SIMPLE EVIDENCE OF NO GODS

On Apr 17, 12:19�pm, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 12:33 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 9:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> > > > > > Presenting it to an atheist is no more
> > > > > > productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of
> > > > > > lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the
> > > > > > middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left
> > > > > > on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train
> > > > > > apart.
>
> > > > > The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be
> > > > > different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving
> > > > at the speed of light would be zero.
>
> > > And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's
> > calculations.
 
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1176723436.306260.254190@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1176600022.622001.298550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Apr 3, 2:59 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the
>> >> actual
>> >> existence of millions of atheists.
>> >> If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill the
>> >> atheists and send them to his Hell.
>> >> If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly
>> >> communicate
>> >> his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them of
>> >> its
>> >> existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden causing
>> >> the
>> >> atheists to spend eternity in his Hell.
>> >
>> > What if he is neither "mean and intolerant" or "caring and loving"?
>> >
>> Bill is in the habit to ignore our God incarnate, Jesus Christ
>> "communicating His existence" well enough, and he forgets, that we killed
>> Him for it.
>
> In a popular fairy tale, you mean.
>
That's an assertion needing evidence.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Apr 17, 6:42?pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2007 08:44:17 -0700, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>
> >rbwinn wrote:
> >> Well, as I understand it, even atheist Al Klein is considering the idea that a book might be an object.
> >Keep running.
>
> I'm considering the thought that Winn may be an object too - brick
> from the shoulders up.



Al is considering a thought. Isn't it wonderful to live in a world
where even atheists can have new experiences?
Robert B. Winn
 

>
> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1176729543.856883.19750@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 15, 11:12?pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:39:36 -0700, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott
> >
> > Richter) wrote:
> > >rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> I have asked a few third graders what the answer is, and they all
seem to
> > >> agree with me, not with Einstein.
> ><snip>>
Has there been any new abstract ideas in physics to emerge in the
last 70 years regarding natures foundations, comparable to the
discoveries of Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Planck,
Heisenberg, Bohr, Schr
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:14?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 10:35?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 16, 9:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>rbwinn wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>On Apr 16, 4:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>rbwinn wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>>On Apr 15, 3:30?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>rbwinn wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>On Apr 15, 5:33?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > > >>>>>>>>>news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>rbwinn wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>give them...
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Jesus coming back!
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>who keep their word.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>You're talking about fictional characters again?
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>I saw this in alt religion.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>So? ?Does that make your fictional character real?
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? ?The xian
> > > > >>>>>>>>bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> > > > >>>>>>>>e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> > > > >>>>>>>>Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. ?Of
> > > > >>>>>>>>course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> > > > >>>>>>>>but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> > > > >>>>>>>>deities, does it? ?How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> > > > >>>>>>>>nonexistent before disbelieving in them? ?There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> > > > >>>>>>>>VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ?ANYWHERE. ?EVER. ?In light of
> > > > >>>>>>>>that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> > > > >>>>>>>>responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> > > > >>>>>>>>prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> > > > >>>>>>>>accept the assertion.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> > > > >>>>>>>>dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> > > > >>>>>>>>objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in
> > > > >>>>>>>court.
> >
> > > > >>>>>>Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > >>>>>>- Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > >>>>>It is done every day.
> >
> > > > >>>>Where, liar? ?In your fantasies? ?If you have objective, verifiable
> > > > >>>>evidence, please present it; you will be the first in over 2000 years.
> >
> > > > >>I take it you will continue not presenting any objective, verifiable
> > > > >>evidence for your assertion. ?There's a surprise.
> >
> > > > >>>>>Presenting it to an atheist is no more
> > > > >>>>>productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of
> > > > >>>>>lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the
> > > > >>>>>middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left
> > > > >>>>>on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train
> > > > >>>>>apart.
> >
> > > > >>>>The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be
> > > > >>>>different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > >>>>- Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > >>>Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving
> > > > >>>at the speed of light would be zero.
> >
> > > > >>And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's
> > > > > calculations. ?It kind of makes people wonder how photons happen to
> > > > > exist.
> >
> > > > Simple answer: ?The mathematical train in Einstein's calculations cannot
> > > > exist. ?Therefore, this discussion about lightning and trains is moot.
> >
> > > Maybe Einstein was a witch, but everyone likes to talk about his train.
> >
> > No, everyone likes to talk about your delusions. ?They amuse us.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Is that right? Did you catch my derivation of the Lorentz equations?

