NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[Michael Gray]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:08:16 -0700, scottrichter422@yahoo.com (Scott
Richter) wrote:
- Refer: <1hv25n9.1tyskjkjwslh4N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com>
>rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> > >> I'd like you to send a copy to Jesse Ventura.- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > > OK. ?Give me his address.
>> > > Robert B. Winn
>> >
>> > If you really love god, you'll look it up.- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> I just don't feel inspired to do it.
>
>Why do you hate God?

For not existing.

--

 

[Pastor Frank]

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bo5cv2pq560umqnsekiad075a32trqqefk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:19:37 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <aerbv2t4fu5gcq3juhe9lhodsf5mdad6m4@4ax.com>
>>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:59:38 +0800, in alt.atheism
>>"Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote in
>><et4pgb$nee$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>>>Then who lied?
>>>"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1173736219.690065.4540@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> > On Mar 12, 4:14?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > How do you know that that was not a lie?
>>>
>>>Well, go ahead and point. Jesus Christ did not lie.
>>
>>We have no idea if any of the claims made in the gospels are true.
>>
>>We have no idea what Jesus actually said.
>>
>>We have no idea whether Jesus had anything to do with any god or not.
>>
>>We have no idea whether you have interpreted what is written correctly.
>
> More to the point: We have no extant contemporary evidence that this
> "Jesus" ever existed at all, let alone what he may have said.
>
Which is of course totally irrelevant. Or are you saying, that had you
undeniable evidence of Jesus' existence you would become a Christian
forthwith?



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

 

[Paul Ransom Erickson]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:59:30 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
wrote:

>Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:14:40 +1030, Michael Gray
>> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:45:50 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> - Refer: <QJWdnVzGDdRYxG3YnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:50:43 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> - Refer: <upadnfHJF_WXC3LYnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:35:26 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> - Refer: <yumdnbGnWIeDo3LYnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@ptd.net>
>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't you obey the Ten Commandments?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which version?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which one do you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ve ask ze qvestions here!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two versions at least in the Hebrew, many, many more if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "rely" on the excresent English or Latin translations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you trying to say that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can read Hebrew?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can read the Bible in Hebrew, yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you speak Aramaic as well?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "speak" it, but can read it, after a fashion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I heard Benny Hinn does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benny Hinn only speaks the pure bullshit language of a heartless
>>>>>>>>>>>>> con-artist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is a criminally fraudulent money vampire who is responsible for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> much suffering and premature death in his single-minded pursuit of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dollar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He makes Dracula look like Albert Schweitzer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can God speak Chinese?
>>>>>>>>>>> Which god?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you believe in any?
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you familiar with the Christian God?
>>>>>>> As familiar as I am with Sherlock Holmes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know it does not exist?
>>>>> What "it" are you referring to, child?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are a vicously retarded
>>>>> infantile illiterate, who is wilfully ignorant to a truly astounding
>>>>> extent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you supply me with some minimal evidence to show that such a
>>>>> conclusion is unwarranted?
>>>>>
>>>> I read philosophy and law.
>>>> How about you?
>>> 1) You are anonymous, so that assertion is baseless.
>>> 2) Qualifications are not evidence in refutation of my assertion.
>>> 3) What have my qualifications got to do with my human ability to
>>> judge your maturity, literacy and ignorance, as displayed in your
>>> posts here?
>>>
>>> Uou confirm my dianosis with every illogical retort.
>>> Your responses are all logical fallacies.
>>>
>>> But, I see that you are a philosopher.
>>> No ****ing wonder you cannot employ logic or reason!
>>
>> Stumper thinks that stumper is opening our eyes to vast vistas we have
>> never yet imagined.
>>
>> Stumper thinks too much of stumper.
>>
>
>
>Stumper is simply humming along the highway of life.
>He see some people driving with their eyes closed.
>He honks as he passes them as soon as possible.
>
>It's not easy to prove that something does not exist.
>It would be a lot easier to show that
>you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it.

Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me.

I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of
some partucular god is self-contradictory.

I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish
prose. Go honk at yourself.

 

[stumper]

Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist.
>> It would be a lot easier to show that
>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it.
>
> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me.
>
> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of
> some partucular god is self-contradictory.
>
> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish
> prose. Go honk at yourself.
>
>

Wonderful.

