SIMPLE EVIDENCE OF NO GODS

rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> > >>What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of
> > >>atheists?
> >
> > > God did not send Jesus to die. God sent Jesus to overcome death which
> > > he did. There is a fundamental difference here.
> >
> > So are you claiming Jesus did NOT die?
> >
> > Are you claiming it was not God's will that Jesus died .. Jesus seemed to
> > think it was?
> >
> > If Jesus is God, why would he need to overcome death .. he is immortal ?
>
> Because he knew there was no distance contraction.

Ah, so now you're claiming Jesus was a student of relativity theory?
Interesting...

I guess you can assign your imaginary friend any sort of nonsensical
attributes you please.
 
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life.

Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to give
them...
 
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:51:44 -0500, Ric claimed:


>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:40:55 -0500, Ric wrote:
>
>>On 8 Apr 2007 06:38:57 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Pastor Dave ran from my challenge - again! He's all mouth when he
>>>doesn't have to support what he says, but when you put him in the
>hot
>>>seat, all he does is yell "Ouch!".
>>>
>>>I provided the evidence he asked for - the evidence on which he
>>>claimed he could discuss the science, and he ran from the evidence I
>>>supplied and the discussion I offered.
>>>
>>>I asked him to provide the same level of evidence for his religious
>>>beliefs that he demands of the evolutionists (who have provided
>quite
>>>ltierally mountains of evidence for the Theory of Evolution), and he
>>>even ran from that.
>>
>>Hi Budikka666,
>>
>>If I may ask, what is the "header" subject to this post, and what
>>newsgroup was it posted? I'd like to read it, but I can't find it
>>here in this NG.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Ric
>
>
>Hi Budikka666,
>
>I originally posted this in a newsgroup with I don't think you
>receive. Anyway, if you would be so kind as to inform me of the
>header subject and the newsgroup you posted this material, I would
>like to read it.
>
>BTW, I came across your post (above) in alt.bible, so if you would,
>please post your reply there, if possible.

All he ever posted, was examples of macirevolution,
renamed as macroevolution, when he was challenged
to prove his claim that macroevolution has been proved.


--

The torture of a bad conscience, is the Hell
of a living soul. - John Calvin
 
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:41:26 -0500, Ric claimed:


>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:13:17 -0700, Pastor Dave
><noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Hi Budikka666,
>>>
>>>If I may ask, what is the "header" subject to this post, and what
>>>newsgroup was it posted? I'd like to read it, but I can't find it
>>>here in this NG.
>>
>>Budikka is an idiot. He got his ass kicked by me
>>a long time ago and he got all pissed off, ranting
>>and raving and issuing challenge after challenge,
>>in which he couldn't even handle it and is still so
>>upset, that he still chases me around, screaming
>>that I'm running from him. BAWAHAHAHA!!!
>
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>Do you recall the subject header, or was this too long ago?

It was a long time ago. That's why I said that this man
is showing that he is acting on anger that he can't let go
of. Anger that he couldn't prove his case and couldn't
refute what I said, because I dealt with science and
he with fantasy.


--

The torture of a bad conscience, is the Hell
of a living soul. - John Calvin
 
On Apr 12, 10:06 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> > Oh ho. Sins of atheists you say? So you are a religious crank as
> > well as an antirelativity crank. Why am I unsurprised to learn this?
>
> > > Robert B. Winn
>
> Well, here is another atheist who wants to talk about relativity.
> Just a simple little problem for you, Mike. There is an observer
> beside a railroad track. There is a train traveling on the railroad
> track toward the observer. There is an observer on the train at the
> middle of the train. When the observer on the train reaches the
> position of the observer on the ground, lightning strikes both ends of
> the train simultaneously,

Simultaneous with respect to which observer? If observer B has
relative motion with respect to observer A, then events that one
observer sees as simultaneous will not be simultaneous with respect to
the other observer. You need to clarify this before the question can
be answered.