Yes, very amusing.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:17?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I have asked a few third graders what the answer is, and they all
> > > > > > > seem to agree with me, not with Einstein.
> >
> > > > > > Wow! Your crazy ideas about relativity pass the "third grader" test!
> > > > > > What an endorsement!
> >
> > > > > It is wonderful to talk to people whose minds are not completely
> > > > > corrupted by false teachings.
> >
> > > > So... you thought it was your job to introduce them to false teachings?
> > > > (You probably told them Jesus was coming back, too.)
> >
> > > > Next time, why don't you ask those third graders if Santa Claus is real?
> > > > If they say "Yes", then you'll have your proof for his existence,
> > > > because as you say, those kids have not been "corrupted by false
> > > > teachings"...
> >
> > > > Oh, and how many of those third graders were familiar with the Lorentz
> > > > equations?
> >
> > > Why would third graders want to be familiar with the Lorentz equations?
> >
> > So that they could validate your revolutionary theories about
> > relativity!
> >
> > That's why you did it, isn't it? You're looking for someone--anyone--to
> > agree with your nutty ideas about relativity, and since you haven't
> > gotten your work published in any scientific journal, since you've been
> > laughed out of every newsgroup you've visited, the only thing left was
> > third graders. That's a bit, er, nontraditional in the world of science,
> > but then again, you're a free thinker, aren't you?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am a free thinker.

You demonstrate otherwise.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:42?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 9:55?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > Your opinions about religion are of no interest to me.
> >
> > > > Of course they are; why else would you be hanging around in
> > > > alt.atheism? ?It certainly isn't to support any of your assertions,
> > > > since you've studiously avoided even pretending to do that.
> >
> > > > > I think you should discuss them with Jesus Christ when the time comes.
> >
> > > > Yes, you think many logically contradictory things, don't you?
> >
> > > > > Your argument is really with him.
> >
> > > > No, in fact it's with you and your unsupported assertions. ?You have
> > > > yet to explain how anyone can communicate in any way with figments of
> > > > your imagination.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Now, I do not think it is fair to Jeckyl to call him a figment of my imagination.
> >
> > Trouble following your own comments? ?Not my problem, but I'll
> > demonstrate some atheist compassion and point out that your "your
> > argument is really with him" statement refers to your immediately
> > previous statement "I think you should discuss them with Jesus Christ
> > when the time comes." ?You then fail to explain, again, how anyone can
> > communicate with the figment of your imagination you refer to as
> > "Jesus Christ," with whom you claim there is an argument that should
> > be discussed. ?Not that anyone is surprised; you routinely dodge
> > questions you don't like. ?It appears to be a requirement of your
> > religion.
> >
> > > I admit it is difficult to communicate with anyone who
> > > has been indoctrinated with the false teachings being ?taught in colleges.
> >
> > How dishonestly xian of you. ?Which "false teachings" would those be,
> > and how did you determine they were "false"?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, I was just showing Jeckyl some of the false things being taught about relativity.

You don't find it at all telling that you're the only person on the
planet making that assertion? Do you claim to be the world's most
misunderstood physicist?
 
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:eek:APRh.1206$qB4.326@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Like all typical Christians Pastor Dave relies on his imagination and
> ancient myths and fables to prove the existence of his god.
>
> And you counter with tons of factual objective verifiable evidence to
> support your claims.
>
Atheist always address these challenges to believers. What about
those people sitting on the fence? I.e. the undecided. How do you
convince these people who have yet to make up their mind as to
whether or not god(s) exist. How do you falsify the concept of
God?