Care to help me pin down those assumptions?

--
~Stumper

 

[ZenIsWhen]

"Jeff Whittaker" <jeff@northnet.org> wrote in message
news:gmsiv21i3b6bjfqn3mbi3qgl3esbc58ndq@4ax.com...
> On 15 Mar 2007 04:11:07 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 14, 10:00?pm, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote:
>>> On 14 Mar 2007 20:09:37 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Mar 14, 8:22?am, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote:
>>> >> On 13 Mar 2007 17:46:23 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >On Mar 13, 3:56?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>>> >> >> > On Mar 13, 11:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> Richo wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without
>>> >> >> >>> "proof"
>>> >> >> >>> - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable.
>>> >> >> >> That may be the doctrine in your religion, but not everyone
>>> >> >> >> agrees with
>>> >> >> >> you. For instance:
>>>
>>> >> >> >> "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things
>>> >> >> >> without
>>> >> >> >> evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
>>>
>>> >> >> > Evidence does not work on atheists.
>>>
>>> >> >> I am atheist and evidence works on me. So what you say is false,
>>> >> >> Bob.
>>> >> >> >> They only acknowledge evidence
>>> >> >> > which they believe supports their philosophy.
>>> >> >> > Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> >> >> Don't be stupid, Bob. That's the theist MO.
>>>
>>> >> >I am not stupid.
>>>
>>> theists only acknowledge evidence that they believe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> >supports their philosophy. %ll, let's check you out.
>>> >> > 7 = velocity of light
>>> >> > 8=wt
>>> >> > 8'=wt'
>>> >> > 'amma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/w^2)
>>>
>>> >> > w = x/t = x'/t' = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/w^2)gamma = (x-
>>> >> >vt)/(t-vt/w)
>>>
>>> >> > f you acknowledge these equations, you will be the first
>>> >> >atheist to do so. % can go to other subjects if you like. (at else
>>> >> >would you like to discuss?
>>> >> >Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> >> Well, Bobby, usually when one presents a series of equations, it is
>>> >> usually nice to define what all the variables are and what you are
>>> >> trying to prove.
>>>
>>> >> See, I can use crappy math to prove that 1=2
>>>
>>> >> Assume a=b
>>> >> Multiply both sides by a: a a=a b => a^2=ab
>>> >> Add the same amount (a^2) to both sides of the equation:
>>> >> a^2 + a^2=ab + a^2
>>> >> Simplify: 2a^2=ab + a^2
>>> >> Subtract the same amount (2ab) from both sides of the equation:
>>> >> 2a^2 - 2ab=ab + a^2 - 2ab
>>> >> Simplify: 2a^2 - 2ab=a^2 - ab
>>> >> Factor left side: 2(a^2 - ab)=a^2 - ab
>>> >> Cancel (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives: 2=1
>>>
>>> >> However, my 'proof' fails cause it divides by zero at the end. I'm
>>> >> not
>>> >> enitely sure what your formula is trying to 'prove', but without more
>>> >> information, it's just a string of nonsense that doesn't tell me
>>> >> anything. And apparently you are just cutting and pasting it from the
>>> >> same retarded source each time because every time I've seen you post
>>> >> it, it's always indented by the exact same, irritating amount.- Hide
>>> >> quoted text -
>>>
>>> >Einstein and Lorentz already defined all the terms in the equations
>>> >except the term for velocity of light. took that from Poincaire's
>>> >equations. o how do you claim your equations and comments apply to
>>> >the equations I posted?
>>> >Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> I am not claiming my equations apply to the ones you posted. What I am
>>> claiming is that equations with insufficent information as to what
>>> they pertain to and bad assumptions about what a step might be doing
>>> (ie dividing by zero), proves absolutely nothing. Explain what you are
>>> trying to show with your equations and then someone might listen to
>>> you. No, wait, you are an incoherent babling butt-munch. Instead of
>>> trying to explain anything you will quote a random bit of your
>>> scripture thinking that will explain everything.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>I already told you what the equations show. They show that Einstein
>>was correct in his original statement that the Lorentz equations show
>>that light is transmitted at a constant velocity. Then Einstein
>>immediately used c=186,000 miles per second for velocity of light,
>>completely ignoring the fact that if light is proceeding in the -x
>>direction relative to a set of Cartesian coordinates such as he said
>>he was using, the velocity of a photon going in that direction would
>>be -186,000 miles per second relative to the Cartesian coordinates,
>>not +186,000 miles per second.
>>This eliminates the distance contraction that scientists use to
>>explain their interpretation of transmission of light.
>>The fact that you cannot understand what I just said does not affect
>>it in any way. The same is true of anything said in the Bible. The
>>ignorance of one person does not affect God and his works.
>>Robert B. Winn
>
> Does somebody that knows a more about physics and relativity want to
> take this? I don't know enough about the details to argue effectively.
> The only thing I can say at this point is that suddenly slapping a
> negative sign on a velocity shouldn't change anything as far as the
> equations are concerned...it's just the same velocity in the opposite
> direction. So instead of our observer seeing things going from left to
> right, he is instead seeing them go from right to left.