> leaving marks on the front and rear of the
> train and marks on the railroad track. How far apart are the marks on
> the railroad track?
> Einstein thought of this problem. It should be a simple task for
> someone as knowledgable as you to answer this question.
> Robert B. Winn
 
On Apr 12, 10:06 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of
> > > atheists?
>
> > Oh ho. Sins of atheists you say? So you are a religious crank as
> > well as an antirelativity crank. Why am I unsurprised to learn this?
>
> > > Robert B. Winn
>
> Well, here is another atheist who wants to talk about relativity.
> Just a simple little problem for you, Mike. There is an observer
> beside a railroad track. There is a train traveling on the railroad
> track toward the observer. There is an observer on the train at the
> middle of the train. When the observer on the train reaches the
> position of the observer on the ground, lightning strikes both ends of
> the train simultaneously,

In relativity you can't use the word "simultaneously" without
specifying the frame of reference. If observers A and B have relative
motion they will not agree about simultaneity of space-time points.
Did you mean simultaneously for the observer stationary with respect
to the track or simultaneously for the observer moving with the train?

> leaving marks on the front and rear of the
> train and marks on the railroad track. How far apart are the marks on
> the railroad track?
> Einstein thought of this problem. It should be a simple task for
> someone as knowledgable as you to answer this question.
> Robert B. Winn
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:52 pm, "Lucifer" <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 9:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "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 about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of
> > > atheists?
> >
> > Prove it, ****wit.
>
> OK. Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of that claim.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2:31 pm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "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 about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of
> > > atheists?
> > > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of> atheists?
> > > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Christan Knut: "We have a living God."
> >
> > Objctive person: "You just said 'He died for our sins'.
> > You can't have it both ways."
> >
> > Former Christian: "You got a good point there."
>
> Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life.

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of that claim.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 3, 4:33 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1175632098.792754.327060@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "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 about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of
> > > atheists?
> > > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > What does this Bible story have to do with the question? Why wouldn't a
> > loving god demonstrate his existence and eliminate atheism?
>
> According to the Bible that will happen when he returns the second time.

Non responsive.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 8, 7:28 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > On 8 Apr 2007 07:01:42 -0700, sncco...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >On Apr 3, 7:19 pm, "flightlessvacuum" <flightlessvacuums...@gmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> On Apr 4, 8:28 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of
> > >> > atheists?
> >
> > >> It's a sin to think?
> >
> > >In no way shape or form is it a sin to think. God wants us to look at
> > >everything he has created and examine it. He would have made a
> >
> > Prove it, moron.
> >
> > [rest of this question-begging stupidity deleted]
> >
> > Can't you assholes say anything without preaching?
>
> Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of that claim.

> Why don't you try to say something without using profanity? Just a suggestion.

Why don't you try obeying your deity's command to leave from where you
aren't wanted? Why don't you try supporting your assertion? Just a
suggestion.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 8, 11:46 am, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Budikka666 wrote:
> > > Pastor Dave ran from my challenge - again! He's all mouth when he
> > > doesn't have to support what he says, but when you put him in the hot
> > > seat, all he does is yell "Ouch!".
> >
> > > I provided the evidence he asked for - the evidence on which he
> > > claimed he could discuss the science, and he ran from the evidence I
> > > supplied and the discussion I offered.
> >
> > > I asked him to provide the same level of evidence for his religious
> > > beliefs that he demands of the evolutionists (who have provided quite
> > > ltierally mountains of evidence for the Theory of Evolution), and he
> > > even ran from that.
> >
> > > Thanks for proving evolution, Pastor Dave. Thanks for evolving from a
> > > jackass to a chicken right before our eyes. No surprises there.
> >
> > > Budikka
> >
> > Next week you have to step up a notch and debate evolution with a rock.
> > The easy days are over.
>
> What about the theory of relativity? No one wants to talk about relativity any more.

No, they just don't want to talk about it with you, because you don't
know what you're talking about.
 
On 2007-04-12 20:37:07 +0100, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

>
> rbwinn wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2:31 pm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "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 about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of
>>>> atheists?
>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of>
>>> atheists?
>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> ----------------------
>>> Christan Knut: "We have a living God."
>>>
>>> Objctive person: "You just said 'He died for our sins'.
>>> You can't have it both ways."
>>>
>>> Former Christian: "You got a good point there."
>>
>> Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of that claim.

Why should he? What's it to you?
 
On 2007-04-12 20:36:19 +0100, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

>
> rbwinn wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 1:52 pm, "Lucifer" <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 9:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "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 about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of
>>>> atheists?
>>>
>>> Prove it, ****wit.
>>
>> OK. Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
>
> Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of that claim.

Sounds like an opinion to me. Asking for objective verifiable evidence
for an opinion of this nature betrays a clear lack of understanding of
different categories of thought.
 
On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
> > Why don't you try to say something without using profanity? Just a
> > suggestion.
>
> Here's a suggestion: why don't you go **** yourself?