>
> I'll vote with you Budikka666!
>
> "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1175903696.188523.73420@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 2:13 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> [snip preamble]
> > ...and the facts are that:
> >
> > 1) God did directly communicate His existence.
> > Those that were atheists chose not to believe.
>
> Another Standard Lie(TM) from Disaster Dave. That is, until and
> unless Disaster Dave can support it with evidence.
>
> Isn't it as hilarious as it is hypocritical as it is pathetic that
> Disaster Dave sets himself up as God Almighty demanding evidence from
> the evolutionists when there's quite literally mountains of it (from
> which he runs and hides every time he's bitch-slapped with it), and
> here he is making an assertion for which he can provide not an iota of
> evidence or rationale, let alone proof. LoL!
>
> > 2) Atheists dismiss the Bible as some ancient
> > fairy tale. But what if this time was the time
> > that Jesus came?
>
> Never gonna happen, Disaster Dave. Read on:
> Why the Holy Bible Lies #151 - Jesus lies about his return:
> Mat.16:28 "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."
> (Amplified in Mar. 9:1 & Luk. 9:27)
> And:
> Mat. 23:36 "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon
> this generation."
> (Amplified in Mat. 24:34, Mar. 13:30, Luk. 17:25, Luk. 21:32)
> So does Paul:
> 1 Cor. 7:29 "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it
> remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;"
> And:
> 1 The. 4:15 "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we
> which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not
> prevent them which are asleep."
>
> Some 2,000 years later, we're still waiting. This is the single most
> serious indictment of the Bible. It's not the word of a person, but
> purportedly the quoted words of the son-of-a-god. And he lied.
>
> There's no ambiguity here. He was speaking of the generation then
> alive. He was insisting that his return was imminent. According tot
> he Bible itself, everyone at the time believed it. Paul preached it.
> Look at this in Matthew 10:23: "But when they persecute you in this
> city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not
> have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come."
>
> That's Jesus himself again. Lying.
>
> This is the most important story in scripture for the Christians.
> It's the life of their savior. It was dictated by the Holy Spirit
> according to the Bible:
>
> "Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled,
> which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before..." (Act 1:16)
>
> "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
> righteousness:" (2Tim 3:16)
>
> "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
> men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2Pet 1:21)
>
> Jerome insisted that, for example, the book of Romans was dictated by
> the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul. Origen insisted that the
> scriptures are not the creation of human beings. And Jesus insisted
> in Matthew 22 that the Bible contained the direct words of this god
> himself!
>
> So it's supposed to be the most important communication ever given to
> humanity, dictated by the Holy Spirit, yet here we are, finding errors
> and lies galore. Why is that? Why does the Holy Bible lie? If it
> truly is the word of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving god, dictated
> to or inspired in people to record for posterity, why does it lie?
> Why are there errors and mistakes?
>
> Is it because this god is incompetent or uncaring? Is it because the
> message really isn't that important - or isn't important any more? Or
> does the Bible lie because it was not written by, nor inspired by, nor
> dictated by any god or Jesus or Holy "Ghost", but is solely,
> completely, and exclusively the invention of gullible, primitive
> people who didn't know any better?
>
> > Or even if God appeared
> > with fire and a cloud of smoke and spoke
> > to the people?
>
> Like he ever did! LoL! Does the omniscient and omnipotent creator of
> everything-from-nothing really cheapen himself with cheesy smoke-and-
> no-mirrors theatrics?
>
> > Let's say that many atheists
> > were converted. What would happen to
> > atheists who lived 2,000 years from now?
> > They would say that the writings written
> > today were a fairy tale and that any video
> > shot was a fake.
>
> That's because all the evidence points to the Bible being a fake when
> it talks about the supernatural, Disaster Dave.
>
> > Thus, what atheists want,
> > is not a reasonable reason to believe in God.
> > They want God to appear to each and every
> > generation.
>
> And he can't? Why is that, Disaster Dave? According to the Holy
> Bible, he didn't have any trouble appearing on a regular basis in
> person to the Israelites and the patriarchs.
>
> But somewhere along the line, he went WHOOMPH! and completely
> disappeared. Now he never appears to anyone no matter how desperate
> they are. Why is that Dave? Is it because the unchanging god
> changed? Or is it simply because it actually never happened except
> in the backward, superstitious minds of Bible writers?
>
> > And then, where is faith, that
> > even atheists admit that we must have in
> > loving relationships on Earth, but yet, won't
> > even consider when it comes to God, which
> > makes them nothing more than hypocrites!
>
> Where's the evidence for this god? You're so fond of demanding the
> evidence, nay proof, from evolutionists, so why is it when we ask the
> same of you, YOU RUN AWAY ?
>
> Remember back on September 13th 2005, Disaster Dave? Let me remind
> you: You'd put out a challenge: "A Call For Proof of
