NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

H. Wm. Esque wrote:

> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
> news:QvKdnUc3MaTsA3HYnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>Of course there is "evidence".
>>Ask any believer.
>>His/her answer is evidence there is a "god" --
>>created and residing inside his/her mind. -- L.
>>
>
> Martin Rees identifies six numbers that if they were
> varied just a tiny little bit, there would be no universe,
> no matter and no life. He calls this a brute fact . This
> fine tuning implies a creator who tweaked the numbers.

===>Sure.
Like the old story about the puddle wondering how miraculous it is
that the hole fits it so perfectly.
RIDICULOUS.

> In order to around this discovery, Rees conjectures
> up infinite numbers of universes each with its own set
> of numbers. Our universe in a sense won the lottery.
> But the _simplest_ explanation for this fine tuning, is
> the hand of a creator.

===>A creator fit to produce this universe?
Who would create such a creator? ;-) -- L.

> Thus this brute fact is hard evidence of a creator God.
>
>
 
William Mechlenburg wrote:

> "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:JPzIh.2971$nV1.2599@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
>>"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
>>news:QvKdnUc3MaTsA3HYnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Of course there is "evidence".
>>>Ask any believer.
>>>His/her answer is evidence there is a "god" --
>>>created and residing inside his/her mind. -- L.
>>>
>>
>>Martin Rees identifies six numbers that if they were
>>varied just a tiny little bit, there would be no universe,
>>no matter and no life. He calls this a brute fact . This
>> fine tuning implies a creator who tweaked the numbers.
>>In order to around this discovery, Rees conjectures
>>up infinite numbers of universes each with its own set
>>of numbers. Our universe in a sense won the lottery.
>>But the _simplest_ explanation for this fine tuning, is
>>the hand of a creator.
>>Thus this brute fact is hard evidence of a creator God.
>>
>
> This is not evidence of anything.
>
> What created this magnificent creator??? Oh, he always was and always will
> be.
>
> Maybe the Universe always was and always will be.

===> THIS particular "universe", i.e. our local
cluster of galactic superclusters, waw produced by the
eternal FLUX, the PROCESS through which all ephemeral
things are constantly formed and transformed.

ALL THINGS CHANGE, NOTHING ABIDES. -- L.
 
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8jjqu2ha4uvv7rr93fn3dqs97vtdpk3965@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:49:22 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
>>
>>Of course there is "evidence". Ask any believer.
>>His/her answer is evidence there is a "god" --
>>created and residing inside his/her mind. -- L.
>
> Can you offer support that there is no God?
>
There are lots of definitions for the word "god" which indicate things
that don't exist. Leave it to atheists to try list them all. LOL



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Mar 10, 2:41�pm, "William Mechlenburg" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173537055.788478.173840@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...> On Mar 10, 6:00?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > 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>:
>
> > > > > > >> ? ?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).
>
> > > > > No he's not. ?He stains the earth with innocent blood, scatters it
> > > > > with poverty, starvation, war, famine, disease, and ruin; sacrifices
> > > > > virgins for his own sadistic blood lust; demands on pain of blood
> > > > > curses that he be loved and worshiped; shows his ass to Moses; shows
> > > > > his face, his UFO and his angels to Isaiah; invests his powers in
> > > > > clergy who rape, steal, murder and pillage; and giggles while David
> (a
> > > > > man after God's own heart) commits premeditated murder and steals
> > > > > another man's wife, estate, and vineyards.
>
> > > > > Oh, and did I mention he (after getting the idea from pagan gods who
> > > > > raped mortals and begat babies on them) dispatched a ghost to
> > > > > fornicate with Mary against her will and knocked her up even though
> > > > > she was betrothed to Joseph.
>
> > > > Why don't you discuss your ideas with Jesus Christ when he returns to
> > > > judge the earth?
>
> > > Because he's imaginary.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Well, he would be the one to tell your idea.
 
On Mar 10, 5:47�pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 4:16?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 10 Mar 2007 15:02:56 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1173567776.676369.66...@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >>> On Mar 10, 10:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> 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?
> >>>> Atheism has no mythology, moron, "Atheism is characterized by an absence
> >>>> of belief in the existence of gods." --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
> >>> Atheism does have mythology, otherwise, why would atheists be
> >>> pretending that people are being given jury trials at sanity hearings?
> >>> Robert B. Winn
> >> This has nothing to do with atheism, as you know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Any time an atheist get caught short, all we see are disclaimers.
 
