Jump to content

NO EVIDENCE OF GODS


Recommended Posts

Guest Don Kresch
Posted

In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:31:53 -0800, "rbwinn"

<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 18, 10:09?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> rbwinn wrote:

>> > On Feb 17, 10:32?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> > > Bill M wrote:

>> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message

>> > > >news:1171521149.118439.271150@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>> > So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys,

>> > you claim that he was telling a "yarn"?

>> > Robert B. Winn

>>

>> IDIOT there is nothing to show your Jesus said anything other than what other

>> foolish humans like you have claimed

>>

>> Grow up- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> - Show quoted text -

>

>Well, here we have another statement from an atheist denying the

>existence of the Bible.

 

No, that's not what we have. We only have that if you, Bobby,

do not understand English. Are you admitting that you do not

understand English?

 

 

Don

---

aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

 

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

On Feb 22, 12:18 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>, i. e., Winnie the

Pooh, wrote:

[...]

> I have never appeared in court with a lawyer. I always speak for

> myself. I always request trial by jury and then appeal the case on

> the grounds that I was denied trial by jury.

 

That must be the reason for your acrimony against the courts. You

bumble and lose and then blame the lawyers and judges for your defeat.

 

If you're as bad a lawyer as you are at furnishing caselaw for such

zany charges as blaming Thurgood Marshall for taking away your 6th

Amendment rights, I can understand why you're losing.

 

Marshall voted with the majority in the 7 to 2 Suprme Court decision,

_Duncan v. Louisiana,_ which required jury trials in all 50 states for

criminal defendants accused of misdemeanors. Duncan applied the 6th

Amendment to the states by incorporating it into the purview of the

14th Amendment.

 

So your accusation against Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was denied

admission to law school in Maryland because he was black, is grossly

in error.

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 11:16

pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 20, 11:29?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>

> wrote:

>> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007

>> 10:58 pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> > On Feb 20, 9:28?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>

>> > wrote:

>> >> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007

>> >> 7:40 am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:

>>

>> >> > On Feb 20, 4:41?am, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>

>> >> > wrote:

>> >> >> Darrell Stec wrote:

>> >> >> > After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February

>> >> >> > 2007 10:59 am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:

>>

>> >> >> > > I feel better already. ??Here is a verse from Isaiah to

>> >> >> > > brighten your day.

>>

>> >> >> > Which Isaiah? ??You realize that there were at least four

>> >> >> > people or schools writing under the name of Isaiah and

>> >> >> > throughout several centuries don't you? ??Isaiah is a

>> >> >> > composition by many not the work of one man.

>>

>> >> >> "... the Bible was a collection of books written at different

>> >> >> times by different men, a strange mixture of diverse human

>> >> >> documents, and a tissue of irreconcilable notions. Inspired?

>> >> >> The Bible is not even intelligent. It is not even good

>> >> >> craftsmanship, but is full of absurdities and contradictions."

>> >> >> [E. Haldeman-Julius, "The Meaning Of Atheism"]

>>

>> >> > Sorry, Darrell, no one can fake writing like Isaiah. ??He was

>> >> > the only one who wrote the way he wrote.

>> >> > Robert B. Winn

>>

>> >> How can you make statements like that? ??You can't read the Hebrew

>> >> it was written in. ??Even several of my bibles explicity state

>> >> that Isaiah was written by a minimum of three different schools or

>> >> persons. ??The grammar and syntax varies in style (and content)

>> >> among those writers. You can't read the originals, nor understand

>> >> the fine nuances of the Hebrew language. ??Can you name any real

>> >> biblical scholar of today who shares your viewpoint?

>>

>> >> Your own LDS scholars do not agree with you. ??Note: "John

>> >> Tvedtnes, senior project manager for FARMS, has written technical

>> >> studies on Hebraisms and Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon."

>> >> which can be found

>> >> athttp://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint10-2.html.