> Macroevolution" (which I met, providing 666 items of evidence and,
> yes, many PROOFS of macroevolution).
>
> You offered to discuss the evidence, and warned challengers to be
> prepared to discuss the science, but when I turned up to discuss the
> science YOU RAN AWAY . Remember that?
>
> On Septermber 13th I spoofed your challenge and put out " A CALL FOR
> PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD":
> http://tinyurl.com/3yz3tu
>
> Remember that, Disaster Dave? Yet despite my meeting your challenge
> and providing 666 items of evidence (including proofs) and being ready
> to discuss them, you RAN AWAY from my challenge without even
> offering a sham of a pretence that you could support your little
> fantasy.
>
> REMEMBER THAT DISASTER DAVE YOU PATHETIC LTITLE HYPOCRITE?
>
> > 3) If God appeared right now, they would chalk it up
> > to either trickery, or mass hallucination, which btw,
> > doesn't exist.
>
> Where's your "proof" of that assertion, Disaster Dave?
>
> > But you know what?
>
> No! Go on! Tell Us!
>
> > Instead of
> > confessing that God exists, the atheists would
> > claim that this event was proof that mass hallucination
> > is a real event.
>
> Prove the proof, we'll accept it. It really is that simple. As,
> evidently, are you. Ask for it in prayer, Disaster Dave. The
> mythical Jesus promised unconditionally that whatever you ask for in
> prayer, he'll grant. Ask him to provide solid, incontrovertible,
> scientific proof right here and now. Go on. I dare you. I double-
> dare you.
>
> > So what could we do to convince
> > atheists that God is real? Nothing!
>
> No, that's the answer to "what could we do to convince you of
> macroevolution". Since 666 items of evidence including unarguable
> proofs didn't convince you, what will, Disaster Dave? What would it
> take to convince you that the Theory of Evolution has mountains of
> evidence and is the only scientific theory which explains the
> distribution and diversity of life on Earth?
>
> Hey - did you ever come up with a definition of macroevolution?
> remember that I asked you for one in your challenge thread so that we
> would know what we would have to do to meet your challenge, AND YOU
> EVEN RAN AWAY FROM THAT REQUEST?!!
>
> > Their mind is set
> > on disbelieving and even the appearance of God will
> > not convince them!
>
> No, that's you, vis-
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:43?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 9:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 16, 4:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 15, 3:30?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 5:33?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> > > > > > > > > > > give them...
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> > > > > > > > > > > Jesus coming back!
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> > > > > > > > > > > who keep their word.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You're talking about fictional characters again?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > I saw this in alt religion.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > So? ?Does that make your fictional character real?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? ?The xian
> > > > > > > > > > bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> > > > > > > > > > e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> > > > > > > > > > Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. ?Of
> > > > > > > > > > course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> > > > > > > > > > but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> > > > > > > > > > deities, does it? ?How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> > > > > > > > > > nonexistent before disbelieving in them? ?There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> > > > > > > > > > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ?ANYWHERE. ?EVER. ?In light of
> > > > > > > > > > that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> > > > > > > > > > responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> > > > > > > > > > prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> > > > > > > > > > accept the assertion.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> > > > > > > > > > dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> > > > > > > > > > objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > > > Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in
> > > > > > > > > court.
> >
> > > > > > > > Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > It is done every day.
> >
> > > > > > Where, liar? ?In your fantasies? ?If you have objective, verifiable
> > > > > > evidence, please present it; you will be the first in over 2000 years.
> >
> > > > I take it you will continue not presenting any objective, verifiable
> > > > evidence for your assertion. ?There's a surprise.
> >
> > > > > > > Presenting it to an atheist is no more
> > > > > > > productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of
> > > > > > > lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the
> > > > > > > middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left
> > > > > > > on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train
> > > > > > > apart.
> >
> > > > > > The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be
> > > > > > different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving
> > > > > at the speed of light would be zero.
> >
> > > > And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's
> > > calculations. ?It kind of makes people wonder how photons happen to exist.
> >
> > Which people?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The ones who say that photons are particles.