Well, the first thing, of course, is to demand that winn supply reference
for his base claims.
He can't and won't.
Einstein used that particular speed of light because it was scientifically
determined many-many years before.
There is no "-x" speed.
You're just totally, and ignorantly, mixing direction with speed.

The fact is, I can understand what you just said, and, as usual, it's
nothing more than a pile of deranged crap!

 

[Pastor Frank]

"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:d84dv2l6g94ddopnf094l2q8gr1b2gr8be@4ax.com...
>
> Jesus is gonna be like those who kept the ovens at the Nazi
> concentration camps burning. Quite a nice loving god he's got there,
> don't you think?
>
God does His loving through loving and caring people.



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1173793632.109569.102210@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 8:15�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:19:37 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <aerbv2t4fu5gcq3juhe9lhodsf5mdad...@4ax.com>
> >On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:59:38 +0800, in alt.atheism
> >"Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> ><et4pgb$ne...@registered.motzarella.org>:
> >>Then who lied?
> >>"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1173736219.690065.4540@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Mar 12, 4:14?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> > How do you know that that was not a lie?
>
> >>Well, go ahead and point. Jesus Christ did not lie.
>
> >We have no idea if any of the claims made in the gospels are true.
> >We have no idea what Jesus actually said.
> >We have no idea whether Jesus had anything to do with any god or not.
> >We have no idea whether you have interpreted what is written correctly.
>
> More to the point: We have no extant contemporary evidence that this
> "Jesus" ever existed at all, let alone what he may have said.
>
I see. So do you live in a Bhuddist monastary? I can send you a copy
of the Bible if you do not have one.
Robert B. Winn
----------------------
Why would he bother to live in a Buddhist monastery, for like Jesus
Christ, Gautama Buddha never wrote a word, and there is no evidence he ever
lived, nor said anything?



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:kfddv2dlosjdiheqvterls80scta6hdhep@4ax.com...
> rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>> Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>> Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Jesus is gonna kill people?
>
>>>> Malachi 4:1 or, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven:
>>>> and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble,
>>>> and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts,
>>>> that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
>
>>> So Jesus is gonna burn up all the bad people?
>
>> The bad people are all going to burn up.
>
> What will Jesus be doing at that time? Stoking the fires?
>
Not at all!!! He will be right there within earshot, in case you want to
ask Him to help you go, where you can praise and worship for all eternity.
But then all bets are against you doing that, for you would rather be
someplace where you can complain, trash and flame for all eternity, isn't
that true? Burning up like that will suit your just fine.



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:njddv2h764hcld99oeglfq19h6n5fpeeln@4ax.com...
> Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in alt.atheism
>> Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
>>> rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> Where's heaven? Outer space?
>
>> Why would you ask such a dumb question for which the answer is right
>> there in the NT Bible? See below. "outer space" indeed. that only goes to
>> confirm that the god of atheist definition is some comic book character,
>> a
>> la Galacticus the devourer of worlds, or Odin of Valhalla, all of which
>> OBVIOUSLY don't exist.
>
>> Pastor Frank
>
>> Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when
>> the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The kingdom
>> of
>> God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
>> there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU."
>
> The Bible says Jesus ascended up into heaven, not inside people's
> bodies. He's supposed to be sitting at the right hand of his father
> up in heaven, on a throne. For every verse you come up with which
> says heaven is inside people's bodies, I can come up with one which
> says it's up in the sky, among the stars.
>
Jesus resurrected in everyone's heart and mind, only atheists make an
effort to ignore Him. Therefore the entire process takes place within you,
and not up thar in the sky.



