NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[Pastor Frank]

"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hukpsp.1pxrmuu1t335k3N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> rbwinn <rbwinn3@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?
>
Thanks for proving my point about atheists being beset by cynicism and
paranoia, if not fear. I mean what "threat" is there in discussing matters
with Jesus Christ Himself? But then atheism leads to feeling surrounded by
liars and being subjected to threats.



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:y5edna5NbpcM93PYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Mettas Mother wrote:
>>
>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
>
> No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of proof
> cannot be shifted to the non-believers.
> The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the null,
> 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever.
> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
> http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
>
You won't meet up with any argument from us theists. We all agree with
you, that the god(s) of atheist definition are guaranteed not to exist. But
then there are millions who have their very own existing concrete god(s)
they pray to and make offerings to. And others have abstract gods: I.e. our
Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) whom we serve, ...to the death if
need be.



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

 

[Uncle Clover]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 04:56:08 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu>
wrote:

> 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.
> 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.

Ah, as I thought, then. Your god is an endorphin. At least you're
willing to admit it.

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 10, 9:28�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2007 20:17:37 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1173586657.609454.172...@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.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:28?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On 10 Mar 2007 20:17:37 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > <1173586657.609454.172...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>:
> > >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.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, I would just as soon let Jesus Christ be the judge of what I
> teach. You , of course, are welcome to your own opinion, but your
> opinion does not mean anything to me.

Nor do facts.

 

[JessHC]

Pastor Frank wrote:
> "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.

Is that why he says stuff like "If any man come to me, and hate not
his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and
sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke
14:26)?

 

[JessHC]

stumper wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 5:56?pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
> >> 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.

You're the only one who would know.

> Anyhow, if it happened to Paul,
> it can easily happen to any atheist.

Yes, temporal lobe epilepsy is an insidious illness.

> No need to curse people to hell so fast.

It's what xians do.

 

[JessHC]

stumper wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 5:47?pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
> >> 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.

And now you know: the vast majority of the time, it's because there
are theists who think it's a good idea to crosspost their delusions
into alt.atheism.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> 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
> > >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
> >
> > 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.

Yeah, he's what, 2000 years over-due now?

> What does your opinion have to do with me?

The same thing your opinion has to do with alt.atheism.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 10, 5:56?pm, stumper <stum...@newvessel.com> wrote:
> > 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.

Really. Which atheist said that, again?

> If that is what you
> want to believe will happen, go ahead. I do not believe it would work
> for me.

Non responsive.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> 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. ?I was never very good at teaching
> > children who hadn't yet achieved the ability to think.
>
> Well, let's see how long Al lasts this time.

Looks like Al's right again.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 10, 5:46?pm, "tirebiter" <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 7:41 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > 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
> >
> > In other words, you got nothing. ?The best you got is I won't be
> > allowed someplace that doesn't exist. ?Enjoy wasting your life on your
> > god thingy.
> > ---
> > a.a #2273
>
> Well, then, you atheists get exactly what you say you want, and
> everyone will be happy, right?

What is it atheists say they want?

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> 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:
> > > > > 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!- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Jesus Christ would be the best one to inform concerning the rules you
> are attempting to impose. They do not pertain to me in any way.

Of course not; you live outside reality.

 

[JessHC]

stumper wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 4:16?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> 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?

He's doing it intentionally. He thinks he's winning points with his
deity. He's only read one part of his bible.

 

[Free Lunch]

On 11 Mar 2007 06:25:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1173619548.842755.64780@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Mar 10, 9:28?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2007 20:17:37 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1173586657.609454.172...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>:

....

>> >Well, if you think Jesus Christ is pathetic, tell him what you think
>> >when he returns to judge the earth. hat 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.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>Well, I would just as soon let Jesus Christ be the judge of what I
>teach. You , of course, are welcome to your own opinion, but your
>opinion does not mean anything to me.

So, what's with the "just you wait" excuse that you keep using every
time that people point out that you don't have any evidence to support
one of your claims? Why should anyone believe you when you cannot do
anything but post unrelated quoted from Isaiah, threats about future
that you cannot support, and paranoid claims about how the justice
system has been undermined by the Supreme Court.

I would be surprised if you cared about anyone's opinion. It appears
that you worship your own teachings and will never consider anything
that anyone else ever has to say. It seems likely that your stubborn
attitude makes life difficult for you.

 

[Pastor Frank]

"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:y5edna5NbpcM93PYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Mettas Mother wrote:
>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
>
> No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of proof
> cannot be shifted to the non-believers.
> The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the null,
> 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever.
> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
> http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
>
Yes. The usual atheist nonsense. There are innumerable existing gods,
for a god is anything or anyone being called a god. Much like atheists
insist, that anyone calling himself a Christian, is one.
The absent god is only the one of atheist definition, for they define
the word to mean some comic book character. LOL



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:mbednUs6vL9i83PYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com...
> rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 2:21�pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Your hypothesis that things in your manual only apply to the original
>>> twelve apostles is just the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis. If they were
>>> to apply only to the original twelve apostles then there would be no
>>> proselytizing today, would there?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>> Who told you I was proselytizing?
>> Robert B. Winn
>
> You did, Robert, when you started quoting your book of myth to us
> non-believers.
>
Whose "book of myths" do YOU quote to reference your position? I bet
it's only your very personal and private self-exalted opinion, which like
some secular pope, you regard as infallible in matters of religion, ..of
which you know little, if anything.



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

 

[Mettas Mother]

Let's Assume that your GOD exists!
Atheists do not believe about the existence or non-existence of God. God
knows God exists and therefore God does not need to believe about something
that God knows. So God does not believe in the existence of God. So God is
an Atheist!

"stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message news:1bydnXvs-olsF27YnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@ptd.net...

> 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

 

[Mettas Mother]

Let's Assume that your GOD exists!
Atheists do not believe about the existence or non-existence of God. God
knows God exists and therefore God does not need to believe about something
that God knows. So God does not believe in the existence of God. So God is
an Atheist!

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1173586498.237843.166480@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...

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

 

[Mettas Mother]

Let's Assume that your GOD exists!
Atheists do not believe about the existence or non-existence of God. God
knows God exists and therefore God does not need to believe about something
that God knows. So God does not believe in the existence of God. So God is
an Atheist!

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1173585484.403672.263890@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...

> Well, then, you atheists get exactly what you say you want, and
> everyone will be happy, right?
> Robert B. Winn