Thanks for that detailed non-response.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:47?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 9:45?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 16, 4:35?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 15, 5:51?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I feel no need to explain myself to God. ?If God is genuinely
> > > > > > > > all-knowing, then he already knows why I made the "choice" I made.
> >
> > > > > > > Well, how is it that you claim I enter into this some way? ?As I said
> > > > > > > before, discuss it with Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the earth.
> >
> > > > > > What objective, verifiable evidence do you have that figments of your
> > > > > > imagination can interact with reality?
> >
> > > > > Well, I have the train in Einstein's description which is not affected
> > > > > by the attempts of college graduates to reduce its length by witchcraft.
> >
> > > > That's nice, but isn't responsive. ?Now answer the question.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Well, you are certainly welcome to your own ideas about what is responsive.
> >
> > Still non responsive. ?Why do you refuse to answer? ?What objective,
> > verifiable evidence do you have that figments of your imagination can
> > interact with reality?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, the problem with your question is that anyone who tries to
> answer it is admitting to having figments.

It isn't my problem you have no objective, verifiable evidence that
your figments are anything other than figments. If you've got some,
present it; if not, admit it. You claim it is possible to converse
with a figment of your imagination, and repeatedly instruct us to do
so. You'll have to do MUCH better than you have so far.

> I would prefer to converse with someone who is not trying to convince themself of something.

You would prefer to converse with someone who shares your delusions,
since that's the much safer course.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:51?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 9:39?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 16, 4:36?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 15, 5:52?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 9:55?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > >>rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>Well, since God cannot lie, anything written by one of his prophets as
> > > > > > > > >>>scripture would be true.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>Not sure which is funnier, the first part of that sentence or the
> > > > > > > > >>second...
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>Do you think it is an intelligent position to deny the existence of God?
> >
> > > > > > > > >>It most certainly is. Don't you know that?
> >
> > > > > > > > > Well, why don't you explain your idea to Jesus Christ when he returns
> > > > > > > > > to judge the earth?
> >
> > > > > > > > And when do you plan on that happening?
> >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > What do you mean when do I plan on it happening? ?The scriptures say
> > > > > > > the day and the hour no man knoweth, not the angels in heaven, not the
> > > > > > > Son of God, but the Father only.
> >
> > > > > > And the ruby slippers will take us back to Kansas.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > I think Kansas would be a good place for you.
> >
> > > > Well, why don't you explain your idea to Dorothy when she returns?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Well, as I understand it, Judy Garland committed suicide.
> >
> > What does that have to do with you explaining your idea to Dorothy?
> > Or do you not understand the concept of "actors"?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Yes, I do. Judy Garland was the actress who played the part of Dorothy.

Then you presumeably understand that Judy Garland isn't Dorothy, and
Judy's suicide has nothing to do with your explaining your delusions
to Dorothy.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 17, 12:19?pm, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 12:33 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 16, 9:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> > > > > > > Presenting it to an atheist is no more
> > > > > > > productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of
> > > > > > > lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the
> > > > > > > middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left
> > > > > > > on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train
> > > > > > > apart.
> >
> > > > > > The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be
> > > > > > different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving
> > > > > at the speed of light would be zero.
> >
> > > > And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's
> > > calculations. ?It kind of makes people wonder how photons happen to
> > > exist.
> > > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > ? ?An object with nonzero rest mass cannot move at the speed of
> > light. ?Photons have zero rest mass. ?It goes like this. ?Suppose m_0
> > is the rest mass of a particle. ?Then if the particle is moving at
> > velocity v the inertial mass is given by
> >
> > m = m_0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >
> > This formula applies to particles for which m_0 > 0 and |v| < c. ?For
> > a photon we have m_0 = 0 and v = c and the above formula for m is
> > meaningless since it yields 0/0.
> >
> > ? ? ?Energy is given by mc^2. ?For a stationary particle we have the
> > rest energy E_0 = m_0 c^2. ?For a moving particle we have
> >
> > E = (m_0 c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> >
> > Momentum in relativity is still p = mv provided we understand m to
> > mean inertial mass. ?Thus
> >
> > p = (mv)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> >
> > Trivial algebra now shows that
> >
> > E^2 = (E_0) ^2 + p^2 c^2.
> >
> > The above relation holds for particles with nonzero rest mass. ?For a
> > photon which has zero rest mass we have E_0 = 0. ?Hence for a photon
> > we have E^2 = p^2 c^2 from which it follows
> >
> > E = |p|c ? (for a photon).
> >
> > This, of course, is a purely relativistic phenomenon. ?In classical
> > physics a particle with zero rest mass would have zero mass no matter
> > what speed it moves and hence could not carry momentum nor have
> > kinetic energy. ?In relativity and in reality photons have both. ?For
> > a photon of frequence nu, quantum physics tells us that E = h nu for a
> > photon. ?Now we can infer the inertial mass for a photon as m = E/
> > c^2. ?It follows that for a photon
> >
> > m = (h nu)/c^2.
> >
> > I realize that you anti-relativity cranks don't believe a word of
> > this, but you might as well get clear on what relativity actually
> > says.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, that is certainly enlightening. I don't believe the part about
> a photon being a particle. It think a photon is light energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible
for electromagnetic phenomena. It mediates electromagnetic
interactions and makes up all forms of light. The photon has zero
invariant mass and travels at the constant speed c, the speed of light
in empty space. However, in the presence of matter, a photon can be
absorbed, transferring energy and momentum proportional to its
frequency. Like all quanta, the photon has both wave and particle
properties, exhibiting wave-particle duality.