>>

>> >> --

>> >> Later,

>> >> Darrell Stec ?? ?? ??dars...@neo.rr.com

>>

>> > I do not really care what some college boys think. ??The key to

>> > Isaiah is in the pattern of the words. ??Same pattern as Matthew

>> > 6:9-13. Robert B. Winn

>>

>> What arrogance!!!! You who admittedly have little to no education

>> dismisses with the stroke of a keyboard what biblical scholars of his

>> own faith have researched. ??What biblical scholars do you think have

>> no education? ??Do you live in the Deep South Bible Belt. ??You would

>> be at home by all those ignoramuses that oft repeat, "Book larnin'

>> ain't nuthin'"

>>

>> Besides you are utterly daft. ??Why lie like that when anyone with

>> half a brain and fairly decent eyesight can read the passages in

>> question and know for a fact they are not identical. ??That is why

>> Matthew has been said to have concatenated the passages in question.

>>

>> --

>> Later,

>> Darrell Stec ?? ?? ??dars...@neo.rr.com

>>

> What arrogance? So you challenge an apostle and claim I am the one

> who is arrogant.

 

Robert, slow down and take time to read what we really write. You are

not following the conversation. All you are doing is hastily whipping

out one or two-liners in an effort to prove you are more clever,

learned and intelligent than those to whom you reply. Trust me on

this, you aren't by a long shot.

 

Your arrogance lies in the fact that with a keystroke you dismiss the

authority and opinions from the biblical scholars (who incidentally CAN

read the original languages) of your very own church. These scholars

are presently members of LDS in good standing. You with the stroke from

your keyboard dismiss the information found in FARMS a magazine that is

the official biblical archaelogical magazine of your own church. You

are dismissing these scholars (not atheist scholars) who are members of

your church in good grace and who have dedicated years to an education

while (and here is where your arrogance blindsided everyone) you

according to your own words have very little education nor can you read

the original languages of the bible yet you would summarily dismiss the

opinion of every biblical scholar of the last 50+ years including those

of your own church. That is known as ARROGANCE.

 

Now if you could read the original languages, examined original

manuscripts and fragments (or exact facsimiles of them), spend years

studying archaeology, ancient history and customs, and theology and at

that point decided they were wrong, that would not be arrogance but

rather a differing opinion of another learned scholar. But you have

not done that.

 

And as far as challenging an apostle you are wrong there too. Matthew

the apostle did not write the gospel according to Matthew. That name

was assigned to that book about 300 years after it was written, All

gospels were written anonymously. Besides that gospel was written many

generations after the supposed lifetime of any apostle. How do we know

that? One very good reason is that Matthew in part quotes from the

Greek version of Isaiah and that had not been written at the end of the

first century CE. We know that though many things: the absence of any

Greek except the Torah and a few psalm in the Dead Sea Scrolls,

Josephus plainly gave the reason for writting his books in Greek was

because those parts of scripture had not yet been translated into

Greek, and some of the early church fathers gave testimony to that fact

in writting. The author of that gospel could not have quoted in the

first century something written in the second. And Matthew does not

even quote properly. He took several verses out of context and made

one verse out of them. Whether he did this dishonestly or he (as most

scholars believe) did not have the scriptures in front of him and was

relying of memory. Ergo the writer of the gospel according to Matthew

was wrong. And since the apostle did not write that text, no one here

(nor any biblical scholar is arguing against him.

 

Give us a demonstration of your biblical knowledge (cut the arrogant

bullshit) and tell us how many apostles there were and name them

without neglecting or contradicting any of the gospels, Acts or

epistles. Can you engage in a civil conversation and do that? Or are

you here to feed your ego?

> Why don't you just take some time to discuss your

> idea with Matthew after the ressurection?

 

Ah, so you think we both will end up in the same place and he will be

more than happy to take part of eternity to carry on a conversation

with me?

 

If you are not answering to boost up your own ego, why not cut

alt.atheism from the headers? In that way your discussion will only be

among fellow Christians who will have equal if not a better

understanding than you of scripture.

 

> Robert B. Winn

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 11:14

pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 20, 11:22?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>

> wrote:

>> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007

>> 10:03 pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> > On Feb 16, 6:36?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

>> >> In alt.atheism On 15 Feb 2007 18:35:15 -0800, "rbwinn"

>> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:

>>

>> >> >On Feb 15, 5:00?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com>

>> >> >wrote:

>> >> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 22:24:28 -0800, "rbwinn"

>> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:

>>

>> >> >> >On Feb 14, 8:19?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com>

>> >> >> >wrote:

>> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 15:25:25 -0800, "rbwinn"

>> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:

>>

>> >> >> >> >On Feb 13, 7:22?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> >> >> >> >> On Feb 13, 8:05 pm, Don Kresch

>> >> >> >> >> <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:> In alt.atheism On

>> >> >> >> >> 13 Feb 2007 16:59:35 -0800, "rbwinn"

>>

>> >> >> >> >> ...]