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173797451.171523.196300@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news: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. 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.
>>
>> Well, if it does not matter to you, why are you so insistent on
>> contradicting everything I say? 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.-
>> Robert B. Winn
>> --------------------------
>> That's the way of the world, where opinions always reflect current
>> fashion. But we Christians are to be the light to the world and the salt
>> of
>> the earth, and the world will hate us for that, and seek to silence us,
>> if
>> not kill us, as it did Jesus Christ our most glorious Lord and Saviour.
>> Don't be discouraged Rob, as the vultures will gather wherever the
>> body
>> is (Mt:24:28), meaning those who witness Jesus Christ most effectively
>> will
>> be subjected to the fiercest opposition.
>
> The funny thing is, you're spreading this carrion like manure. If
> you'd quit digging it up and throwing it at others like monkeys
> flinging ****, the complaints would go way down.
>
Thanks for proving my point.



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173798181.342485.293510@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 4:59?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Then who lied?
>>
>> The people who accuse Jesus Christ of lying lied.
>
> Really. So who is still alive that was there listening to Jesus when
> he said "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
> shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
> kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)?
>
All born-again Christians have seen Christ coming into His Kingdom, and
are alive to tell about it. What's your point?



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173798256.977497.303240@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 5:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >
>> > Do they? I certainly don't say that. It would be interesting for you to
>> > present a statement from an atheist showing that the atheist would
>> > reject such a thing.
>> > I don't believe the claims of people about gods because the claims are
>> > unsupported by evidence.-
>>
>> Well, how do you accept the atonement of Christ without admitting he
>> exists?
>
> Easy. There isn't any, because it's a fairy tale.
>
That's an assertion which needs evidence.



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"ZenIsWhen" <hereslooking@you.com> wrote in message
news:RBzJh.2283$8u4.1631@trnddc08...
> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1173797097.983303.247550@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 13, 5:04?am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> freenorm <freen...@verizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> >> On Mar 12, 3:07?pm, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >>>> Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >>>>>> On Mar 12, 6:39?am, Elroy Willis wrote:
>> >>>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >>>>>>>> Our Father Which art in Heaven.
>> >>>>>>> Where's heaven? Outer space?
>> >>>>> > Where there is no sin.
>> >>>>> So it can't possibly be on Earth, since sin is so rampant here,
>> >>>>> right?
>> >>>> Earth will become part of the kingdom of heaven after Jesus Christ
>> >>>> returns and the earth is cleansed of wickedness.
>> >>> Jesus is gonna kill people?
>> >> Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven:
>> >> and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble,
>> >> and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts,
>> >> that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
>> >> Robert B. Winn
>> >
>> > If you believe that biblical bull ****!
>>
>> Jesus is gonna be like those who kept the ovens at the Nazi
>> concentration camps burning. Quite a nice loving god he's got there,
>> don't you think?
>
> Well, you atheists accuse God or Jesus Christ of murder every time a
> natural event or a death of any kind takes place. The fact is,
> though, all it would take to prevent this natural disaster would be
> the repentance of the people. It is no different today than when
> Jonah propesied to Ninevah, Yet forty days and Ninevah will be
> destroyed. The people of Ninevah repented from the king on his throne
> to the begger in the street. Ninevah was not destroyed.
> Jonah went outside the city and prayed that he might die because his
> prophecy did not take place.
> Robert B. Winn
>
> Haven't been in touch with reality for a long time ..... huh?!?!?!
>
"Reality" your god? You better retract that, or atheist central is going
to yank your number.



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

 

[Scott Richter]

rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> On Mar 15, 5:55?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > How do you know that the father of Jesus is GOD!
> >
> Jesus Christ said that he was the Son of God.

My crazy Uncle Harold claimed HE was the Son of God, just before they
institutionalized him.

Small world, I guess...

