NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173273021.538983.179950@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
Tell us about that "imposition"? But I'm not holding my breath till you
do, for it's pretty certain, that when it comes down it, you object to
being told to keep your pants up in public. LOL



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Clark Kent's father was created by an Atheist?

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1173568015.694513.177470@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 10:13�am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Clark Kent's father must be the GOD that rbwinn is referring to!

No, I do not worship any gods created by atheists.
Robert B. Winn
 
Could a GOD that don't exist lie?

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1173567961.463107.54090@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> 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

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!
 
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173273176.499928.288000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
We believe someone, i.e. the Biblical authors, much like you believe
others telling you, that man went to the moon. Or did you check that the
whole thing wasn't just a politically inspired fake to show up the Russian
Communists, and found the claim to be justified?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173274048.270648.39520@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 10:53?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > > Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > earth?
>> >
>> > > > That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if
>> > > > he
>> > > > existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just
>> > > > too
>> > > > cute for words!
>> >
>> > > > No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's
>> > > > not
>> > > > cute at all, it's just ridiculous.
>> >
>> > > Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with. ?Why
>> > > don't you take an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ after
>> > > he
>> > > returns to judge the earth?
>> >
>> > Like I said, a grown man saying these things: ridiculous.
>> >
>> > Here's a tip, Skippy. For a threat to work, the person at whom the
>> > threat is directed has to believe the threat is real. Otherwise, you
>> > come across like a four year old child trying to scare his parents by
>> > claiming a monster is in the closet.
>> >
>> > Does any of this make sense to you?
>>
>> Nothing any atheist has ever said to me made any sense. You are no
>> exception.
>
> That explains so much about you.
>
Atheists don't make any sense, for the god they waste their life
lambasting, is some comic book character and not originated by any Theist
scripture.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:06:10 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<45f45505$0$16352$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>news:1173274048.270648.39520@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 6, 10:53?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>>> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > > > > Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > earth?
>>> >
>>> > > > That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if
>>> > > > he
>>> > > > existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just
>>> > > > too
>>> > > > cute for words!
>>> >
>>> > > > No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's
>>> > > > not
>>> > > > cute at all, it's just ridiculous.
>>> >
>>> > > Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with. ?Why
>>> > > don't you take an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ after
>>> > > he
>>> > > returns to judge the earth?
>>> >
>>> > Like I said, a grown man saying these things: ridiculous.
>>> >
>>> > Here's a tip, Skippy. For a threat to work, the person at whom the
>>> > threat is directed has to believe the threat is real. Otherwise, you
>>> > come across like a four year old child trying to scare his parents by
>>> > claiming a monster is in the closet.
>>> >
>>> > Does any of this make sense to you?
>>>
>>> Nothing any atheist has ever said to me made any sense. You are no
>>> exception.
>>
>> That explains so much about you.
>>
> Atheists don't make any sense, for the god they waste their life
>lambasting, is some comic book character and not originated by any Theist
>scripture.

Atheists don't lambaste gods.
 
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:50:22 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.edu> 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.

So ... then the Christians "didn't" let Hitler do his thing, killing
millions?
______________________________________

Gospel Bretts
a.a. atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist
 
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:10:30 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:

>"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.

Is that all God is, then, Frank? Love?
______________________________________

Gospel Bretts
a.a. atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist
 
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:54:56 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:

>"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.

How do you know what Jesus would do, then, Frank? Do you feel it in
your heart?
______________________________________

Gospel Bretts
a.a. atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist
 
rbwinn wrote:
> 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?
>
That isn't what characterizes atheism, moron, "Atheism is characterized
by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
--http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Even you should be able to grasp that.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2:10?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 10:34?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 9, 1:10?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> 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.
>>>>>> There you go again, trying to think without the proper tool.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> Actually, I had the book of Isaiah.
>>>> You missed this line:
>>>> Isaiah 5:18 Woe to those who draw sin along with cords of deceit
>>>> And this one:
>>>> Deuteronomy 5:20 You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.- Hide quoted text -
>>> Actually, I q
>> What is your IQ, about 60 maybe?- Hide quoted text -
>>
> 147
>
Liar.
 
"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nju8v21tm5bdm6432gpfhdupdlfsfmp0tc@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:10:30 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
> <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>"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.
>
> Is that all God is, then, Frank? Love?
> Gospel Bretts
> a.a. atheist #2262
> Fundy Xian Atheist
>
That's what our Christian NT Bible says, and we believe it. But also
Christ demonstrated His love by laying down His innocent life on our behalf
and taking it up again. It suffices us. Do you mind?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nju8v21tm5bdm6432gpfhdupdlfsfmp0tc@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:10:30 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
> <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>"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.
>
> Is that all God is, then, Frank? Love?
>
Jesus Christ evidenced God by giving His life on the cross of Calvary
for us sinners and not for His own benefit, nor for anyone virtuous or
perfect, nor famous or deserving.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cmu8v2hl04u68j3sr3regh5625rlqk0cc0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:54:56 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
> <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>"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.
>
> How do you know what Jesus would do, then, Frank? Do you feel it in
> your heart?
>
Same as you would know what someone you love would do, or would not do.



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

Do you even know what the word paranoia means? I know the words
"cynicism and paranoia" sounds somber and important, but they are utter
nonsense in the context of this conversation.

And I fail to see what "believing in Jesus" and "submitting our will to
His" has to do with the topic at hand. We were talking about the
nauseating Hallmark catchphrase "What Would Jesus Do", and why it is a
complete misconception, why it is nothing more than a way to deflect
responsibility.

If this is the best language you can find to discuss this issue, then we
have nothing further to talk about.
 
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:15:22 -0700, Sippuuden <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <CKqdnUXGtuoTEGnYnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com>
>rbwinn wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>That isn't what characterizes atheism, moron, "Atheism is characterized
>by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
>--http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
>
>Even you should be able to grasp that.

He does grasp it.
He is desperately thrashing about for attention.

--
 
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:16:21 -0700, Sippuuden <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <CKqdnUTGtupYEGnYnZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com>
>rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 2:10?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>> On Mar 10, 10:34?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 9, 1:10?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> 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.
>>>>>>> There you go again, trying to think without the proper tool.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> Actually, I had the book of Isaiah.
>>>>> You missed this line:
>>>>> Isaiah 5:18 Woe to those who draw sin along with cords of deceit
>>>>> And this one:
>>>>> Deuteronomy 5:20 You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> Actually, I q
>>> What is your IQ, about 60 maybe?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>> 147
> >
>Liar.

He dropped a decimal place.

--
 
Mettas Mother wrote:

> 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
>
===>The fictional character "Jesus" is called "Christ",
but he never said he was "Jehovah". -- L.
 
On Mar 11, 7:48�am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2007 06:25:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1173619548.842755.64...@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.
 
On 11 Mar 2007 19:10:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1173665421.549142.205870@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>:
>On Mar 11, 7:48?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 11 Mar 2007 06:25:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1173619548.842755.64...@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. (at 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.
>
>Well, if it does not matter to you, why are you so insistent on
>contradicting everything I say?

I don't contradict everything you say. I point out your errors or the
unsupported claims you make. When you post facts, I don't have any
problems.

> The only thing I can do is refer you
>to Jesus Christ or quote one of his prophets such as Isaiah. You have
>no answer for Jesus Christ or Isaiah. You have no way to refute
>them, whereas, if I tried to answer from my own resources, you would
>convince yourself that you had in someway overcome me.-

When it comes to the Bible there is nothing to refute, except the
purposes that some people try to turn it to. But I don't blame the Bible
for the misuse that some people make of it.
 

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