>>

>> >> >> >> >> Did you notice that nowhere in the Old Testament is the

>> >> >> >> >> messiah predicted to be god? (e messiah is prophesied to

>> >> >> >> >> bring peace, to bring comfort to the wretched, to heal

>> >> >> >> >> the earth; but nowhere in the Old Testament does it say

>> >> >> >> >> he will be worshiped as a god.

>>

>> >> >> >> >Isaiah 9:6

>>

>> >> >> >> ?? See Is 8:3. That is the child spoken of in Is 9:6.

>>

>> >> >> >No, sorry.

>>

>> >> >> ?? ?? Sorry, but it's true. Only if one takes Is 9:6 completely

>> >> >> out of context can it be applied to jesus. Will you admit to

>> >> >> taking Is 9:6 completely out of context?

>>

>> >> >> Don

>>

>> >> >Well, let's work over to it, Don. ??

>>

>> >> ?? ?? ?? ?? No, there's no working over to it. The fact is that

>> >> the child born in Is 8:3 fills the prophecy from Is 7:14 and is

>> >> being lauded from Is 8:5 on, continuing through Is 9.

>>

>> >> ?? ?? ?? ?? Interesting note: if you read Is 9:1-2 and then find

>> >> Matt 4:12-16, you'll see how the former verses were concatenated

>> >> to invent a prophecy that doesn't actually exist.

>>

>> > Well, as an apostle, Matthew certainly had the authority to say

>> > what Isaiah meant by his prophecy.

>> > So what is your authority to say that Matthew was concatenating

>> > something?

>> > Robert B. Winn

>>

>> One does not need an authority to see what can be easily demonstrated

>> by reading the two passages oneself. ??Try it. ??The only way you

>> could come to any other conclusion but that Matthew concatenated two

>> verses is if you are subject to doublespeak. ??See Orwell's 1984 if

>> you are unfamiliar with the term.

>>

>> --

>> Later,

>> Darrell Stec ?? ?? ??dars...@neo.rr.com

>>

> Well, it does not really mean anything in this context. It is just a

> word used by atheists trying to impress other people. Whatever

> Matthew said about the book of Isaiah is authoritative because Matthew

> was an apostle.

 

Are you sure about that? Please tell us the number of Joshua's apostles

and their names without neglecting or leaving out any of the text on

the subject of any gospel, Acts or epistles. By the way the author of

Matthew quoted from a Greek version that we know did not exist in the

first century CE. How did he do that? How old would he have had to

have been to perform this minor miracle? Do you know when that book

had Matthew's name put on it? It didn't appear on the early

manuscripts you know. None of the gospels had names on them.

 

So much for your assumed authoritativeness. Now tell us why we should

deny that which we can plainly see for ourselves and that all biblical

scholars in the last 50 years attest to?

> Robert B. Winn

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 9:59

pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 17, 10:49?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> rbwinn wrote:

>> > On Feb 16, 10:10?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> > > Free Lunch wrote:

>> > > > On 16 Feb 2007 16:54:10 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>> > > > <1171673650.738689.54...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>> > > > >On Feb 13, 5:57?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> > > > >> On 13 Feb 2007 16:54:11 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> > > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>> > > > >> <1171414451.120125.63...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:

>>

>> > > > ...

>>

>> > > > >> >I offered to send you a copy of the Bible. ??ou have

>> > > > >> >consistently maintained that the Bible does not exist.

>>

>> > > > >> How many more times will you repeat that lie.- Hide quoted

>> > > > >> text -

>>

>> > > > >You atheists all play the same game. ??If you want to claim

>> > > > >the Bible does not exist go ahead and say it does not exist.

>> > > > >Robert B. Winn

>>

>> > > > Once again you lie.

>>

>> > > > You know that none of us have ever claimed that the Bible does

>> > > > not exist. You insist on this false witness because you cannot

>> > > > be honest and admit that the Bible is not in itself evidence of

>> > > > anything. It is just one of many religious texts that is held

>> > > > in high regard by one religion or another. There is no evidence

>> > > > that the Bible is any more true than the Q'ran or any other

>> > > > religious text.