Of course, everyone in the world except you is wrong, aren't they.
 
On Apr 18, 11:49 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 12:19?pm, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
> > ? ?An object with nonzero rest mass cannot move at the speed of
> > light. ?Photons have zero rest mass. ?It goes like this. ?Suppose m_0
> > is the rest mass of a particle. ?Then if the particle is moving at
> > velocity v the inertial mass is given by
>
> > m = m_0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> > This formula applies to particles for which m_0 > 0 and |v| < c. ?For
> > a photon we have m_0 = 0 and v = c and the above formula for m is
> > meaningless since it yields 0/0.
>
> > ? ? ?Energy is given by mc^2. ?For a stationary particle we have the
> > rest energy E_0 = m_0 c^2. ?For a moving particle we have
>
> > E = (m_0 c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>
> > Momentum in relativity is still p = mv provided we understand m to
> > mean inertial mass. ?Thus
>
> > p = (mv)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>
> > Trivial algebra now shows that
>
> > E^2 = (E_0) ^2 + p^2 c^2.
>
> > The above relation holds for particles with nonzero rest mass. ?For a
> > photon which has zero rest mass we have E_0 = 0. ?Hence for a photon
> > we have E^2 = p^2 c^2 from which it follows
>
> > E = |p|c ? (for a photon).
>
> > This, of course, is a purely relativistic phenomenon. ?In classical
> > physics a particle with zero rest mass would have zero mass no matter
> > what speed it moves and hence could not carry momentum nor have
> > kinetic energy. ?In relativity and in reality photons have both. ?For
> > a photon of frequence nu, quantum physics tells us that E = h nu for a
> > photon. ?Now we can infer the inertial mass for a photon as m = E/
> > c^2. ?It follows that for a photon
>
> > m = (h nu)/c^2.
>
> > I realize that you anti-relativity cranks don't believe a word of
> > this, but you might as well get clear on what relativity actually
> > says.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, that is certainly enlightening. I don't believe the part about
> a photon being a particle. It think a photon is light energy.
> Robert B. Winn

That is probably because you are confused about the modern usage
of the word "particle". It is true that quantum mechanics forces us
to drastically alter our traditional conception of "particles". This
is true not just for photons but also for massive particles such as
electrons. A particle is really a wave packet. One of the quantum
theory gurus --- deBroglie I believe --- tried to prevail on the
scientific community to simply abandon the word "particle" on the
grounds that it has too many intuitive connotations that are wrong.
He advocated the word "wavicle" to describe elementary "particles".
But if the word "particle" is understood properly there is no
contradiction between saying that a photon is a particle and saying
that a photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy.
 
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:21:20 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:

>"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>news:1176674527.481727.23040@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1hwluzq.nj2ssg13dgxkxN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>>> > H. Wm. Esque <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > I saw this in alt religion.
>>> > > Where is the simple evidence of no God?
>>> > > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>>> >
>>> > Translation: "I see nothing because I stand on the shoulders of
>>> > intellectual midgets..."
>>>
>>> If you are such of a Giant, where is your evidence. I make
>>> _no_ claim. But whoever or whatever entitled the original
>>> post, is claiming to possess evidence of no Gods.
>>> If he/she or it cannot present this evidence the only
>>> conclusion is he/she or it is lying.
>>
>> Nice try. You're making an implicit claim; that evidence is required
>> to prove the nonexistence of deities. That's called "shifting the
>> burden of proof." The way things work in the real world is that one
>> looks around, notes the TOTAL LACK of evidence for deities, and
>> concludes there's no legitimate reason to accept any theists
>> unsupported assertion that they exist.
>> And in fact, the original poster pointed out that the lack of evidence
>> of a loving god is evidence that that specific god doesn't exist,
>> since if it did exist as described and truly wanted everybody to go to
>> heaven, it would provide the evidence each individual requires. That
>> such evidence is not provided proves that the specific deity described
>> doesn't exist.
>>
> No need for all that. We Christians readily concede, that the god(s) or
>deities of atheist definition do indeed not exist. Our Christian "God is
>love" (1 John 4:8,16) and we know Him and have seen Him through Jesus
>Christ, our God incarnate.
>
But Frank, that is your "Our xtian god is love (1 John 4:8,16)", that
he is talking about.