You seem to be having some mental problems, Scott.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > What does this Bible story have to do with the question? Why wouldn't a
> > > loving god demonstrate his existence and eliminate atheism?
>
> > According to the Bible that will happen when he returns the second
> > time.
>
> In other words, atheism will never be eliminated.
>
> Unfortunately, from what we know of history, the far more dangerous
> converse of atheism--superstitious belief systems--will never be
> eliminated either.
All people are going to become believers, otherwise, they would not
even be here. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess, etc.
Well, you are right about not being able to eliminate God. You are
not going to be able to do it.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >>What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of
> > > >>atheists?
>
> > > > God did not send Jesus to die. God sent Jesus to overcome death which
> > > > he did. There is a fundamental difference here.
>
> > > So are you claiming Jesus did NOT die?
>
> > > Are you claiming it was not God's will that Jesus died .. Jesus seemed to
> > > think it was?
>
> > > If Jesus is God, why would he need to overcome death .. he is immortal ?
>
> > Because he knew there was no distance contraction.
>
> Ah, so now you're claiming Jesus was a student of relativity theory?
> Interesting...
>
> I guess you can assign your imaginary friend any sort of nonsensical
> attributes you please.

Well, I was just making fun of you atheists. So are you saying that
Einstein was more intelligent than Jesus Christ?
Robert B. Winn
 
On Apr 12, 8:59 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.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Apr 12, 11:44 am, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 10:06 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Oh ho. Sins of atheists you say? So you are a religious crank as
> > > well as an antirelativity crank. Why am I unsurprised to learn this?
>
> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > Well, here is another atheist who wants to talk about relativity.
> > Just a simple little problem for you, Mike. There is an observer
> > beside a railroad track. There is a train traveling on the railroad
> > track toward the observer. There is an observer on the train at the
> > middle of the train. When the observer on the train reaches the
> > position of the observer on the ground, lightning strikes both ends of
> > the train simultaneously,
>
> Simultaneous with respect to which observer? If observer B has
> relative motion with respect to observer A, then events that one
> observer sees as simultaneous will not be simultaneous with respect to
> the other observer. You need to clarify this before the question can
> be answered.
>
> > leaving marks on the front and rear of the
> > train and marks on the railroad track. How far apart are the marks on
> > the railroad track?
> > Einstein thought of this problem. It should be a simple task for
> > someone as knowledgable as you to answer this question.
> > Robert B. Winn

Well, make them simultaneous any way you want them simultaneous.
Just so they are simultaneous. I can answer the question without any
further clarification. The lightning bolts are simultaneous in both
frames of reference. But you go ahead and work the problem your way.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Apr 12, 11:58 am, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 10:06 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of
> > > > atheists?
>
> > > Oh ho. Sins of atheists you say? So you are a religious crank as
> > > well as an antirelativity crank. Why am I unsurprised to learn this?
>
> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > Well, here is another atheist who wants to talk about relativity.
> > Just a simple little problem for you, Mike. There is an observer
> > beside a railroad track. There is a train traveling on the railroad
> > track toward the observer. There is an observer on the train at the
> > middle of the train. When the observer on the train reaches the
> > position of the observer on the ground, lightning strikes both ends of
> > the train simultaneously,
>
> In relativity you can't use the word "simultaneously" without
> specifying the frame of reference. If observers A and B have relative
> motion they will not agree about simultaneity of space-time points.
> Did you mean simultaneously for the observer stationary with respect
> to the track or simultaneously for the observer moving with the train?
>
> > leaving marks on the front and rear of the
> > train and marks on the railroad track. How far apart are the marks on
> > the railroad track?
> > Einstein thought of this problem. It should be a simple task for
> > someone as knowledgable as you to answer this question.
> > Robert B. Winn

I can do it by saying the lightning strikes are simultaneous in both
frames of reference. That is the only way the mathematics works. If
you say they are not simultaneous in one frame of reference, then you
have to have a distance contraction. So how far apart are the marks
on the track?
Robert B. Winn
 
On Apr 12, 12:37 pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 2:31 pm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "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 about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of
> > > > atheists?
> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of> atheists?
> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > ----------------------
> > > Christan Knut: "We have a living God."
>
> > > Objctive person: "You just said 'He died for our sins'.
> > > You can't have it both ways."
>
> > > Former Christian: "You got a good point there."
>
> > Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of that claim.

You and I are both alive right now. How does that happen without
Jesus Christ?
Robert B. Winn
 

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