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 16, 8:08 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > We've heard your lame argument that "Stalin was an atheist and he killed
> > > millions of people" countless times before. It doesn't stand up.
> > > Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his motives, he didn't kill in
> > > the name of atheism--unlike the nineteen hijackers.
>
> > Well, I think he did. What about abortion doctors? They have killed
> > about 60,000,000 Americans since 1973. Are you saying that they do
> > not do what they do in the name of atheism?
>
> No, of course they don't.
>
> Do you have any conception (no pun intended) that other people can have
> different opinions about issues like abortion without being atheists or
> doing things "in the name of atheism" (whatever that means)? Abortion is
> a safe and legal medical procedure, and is done at the request of the
> woman seeking medical attention. Your moral posturing contributes
> nothing to the discussion.
>
> Your figure of 60,000,000 abortions in the US since 1973 is too high by
> at least a factor of two; if you're going to quote statistics, please be
> a little more accurate.
>
> And finally, we're not talking about "Americans" any more than you could
> describe unborn fetuses as "truck drivers" or "golfers" or "Dixie Chicks
> fans". They're FETUSES, they aren't people. I'm not sure where you come
> up with such kooky descriptions (actually, I am pretty sure where you
> come up with such kooky descriptions.)
>
> If this is the level of your debating skills, then we have little
> further to talk about.


We have nothing to talk about. I use words with their actual
meanings, not with meanings given to them by atheists. The fact that
atheists can say that unborn children are not human beings means
nothing to me. I can tell that they are human beings.
Robert B. Winn

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 16, 8:08 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >> I'd like you to send a copy to Jesse Ventura.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > OK. ?Give me his address.
> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > If you really love god, you'll look it up.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I just don't feel inspired to do it.
>
> Why do you hate God?

Jesse Ventura is not God, and I do not hate him in any event. If you
want to give me his address, I will send him a Bible.
Robert B. Winn

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 16, 10:03 am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 9:27?am, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote:
> >> On 15 Mar 2007 04:11:07 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 14, 10:00?pm, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote:
> >>>> On 14 Mar 2007 20:09:37 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 14, 8:22?am, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 13 Mar 2007 17:46:23 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 13, 3:56?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 13, 11:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Richo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without "proof"
> >>>>>>>>>>> - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>> That may be the doctrine in your religion, but not everyone agrees with
> >>>>>>>>>> you. For instance:
> >>>>>>>>>> "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
> >>>>>>>>>> evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
> >>>>>>>>> Evidence does not work on atheists.
> >>>>>>>> I am atheist and evidence works on me. So what you say is false, Bob.
> >>>>>>>>>> They only acknowledge evidence
> >>>>>>>>> which they believe supports their philosophy.
> >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>>>> Don't be stupid, Bob. That's the theist MO.
> >>>>>>> I am not stupid.
> >>>> theists only acknowledge evidence that they believe
> >>>>>>> supports their philosophy. %ll, let's check you out.
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? 7 = velocity of light
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? 8=wt
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? 8'=wt'
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? 'amma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/w^2)
> >>>>>>> ? ? w = x/t = x'/t' = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/w^2)gamma = (x-
> >>>>>>> vt)/(t-vt/w)
> >>>>>>> ? ? ?f you acknowledge these equations, you will be the first
> >>>>>>> atheist to do so. % can go to other subjects if you like. (at else
> >>>>>>> would you like to discuss?
> >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>> Well, Bobby, usually when one presents a series of equations, it is
> >>>>>> usually nice to define what all the variables are and what you are
> >>>>>> trying to prove.
> >>>>>> See, I can use crappy math to prove that 1=2
> >>>>>> Assume a=b
> >>>>>> Multiply both sides by a: a a=a b => a^2=ab
> >>>>>> Add the same amount (a^2) to both sides of the equation:
> >>>>>> ? a^2 + a^2=ab + a^2
> >>>>>> Simplify: 2a^2=ab + a^2
> >>>>>> Subtract the same amount (2ab) from both sides of the equation:
> >>>>>> ? 2a^2 - 2ab=ab + a^2 - 2ab
> >>>>>> Simplify: 2a^2 - 2ab=a^2 - ab
> >>>>>> Factor left side: 2(a^2 - ab)=a^2 - ab
> >>>>>> Cancel (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives: 2=1
> >>>>>> However, my 'proof' fails cause it divides by zero at the end. I'm not
> >>>>>> enitely sure what your formula is trying to 'prove', but without more
> >>>>>> information, it's just a string of nonsense that doesn't tell me
> >>>>>> anything. And apparently you are just cutting and pasting it from the
> >>>>>> same retarded source each time because every time I've seen you post
> >>>>>> it, it's always indented by the exact same, irritating amount.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> Einstein and Lorentz already defined all the terms in the equations
> >>>>> except the term for velocity of light. ? ? ?took that from Poincaire's
> >>>>> equations. ?o how do you claim your equations and comments apply to
> >>>>> the equations I posted?
> >>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>> I am not claiming my equations apply to the ones you posted. What I am
> >>>> claiming is that equations with insufficent information as to what
> >>>> they pertain to and bad assumptions about what a step might be doing
> >>>> (ie dividing by zero), proves absolutely nothing. Explain what you are
> >>>> trying to show with your equations and then someone might listen to
> >>>> you. No, wait, you are an incoherent babling butt-munch. Instead of
> >>>> trying to explain anything you will quote a random bit of your
> >>>> scripture thinking that will explain everything.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> I already told you what the equations show. ?They show that Einstein
> >>> was correct in his original statement that the Lorentz equations show
> >>> that light is transmitted at a constant velocity.
>
> >
> What does any of this have to do with the evidence of God you were going
> to produce to show that your statement, "Evidence does not work on
> atheists' is correct?
>
> Aren't you just trying to change the subject, trying to create a
> diversion away from your inability to produce such evidence?