Are you now going to deny that one too?

Are you telling us that, "Our xtian god is love (1 John 4:8,16)", is
love, but not loving?
--
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own

#162 BAAWA Knight.
 
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:42:26 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:

>"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>news:1176676247.137060.188050@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in
>>> court.
>>
>> Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it?
>>
> Any "evidence that would stand up in court" may be provable by the
>scientific method, and such proof would make Religion a matter of fact, not
>one of belief and faith.

So what is wrong with that, Frank?

If the bible is to be believed, Jesus was quite happy to provide
empirical evidence to Thomas.

John 20:26-29.

Thomas wasn't damned because he couldn't believe until he was shown:
Why then, every one else?

Don't forget, that Thomas had actually seen him perform miracles...


> Atheists demand, that God show Himself, other than as a despised
>non-conformist like Jesus Christ, but more perhaps like a giant talking face
>in the sky, saying: I am god, and I want you to do what I say, or I will
>burn your sorry ass in hell for all eternity.

That is because we don't have a walking, talking, resurrected corpse,
that we was die, that was certified dead, to show us the fatal wounds.

But I don't think that a talking face in the sky, would cut it.

It would have to be something that could be passed of a mass
hallucination.


> After which presumably, atheists will be convinced, fall in line and
>become snivelling, obsequious sycophants who hate this god in their hearts.

No Frank. We said that we would believe, We would probably even fear.
but that is all, we never said that we would become xtians.

If it wants to be worshiped, it has to prove worthy of worship, and
nothing that wants to be worshiped, can be worthy of worship.


Besides, mere existence, does not make it worthy, and nor does it's
ability to bully.


Hate it? No, Frank, even that, it would have to earn.


--
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own

#162 BAAWA Knight.
 
On Apr 19, 8:14 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 8:14?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Is that right? Did you catch my derivation of the Lorentz equations?
>
> Yes, very amusing.- Hide quoted text -
>
Which part did you find the most amusing?
Robert B. Winn
 