On Mar 10, 5:46�pm, "tirebiter" <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 7:41 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 4:37?pm, "tirebiter" <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 10, 6:06 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 10, 10:12?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:> I asked you a simple question on how did you know that he was telling the truth. ?You should answer
> > > > > the question instead of offering remedies!
>
> > > > Well, I am not going to get involved in your idea of accusing God of
> > > > lying. ?You need to do that without help from me if you are going to
> > > > do it. ?I would advise you not to do it.
> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > Quite the paradox. ?The god thingy doesn't exist and things that don't
> > > exist can't lie. ?But the followers of the god thingy believe the lies
> > > attributed to it. ?So, based on its non-existence, I don't think the
> > > god thingy lies, but the things other people believe it said are lies.
>
> > > So, RB. ?What terrible thing to you believe will happen to me? ?And
> > > can you prove that it will happen? ?Note, if I have to wait until
> > > after I'm dead, your proof can't be validated.
> > > ---
> > > a.a. #2273
>
> > I think you will be cut off from the presence of God.
 
On Mar 10, 5:49?pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 5:10?pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >>> On Mar 10, 2:59?pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
> >>>> William Mechlenburg wrote:
> >>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:1173537055.788478.173840@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>> On Mar 10, 6:00?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 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>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? ?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).
> >>>>>>>>> No he's not. ?He stains the earth with innocent blood, scatters it
> >>>>>>>>> with poverty, starvation, war, famine, disease, and ruin; sacrifices
> >>>>>>>>> virgins for his own sadistic blood lust; demands on pain of blood
> >>>>>>>>> curses that he be loved and worshiped; shows his ass to Moses; shows
> >>>>>>>>> his face, his UFO and his angels to Isaiah; invests his powers in
> >>>>>>>>> clergy who rape, steal, murder and pillage; and giggles while David
> >>>>> (a
> >>>>>>>>> man after God's own heart) commits premeditated murder and steals
> >>>>>>>>> another man's wife, estate, and vineyards.
> >>>>>>>>> Oh, and did I mention he (after getting the idea from pagan gods who
> >>>>>>>>> raped mortals and begat babies on them) dispatched a ghost to
> >>>>>>>>> fornicate with Mary against her will and knocked her up even though
> >>>>>>>>> she was betrothed to Joseph.
> >>>>>>>> Why don't you discuss your ideas with Jesus Christ when he returns to
> >>>>>>>> judge the earth?
> >>>>>>> Because he's imaginary.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> Well, he would be the one to tell your idea. ?Just speak right up and
> >>>>>> tell him when he returns to judge the earth.
> >>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>> Your imaginary god is not going to return to earth. It isn't going to
> >>>>> happen!
> >>>> It's just wonderful that
> >>>> you can imagine God.
> >>>> Can you tell us a little more
> >>>> about your imaginary God?
> >>> Would you like me to send you a copy of the Bible?
> >>> Robert B. Winn
> >> I have seen and heard many versions.
> >> At least some parts of them anyway.
> >> But I'm interested in
> >> his and your understanding of God.
>
> >> Is your God male?
>
> > Why do you ask?
> > Robert B. Winn
>
> To figure out how to properly talk about God.
>
> --
> ~Stumper- Hide quoted text -
>
You don't have to figure it out. The example of how to pray was given
by Jesus Christ. It starts, Our Father Which art in Heaven.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Mar 10, 5:52�pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2007 04:52:56 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >rbwinn wrote:
> >> Al, good to see you.
> >Especially in light of the fact you'd claimed he'd been chased away by
> >your nonsensical bible quotes.
>
> Not chased away, bored to tears.
 