Jesus Christ said he was the light and life of the world. How would
equations describing transmission of light be changing the subject?
Robert B. Winn

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 16, 10:08 pm, "ZenIsWhen" <hereslook...@you.com> wrote:
> "Jeff Whittaker" <j...@northnet.org> wrote in message
>
> news:gmsiv21i3b6bjfqn3mbi3qgl3esbc58ndq@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On 15 Mar 2007 04:11:07 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 14, 10:00?pm, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote:
> >>> On 14 Mar 2007 20:09:37 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >On Mar 14, 8:22?am, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote:
> >>> >> On 13 Mar 2007 17:46:23 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> >On Mar 13, 3:56?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> >>> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >>> >> >> > On Mar 13, 11:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> Richo wrote:
>
> >>> >> >> >>> The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without
> >>> >> >> >>> "proof"
> >>> >> >> >>> - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable.
> >>> >> >> >> That may be the doctrine in your religion, but not everyone
> >>> >> >> >> agrees with
> >>> >> >> >> you. For instance:
>
> >>> >> >> >> "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things
> >>> >> >> >> without
> >>> >> >> >> evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
>
> >>> >> >> > Evidence does not work on atheists.
>
> >>> >> >> I am atheist and evidence works on me. So what you say is false,
> >>> >> >> Bob.
> >>> >> >> >> They only acknowledge evidence
> >>> >> >> > which they believe supports their philosophy.
> >>> >> >> > Robert B. Winn
>
> >>> >> >> Don't be stupid, Bob. That's the theist MO.
>
> >>> >> >I am not stupid.
>
> >>> theists only acknowledge evidence that they believe
>
> >>> >> >supports their philosophy. %ll, let's check you out.
> >>> >> > 7 = velocity of light
> >>> >> > 8=wt
> >>> >> > 8'=wt'
> >>> >> > 'amma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/w^2)
>
> >>> >> > w = x/t = x'/t' = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/w^2)gamma = (x-
> >>> >> >vt)/(t-vt/w)
>
> >>> >> > f you acknowledge these equations, you will be the first
> >>> >> >atheist to do so. % can go to other subjects if you like. (at else
> >>> >> >would you like to discuss?
> >>> >> >Robert B. Winn
>
> >>> >> Well, Bobby, usually when one presents a series of equations, it is
> >>> >> usually nice to define what all the variables are and what you are
> >>> >> trying to prove.
>
> >>> >> See, I can use crappy math to prove that 1=2
>
> >>> >> Assume a=b
> >>> >> Multiply both sides by a: a a=a b => a^2=ab
> >>> >> Add the same amount (a^2) to both sides of the equation:
> >>> >> a^2 + a^2=ab + a^2
> >>> >> Simplify: 2a^2=ab + a^2
> >>> >> Subtract the same amount (2ab) from both sides of the equation:
> >>> >> 2a^2 - 2ab=ab + a^2 - 2ab
> >>> >> Simplify: 2a^2 - 2ab=a^2 - ab
> >>> >> Factor left side: 2(a^2 - ab)=a^2 - ab
> >>> >> Cancel (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives: 2=1
>
> >>> >> However, my 'proof' fails cause it divides by zero at the end. I'm
> >>> >> not
> >>> >> enitely sure what your formula is trying to 'prove', but without more
> >>> >> information, it's just a string of nonsense that doesn't tell me
> >>> >> anything. And apparently you are just cutting and pasting it from the
> >>> >> same retarded source each time because every time I've seen you post
> >>> >> it, it's always indented by the exact same, irritating amount.- Hide
> >>> >> quoted text -
>
> >>> >Einstein and Lorentz already defined all the terms in the equations
> >>> >except the term for velocity of light. took that from Poincaire's
> >>> >equations. o how do you claim your equations and comments apply to
> >>> >the equations I posted?