On Apr 19, 8:19 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 8:42?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 16, 9:55?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > Your opinions about religion are of no interest to me.
>
> > > > > Of course they are; why else would you be hanging around in
> > > > > alt.atheism? ?It certainly isn't to support any of your assertions,
> > > > > since you've studiously avoided even pretending to do that.
>
> > > > > > I think you should discuss them with Jesus Christ when the time comes.
>
> > > > > Yes, you think many logically contradictory things, don't you?
>
> > > > > > Your argument is really with him.
>
> > > > > No, in fact it's with you and your unsupported assertions. ?You have
> > > > > yet to explain how anyone can communicate in any way with figments of
> > > > > your imagination.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Now, I do not think it is fair to Jeckyl to call him a figment of my imagination.
>
> > > Trouble following your own comments? ?Not my problem, but I'll
> > > demonstrate some atheist compassion and point out that your "your
> > > argument is really with him" statement refers to your immediately
> > > previous statement "I think you should discuss them with Jesus Christ
> > > when the time comes." ?You then fail to explain, again, how anyone can
> > > communicate with the figment of your imagination you refer to as
> > > "Jesus Christ," with whom you claim there is an argument that should
> > > be discussed. ?Not that anyone is surprised; you routinely dodge
> > > questions you don't like. ?It appears to be a requirement of your
> > > religion.
>
> > > > I admit it is difficult to communicate with anyone who
> > > > has been indoctrinated with the false teachings being ?taught in colleges.
>
> > > How dishonestly xian of you. ?Which "false teachings" would those be,
> > > and how did you determine they were "false"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, I was just showing Jeckyl some of the false things being taught about relativity.
>
> You don't find it at all telling that you're the only person on the
> planet making that assertion? Do you claim to be the world's most
> misunderstood physicist?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, I am not the only person on the planet who claims that special
relativity is wrong. I am the only one I know of who has the
mathematics to prove it.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Apr 19, 8:55 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 8:43?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 16, 9:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 16, 4:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 3:30?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 5:33?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> > > > > > > > > > > > give them...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus coming back!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> > > > > > > > > > > > who keep their word.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I saw this in alt religion.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > So? ?Does that make your fictional character real?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Where is thesimpleevidence of no God?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? ?The xian
> > > > > > > > > > > bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> > > > > > > > > > > e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> > > > > > > > > > > Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. ?Of
> > > > > > > > > > > course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> > > > > > > > > > > but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> > > > > > > > > > > deities, does it? ?How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> > > > > > > > > > > nonexistent before disbelieving in them? ?There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> > > > > > > > > > > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ?ANYWHERE. ?EVER. ?In light of
> > > > > > > > > > > that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> > > > > > > > > > > responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> > > > > > > > > > > prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> > > > > > > > > > > accept the assertion.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> > > > > > > > > > > dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> > > > > > > > > > > objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in
> > > > > > > > > > court.
>
> > > > > > > > > Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > It is done every day.
>
> > > > > > > Where, liar? ?In your fantasies? ?If you have objective, verifiable
> > > > > > > evidence, please present it; you will be the first in over 2000 years.
>
> > > > > I take it you will continue not presenting any objective, verifiable
> > > > > evidence for your assertion. ?There's a surprise.
>
> > > > > > > > Presenting it to an atheist is no more
> > > > > > > > productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of
> > > > > > > > lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the
> > > > > > > > middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left
> > > > > > > > on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train
> > > > > > > > apart.
>
> > > > > > > The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be
> > > > > > > different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving
> > > > > > at the speed of light would be zero.
>
> > > > > And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's
> > > > calculations. ?It kind of makes people wonder how photons happen to exist.
>
> > > Which people?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The ones who say that photons are particles.
>
> Thanks for that detailed non-response.- Hide quoted text -
>
You are free to believe photons are particles. I do not believe they
are.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Apr 19, 8:59 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 8:47?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 16, 9:45?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 16, 4:35?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 5:51?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I feel no need to explain myself to God. ?If God is genuinely
> > > > > > > > > all-knowing, then he already knows why I made the "choice" I made.
>
> > > > > > > > Well, how is it that you claim I enter into this some way? ?As I said
> > > > > > > > before, discuss it with Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the earth.
>
> > > > > > > What objective, verifiable evidence do you have that figments of your
> > > > > > > imagination can interact with reality?
>
> > > > > > Well, I have the train in Einstein's description which is not affected
> > > > > > by the attempts of college graduates to reduce its length by witchcraft.
>
> > > > > That's nice, but isn't responsive. ?Now answer the question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Well, you are certainly welcome to your own ideas about what is responsive.
>
> > > Still non responsive. ?Why do you refuse to answer? ?What objective,
> > > verifiable evidence do you have that figments of your imagination can
> > > interact with reality?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Well, the problem with your question is that anyone who tries to
> > answer it is admitting to having figments.
>
> It isn't my problem you have no objective, verifiable evidence that
> your figments are anything other than figments. If you've got some,
> present it; if not, admit it. You claim it is possible to converse
> with a figment of your imagination, and repeatedly instruct us to do
> so. You'll have to do MUCH better than you have so far.
>
> > I would prefer to converse with someone who is not trying to convince themself of something.
>
> You would prefer to converse with someone who shares your delusions,
> since that's the much safer course.- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, atheists do not communicate that I have ever seen. Do you have
any objective verifiable evidence of an atheist communicating?
Robert B. Winn
 
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1176754640.284653.49350@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Sippuddin wrote:
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>> >
>> > ... nor do we
>> > have any proof of his existence or non-existense.
>>
>>
>> That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'.
>
A truism! For we all agree, that no "god" of atheist definition exists.
Atheists makes sure of that, by giving the word the most ludicrous
definition possible.

Pastor Frank

Though "everybody in Virginia has a gun", apparently not a single shot
was fired in self-defence by anyone at Virginia Tech. Why?
If Virginia Tech prohibits fire-arms on campus, yet allowed this student
with all his guns on campus, then it is directly responsible for the
carnage.
The old rule applies here too: Either everybody has a gun, or no one
has.




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

Similar threads

A
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
343
avyea
A
S
Cubs cursed no more as 'Billy Goat' put to pasture
Replies
0
Views
26
Sports News
S
S
No shades but Woods 'ready' for long-awaited comeback
Replies
0
Views
23
Sports News
S
WorldNews
White House says no communications from Philippines on changes
Replies
0
Views
22
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
In response to Trump, France's Hollande says EU needs no advice from outsiders
Replies
0
Views
29
WorldNews
WorldNews
Back
Top