On Mar 10, 5:56�pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 4:37?pm, "tirebiter" <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 10, 6:06 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 10, 10:12?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:> I asked you a simple question on how did you know that he was telling the truth. ?You should answer
> >>>> the question instead of offering remedies!
> >>> Well, I am not going to get involved in your idea of accusing God of
> >>> lying. ?You need to do that without help from me if you are going to
> >>> do it. ?I would advise you not to do it.
> >>> Robert B. Winn
> >> Quite the paradox. ?The god thingy doesn't exist and things that don't
> >> exist can't lie. ?But the followers of the god thingy believe the lies
> >> attributed to it. ?So, based on its non-existence, I don't think the
> >> god thingy lies, but the things other people believe it said are lies.
>
> >> So, RB. ?What terrible thing to you believe will happen to me? ?And
> >> can you prove that it will happen? ?Note, if I have to wait until
> >> after I'm dead, your proof can't be validated.
> >> ---
> >> a.a. #2273
>
> > I think you will be cut off from the presence of God.
 
On Mar 10, 6:08�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2007 16:37:25 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1173573445.512922.196...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 10, 4:16?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 10 Mar 2007 15:02:56 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1173567776.676369.66...@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Mar 10, 10:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> 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?
>
> >> >> Atheism has no mythology, moron, "Atheism is characterized by an absence
> >> >> of belief in the existence of gods." --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
>
> >> >Atheism does have mythology, otherwise, why would atheists be
> >> >pretending that people are being given jury trials at sanity hearings?
> >> >Robert B. Winn
>
> >> This has nothing to do with atheism, as you know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Any time an atheist get caught short, all we see are disclaimers.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 10, 5:47�pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 4:16?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>> On 10 Mar 2007 15:02:56 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn"
>>>> <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>>>> <1173567776.676369.66...@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>> On Mar 10, 10:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> 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?
>>>>>> Atheism has no mythology, moron, "Atheism is characterized
>>>>>> by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
>>>>>> --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
>>>>> Atheism does have mythology, otherwise, why would atheists be
>>>>> pretending that people are being given jury trials at sanity
>>>>> hearings? Robert B. Winn
>>>> This has nothing to do with atheism, as you know.- Hide quoted
>>>> text -
>>> Any time an atheist get caught short, all we see are disclaimers.
>>> �I think it does have something to do with atheism. Robert B.
>>> Winn
>> Are you posting here at alt.atheism intentionally or just replying
>> to a post crossposted to a Christian forum?
>>
>>
> Well, actually, originally I was posting from alt.bible in this
> conversation, but the thread got so messed up in alt.bible I started
> answering on a thread from alt.atheism. Robert B. Winn
>
>

Thank you.

I do my best not to be so easily provoked.
I'm just visiting alt.atheism to see
why so many atheists are abusing people
at alt.christian.religion.

--
~Stumper
 
On 10 Mar 2007 20:17:37 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1173586657.609454.172380@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>:
>On Mar 10, 6:08?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2007 16:37:25 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1173573445.512922.196...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 10, 4:16?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On 10 Mar 2007 15:02:56 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> <1173567776.676369.66...@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Mar 10, 10:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> 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?
>>
>> >> >> Atheism has no mythology, moron, "Atheism is characterized by an absence
>> >> >> of belief in the existence of gods." --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
>>
>> >> >Atheism does have mythology, otherwise, why would atheists be
>> >> >pretending that people are being given jury trials at sanity hearings?
>> >> >Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> This has nothing to do with atheism, as you know.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >Any time an atheist get caught short, all we see are disclaimers.
>> >think it does have something to do with atheism.
>> >Robert B. Winn
>>
>> We aren't being caught short. You are lying. You have absolutely no
>> evidence to support your false claim and I see no reason to bother
>> dealing with this lie, since you have not learned from all of the other
>> lies that you have had thrown back in your face.
>>
>> You personally teach a pathetic god.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>Well, if you think Jesus Christ is pathetic, tell him what you think
>when he returns to judge the earth. What does your opinion have to do
>with me?