> >>> >Robert B. Winn
>
> >>> I am not claiming my equations apply to the ones you posted. What I am
> >>> claiming is that equations with insufficent information as to what
> >>> they pertain to and bad assumptions about what a step might be doing
> >>> (ie dividing by zero), proves absolutely nothing. Explain what you are
> >>> trying to show with your equations and then someone might listen to
> >>> you. No, wait, you are an incoherent babling butt-munch. Instead of
> >>> trying to explain anything you will quote a random bit of your
> >>> scripture thinking that will explain everything.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>I already told you what the equations show. They show that Einstein
> >>was correct in his original statement that the Lorentz equations show
> >>that light is transmitted at a constant velocity. Then Einstein
> >>immediately used c=186,000 miles per second for velocity of light,
> >>completely ignoring the fact that if light is proceeding in the -x
> >>direction relative to a set of Cartesian coordinates such as he said
> >>he was using, the velocity of a photon going in that direction would
> >>be -186,000 miles per second relative to the Cartesian coordinates,
> >>not +186,000 miles per second.
> >>This eliminates the distance contraction that scientists use to
> >>explain their interpretation of transmission of light.
> >>The fact that you cannot understand what I just said does not affect
> >>it in any way. The same is true of anything said in the Bible. The
> >>ignorance of one person does not affect God and his works.
> >>Robert B. Winn
>
> > Does somebody that knows a more about physics and relativity want to
> > take this? I don't know enough about the details to argue effectively.
> > The only thing I can say at this point is that suddenly slapping a
> > negative sign on a velocity shouldn't change anything as far as the
> > equations are concerned...it's just the same velocity in the opposite
> > direction. So instead of our observer seeing things going from left to
> > right, he is instead seeing them go from right to left.
>
> Well, the first thing, of course, is to demand that winn supply reference
> for his base claims.
> He can't and won't.
> Einstein used that particular speed of light because it was scientifically
> determined many-many years before.
> There is no "-x" speed.
> You're just totally, and ignorantly, mixing direction with speed.
>
> The fact is, I can understand what you just said, and, as usual, it's
> nothing more than a pile of deranged crap!

Well, you have made a statement, now prove it. Mathematics supports
my equations, not Einstein's. Speed is nothing more than the
magnitude of velocity. Velocity has both magnitude and direction.
Einstein set the problem up, not me. He worked it wrong, causing the
ignorance that exists in the scientific world on this subject today.
I worked the problem correctly, causing the outcry and persecution
presently taking place.
All I need to do to show my equations correct is use them to
describe a photon traveling along the x axis in the -x direction.
When you have found a physicist or mathematician who says he can prove
the equations worng, come back and tell me about it.
Robert B. Winn

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 17, 6:13 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 5:55?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > How do you know that the father of Jesus is GOD!
>
> > Jesus Christ said that he was the Son of God.
>
> My crazy Uncle Harold claimed HE was the Son of God, just before they
> institutionalized him.
>
> Small world, I guess...

You did not have a crazy Uncle Harold who said he was the Son of God.
Robert B. Winn

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 15, 5:55 am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How do you know that the father of Jesus is GOD!
>
Jesus Christ said he was the Son of God.
Robert B. Winn