>
>>>That's as may be.
>>>But if it is to be germane to this topic, it is incumbent upon you to
>>>show that she never lied due to her Christianity, and/or that she
>>>never used her Christianity to con anyone, even elliptically.
>>>Don't forget that your kind old Aunt actively and knowingly supported,
>>>(even if by willful neglect of keeping tabs on what her donations of
>>>cash, time, effort etc were funding), the rape of little kiddies, the
>>>torture of orphans, the oppression of minorities etc etc.
>>>You know the litany all too well, but appear to be in severe denial.
>>>I can partly understand this attitude, but that in no way means that I
>>>have assent to it, and especially not that I must agree with it.
>>>
>>>>What are your views on Islam and Hinduism?
>>>
>>>I have outlined a brief response to these questions in another message
>>>(to you?).
>>>You may wish to excuse my peremptory tone, but I have little enough
>>>time to give you a considered reply, (at the moment), let alone one
>>>that is littered with the courtesy that you have so rightly earned.
>>>Accept my apologies, please.
>>
>> Lots of people are convined from a young age that the essence of
>> goodness lies in Christianity, and that any seeming problem with the
>> belief is either a misunderstanding or a mystery.
>> Such people are frightened away from investigating the doubts that
>> arise in their minds, and are therefore unlikely to follow seeming
>> problems to their conclusions. And who on earth really does follow up
>> completely on all the inconsistencies they notice in themselves? Even
>> the greatest of philosophers have trouble with consistency.
>> I do agree with you that all Christians are liars, but I don't think
>> they are unique in that. All atheists are liars too.
>> It only takes the least measure of introspection to know that. We all
>> have inconsistent beliefs and we all fudge it very often.
>> The problem with religion is that it creates structures to help people
>> fudge it.
>>
> So what's your conclusion? Should we all just give up and do what comes
>natural, and to hell with the consequences?
> What are you advocating?

No. I think we should all pay great attention to the times when we
are tempted to fudge things. I advocate severe honesty -- if it is
not possible to be that honest with other people, then at least let's
be that honest with ourselves.

We will fumble, but we can try.

PS please do not try to claim that this is the only thing that I
advocate, or that I am only about this. Somehow I worry that you will
do just that if I don't warn you against it.

 

[Paul Ransom Erickson]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:29:57 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
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?
>>
>>> What is your issue?
>>
>> People who think they know how to "lessen the needless suffering of
>> some people."
>>
>
>Why don't you help them
>instead of increasing your own suffering?

Who says JessHC doesn't?

It's really tiring when people decide that they are an o-so-superior
voice of wisdom. Somebody needs to whack you upside the head with a
staff.

Who do you think you are helping here?

 

[Paul Ransom Erickson]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:46:49 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
wrote:

>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?

Are _you suffering?

 

[Paul Ransom Erickson]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:14:40 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:45:50 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>wrote:
> - Refer: <QJWdnVzGDdRYxG3YnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@ptd.net>
>>Michael Gray wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:50:43 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> - Refer: <upadnfHJF_WXC3LYnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:35:26 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> - Refer: <yumdnbGnWIeDo3LYnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>> As familiar as I am with Sherlock Holmes.
>>>>>
>>>> How do you know it does not exist?
>>>
>>> What "it" are you referring to, child?
>>>
>>> I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are a vicously retarded
>>> infantile illiterate, who is wilfully ignorant to a truly astounding
>>> extent.
>>>
>>> Can you supply me with some minimal evidence to show that such a
>>> conclusion is unwarranted?
>>>
>>
>>I read philosophy and law.
>>How about you?
>
>1) You are anonymous, so that assertion is baseless.
>2) Qualifications are not evidence in refutation of my assertion.
>3) What have my qualifications got to do with my human ability to
>judge your maturity, literacy and ignorance, as displayed in your
>posts here?
>
>Uou confirm my dianosis with every illogical retort.
>Your responses are all logical fallacies.
>
>But, I see that you are a philosopher.
>No ****ing wonder you cannot employ logic or reason!

Stumper thinks that stumper is opening our eyes to vast vistas we have
never yet imagined.

Stumper thinks too much of stumper.

 

[Mettas Mother]

How do you know that he was telling the truth!

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1173490918.699638.222590@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Jesus Christ said he was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. He
also has a Father.
Robert B. Winn

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 9, 6:27?pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> > On 8 Mar 2007 07:08:42 -0800, "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.
> >
> > Robert's definition of "freedom of speech" is "freedom to force you to
> > accept what he says", and you're against that.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Al, good to see you.

Especially in light of the fact you'd claimed he'd been chased away by
your nonsensical bible quotes.

> I knew you would be back to read another verse from Isaiah.

Hmm. Looks more like he's back to see if you're still getting beaten
down.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:24?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On 9 Mar 2007 11:12:49 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > ? - Refer: <1173467568.901846.277...@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.)
> >
> The Nelson version of the Bible printed one particular year does the
> same thing. One verse is repeated. That did not affect the versions
> of the Bible which only printed the verse once. An atheist would
> claim that this printing error is proof that the Bible is untrue.

No, an atheist would claim that this printing error is proof that the
bible isn't the inerrant word of any deity, since by containing an
error, it's errant. Atheists recognize there are actually true things
in the bible, just like there are true things in The Wizard of Oz, or
Stephen Kings' books.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:14?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On 9 Mar 2007 07:15:24 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > ? - Refer: <1173453324.815936.78...@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.
> >
> Calling me names does not change atheistic mythology.

Nobody's calling you names. We're describing your behavior.

> Atheistic mythology will always be fiction.

Claiming there's an "atheistic mythology" doesn't mean it exists. Why
don't you give us some examples?

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 9, 4:13?pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 11:20 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 8, 1:51?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > ?[...]
> > > > 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. ?I never saw an atheist yet who
> > > could hang with Isaiah.
> > > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > Who would want to hang with Isaiah? ?Nobody wants to hang, period.
> >
> > If Isaiah wants to hang, let him hang alone. ?That 6-wing angel
> > already burnt his mouth to a crisp.
>
> OK. Well, Jesus Christ said that upon two commandments hang all the
> law and the prophets.

Yes, but he's imaginary.