I'm quite familiar with Christianity and its many variants. You don't
teach Christianity by any reasonable definition of it.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 10, 5:49?pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 5:10?pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 10, 2:59?pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
>>>>>> William Mechlenburg wrote:
>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1173537055.788478.173840@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 6:00?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ?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).
>>>>>>>>>>> No he's not. ?He stains the earth with innocent blood, scatters it
>>>>>>>>>>> with poverty, starvation, war, famine, disease, and ruin; sacrifices
>>>>>>>>>>> virgins for his own sadistic blood lust; demands on pain of blood
>>>>>>>>>>> curses that he be loved and worshiped; shows his ass to Moses; shows
>>>>>>>>>>> his face, his UFO and his angels to Isaiah; invests his powers in
>>>>>>>>>>> clergy who rape, steal, murder and pillage; and giggles while David
>>>>>>> (a
>>>>>>>>>>> man after God's own heart) commits premeditated murder and steals
>>>>>>>>>>> another man's wife, estate, and vineyards.
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, and did I mention he (after getting the idea from pagan gods who
>>>>>>>>>>> raped mortals and begat babies on them) dispatched a ghost to
>>>>>>>>>>> fornicate with Mary against her will and knocked her up even though
>>>>>>>>>>> she was betrothed to Joseph.
>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you discuss your ideas with Jesus Christ when he returns to
>>>>>>>>>> judge the earth?
>>>>>>>>> Because he's imaginary.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> Well, he would be the one to tell your idea. ?Just speak right up and
>>>>>>>> tell him when he returns to judge the earth.
>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>>>>> Your imaginary god is not going to return to earth. It isn't going to
>>>>>>> happen!
>>>>>> It's just wonderful that
>>>>>> you can imagine God.
>>>>>> Can you tell us a little more
>>>>>> about your imaginary God?
>>>>> Would you like me to send you a copy of the Bible?
>>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>> I have seen and heard many versions.
>>>> At least some parts of them anyway.
>>>> But I'm interested in
>>>> his and your understanding of God.
>>>> Is your God male?
>>> Why do you ask?
>>> Robert B. Winn
>> To figure out how to properly talk about God.
>>
>> --
>> ~Stumper- Hide quoted text -
>>
> You don't have to figure it out. The example of how to pray was given
> by Jesus Christ. It starts, Our Father Which art in Heaven.
> Robert B. Winn
>
>

Unfortunately,
I don't do things
just because others do them.

Do you believe in miracles?

--
~Stumper
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 10, 5:56�pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 4:37?pm, "tirebiter" <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 10, 6:06 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 10, 10:12?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:> I asked you a simple question on how did you know that he was telling the truth. ?You should answer
>>>>>> the question instead of offering remedies!
>>>>> Well, I am not going to get involved in your idea of accusing God of
>>>>> lying. ?You need to do that without help from me if you are going to
>>>>> do it. ?I would advise you not to do it.
>>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>> Quite the paradox. ?The god thingy doesn't exist and things that don't
>>>> exist can't lie. ?But the followers of the god thingy believe the lies
>>>> attributed to it. ?So, based on its non-existence, I don't think the
>>>> god thingy lies, but the things other people believe it said are lies.
>>>> So, RB. ?What terrible thing to you believe will happen to me? ?And
>>>> can you prove that it will happen? ?Note, if I have to wait until
>>>> after I'm dead, your proof can't be validated.
>>>> ---
>>>> a.a. #2273
>>> I think you will be cut off from the presence of God. �So you will
>>> just continue on in the things familiar to you. �You would eventually
>>> come to know that God exists, but never be allowed where he is. �A
>>> person who accuses God of lying will not be allowed into his presence.
>>> Robert B. Winn
>> How do you know that
>> God is not going to soften his mind
>> or to just forgive him anyway?
>>
> Well, you atheists all claim to be special cases. If that is what you
> want to believe will happen, go ahead. I do not believe it would work
> for me.
> Robert B. Winn
>

I don't think I'm an atheist.
Anyhow, if it happened to Paul,
it can easily happen to any atheist.

No need to curse people to hell so fast.

--
~Stumper
 
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:27:04 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
wrote:

>rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 5:47?pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>> On Mar 10, 4:16?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>> On 10 Mar 2007 15:02:56 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn"
>>>>> <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>>>>> <1173567776.676369.66...@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>>> On Mar 10, 10:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> 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?
>>>>>>> Atheism has no mythology, moron, "Atheism is characterized
>>>>>>> by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
>>>>>>> --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
>>>>>> Atheism does have mythology, otherwise, why would atheists be
>>>>>> pretending that people are being given jury trials at sanity
>>>>>> hearings? Robert B. Winn
>>>>> This has nothing to do with atheism, as you know.- Hide quoted
>>>>> text -
>>>> Any time an atheist get caught short, all we see are disclaimers.
>>>> ?I think it does have something to do with atheism. Robert B.
>>>> Winn
>>> Are you posting here at alt.atheism intentionally or just replying
>>> to a post crossposted to a Christian forum?
>>>
>>>
>> Well, actually, originally I was posting from alt.bible in this
>> conversation, but the thread got so messed up in alt.bible I started
>> answering on a thread from alt.atheism. Robert B. Winn
>>
>>
>
>Thank you.
>
>I do my best not to be so easily provoked.
>I'm just visiting alt.atheism to see
>why so many atheists are abusing people
>at alt.christian.religion.

I've found that we don't generally post to the christer groups,
stumper, except to answer posts that have already been crossposted
there.
______________________________________

Gospel Bretts
a.a. atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist
 
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:27:04 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <JJ6dnSxme4FgGW7YnZ2dnUVZ_q-vnZ2d@ptd.net>

:

>I do my best not to be so easily provoked.
>I'm just visiting alt.atheism to see
>why so many atheists are abusing people
>at alt.christian.religion.

Because most Christians are either shameless outright provable liars,
facile vacuous cretins, or certifiably insane.
You fall neatly the middle category, with a bit of the other two.

--
 
"justiz" <izstanbul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173183310.911820.288670@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 1:40 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> 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:
>>
>> > >"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
>
> Isn't that what christians do? Isn't that what makes it fun?
> christians use the bible selectively, atheist shove it back in their
> face selectively.
> The best excuse I heard for using the bible selectively is that parts
> are not relevant. gasp. I contend it is holy irrelevant to any
> educated person.
>
"educated person"? Is education your god? Educated persons let Hitler do
his thing, killing millions. Intelligent people knew better than to protest
and get themselves into trouble like some stupid people with a conscience.
Christ is about having a heart and caring for people, regardless of
whether you might get yourself killed for doing so.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hujm43.1rv9y9sl4w3jN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Christ tells me not to judge people. All I am allowed is to judge
>> actions. So you need to list what actions you want me to judge, and I
>> will
>> attempt to judge them by the standard of: What Would Jesus Do?
>
> How about your own actions? What do you think the odds are that they
> meet the standard?
> "What Would Jesus Do" is a sham, the only standard you have is "What
> Would Frank Do". You just don't have the character to call it what it
> is, hiding instead behind your religious sanctimony...
>
That's just your atheist cynicism and paranoia talking. We actually DO
believe in Jesus, and seek to submit our wills to His.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173221749.213205.258370@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:l2ofu25j3689oqkknitg214b0cebi0anqq@4ax.com...
>> >
>> > But it forces them to do that, even if by willful ignorance, be that
>> > through fear, or restricted opportunity, which is my entire point.
>> > Atheism does not force people to lie.
>> >
>> Precisely! For atheism allows people to define the god they reject as
>> ridiculously as possible so as to make existence of such a creature
>> totally
>> impossible. Therefore: There ain't no god(s) is automatically always true
>> and there is no need to lie.
>
> It isn't the atheist's responsibility to define your deities for you.
>
So you admit to lying then when you say: There ain't no god(s)? For you
obviously don't know what that word means to anyone who believe in a God.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007030623193650073-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> On 2007-03-06 22:12:12 +0000, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:
>>
>> Agreed. It's surprising how many xians rationalize why the verse
>> doesn't really mean what it says.
>
> The meaning is actually pretty clear. In its context it requires
> Christians to proselytise - to attempt to spread the Gospel. Where that
> becomes "shoving ones's religion down the throat of another person" is a
> matter of judgement - not interpretation of a verse from scripture. The
> text merely says that there will be times when the message is not accepted
> and it is time to move on.
>
It's a free country and you can ignore all advertising, the good with
the bad. That goes for political viewpoints as well as religion and many
more.
"Shoving someone's viewpoint down the throat of others" is nothing but
an atheist straw-man they love to trash.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 

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