>>

>> > > > We all know the Bible exists. What we won't buy is your false

>> > > > claim that there is something special about it.

>>

>> > > > Stop your lies.

>>

>> > > It's a 'backs to the wall' reaction - pure and simple- Hide

>> > > quoted text -

>>

>> > > - Show quoted text -

>>

>> > I want to be watching when you try to run your game on Jesus

>> > Christ. Robert B. Winn

>>

>> Lunacy laced with arrogance and vindictiveness.

>>

>> ...........and YOU wonder why there are atheists- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> - Show quoted text -

>

> No, I don't wonder why there are atheists. Satan has never had

> trouble on this earth finding people to speak for him.

 

Momons can follow Satan. Christians and Moslems can follow Satan.

However by their very definition atheists cannot follow Satan.

Atheists believe in no gods. According to scripture Satan is like

Yahweh the son of the god El. He is one of the 70 sons of El and a

member of the council of gods. He is according to scripture Yahweh's

brother and uncle to Joshua. By the very fact that Satan is a god

atheists do not believe he exits. One cannot follow that which does

not exist.

 

> Robert B. Winn

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 10:07

pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 17, 10:56?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> rbwinn wrote:

>> > On Feb 17, 7:17?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> > > On 17 Feb 2007 04:32:59 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>> > > <1171715579.252212.188...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:

>>

>> > > >On Feb 16, 10:09?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>

>> > > >wrote:

>> > > >> rbwinn wrote:

>> > > >> > On Feb 13, 5:57?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> > > ...

>> > > >> > > How many more times will you repeat that lie.- Hide quoted

>> > > >> > > text -

>>

>> > > >> > You atheists all play the same game. ?? ?? ??f you want to

>> > > >> > claim the Bible does not exist go ahead and say it does not

>> > > >> > exist. Robert B. Winn

>>

>> > > >> Well Christian 'Nut cases' sure do- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> > > >Well, here is a verse from Isaiah to cheer you up, Bob.

>> > > >Isaiah 1:25 ??And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely

>> > > >purge thy dross, and take away all thy tin.

>>

>> > > Clearly Isaiah was talking to you.

>>

>> > I still have tin, Lunch.

>> > Isaiah 2:2 ??And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the

>> > mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the

>> > mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations

>> > shall flow unto it.

>> > Robert B. Winn

>>

>> Yes that is where the primitives thought their god was, just above

>> the clouds atop of the nearest mountain.

>>

>> One reason, of course, why the Moses myth was written, [with no

>> witnesses] about his so called ??meeting with his god. ??Moses, like

>> all prophets, was a charlatan; IOW 'a liar' [assuming of course that

>> Moses actually existed.]- Hide quoted text -

>>

> Well, why don't you just wait until after the resurrection and tell

> Moses your complaints in person?

 

I am sure Bob has great comfort in knowing that you believe he will be

in the same place as Moses and that Moses will devote a part of

eternity to carry on a conversation with him, just as I am comforted by

your believe I will end up in the same place as Matthew and that

Matthew will devote part of his eternity to carry on a conversation

with me.

 

Sorry that I forgot to mention all the other readers here who can take

great comfort in knowing that Robert believes they are going to heaven

to talk with the saints. He has promised such to so many. Did you

not, Robert? Otherwise how would any of us get to talk to Moses,

Matthew, John and Joshua? Will heaven and hell have an intercom

between them, or will we be using our cell phones?

> Robert B. Winn

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 11:49

pm bob young perhaps from alaspectrum@netvigator.com wrote:

>

>

> rbwinn wrote:

>

>> On Feb 17, 10:56??

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 10:53

pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> rbwinn wrote:

>> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> > > rbwinn wrote:

>> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> > > > > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>> > > > > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:

>>

>> > > > > ...

>>

>> > > > > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell. ??Lincoln

>> > > > > >said on several occasions that he believed the Bible.

>>

>> > > > > Source with complete context please.

>>

>> > > > I can give you the original source. ??Talk to Abraham Lincoln

>> > > > after the resurrection. ??He can tell you in person.

>> > > > Robert B. Winn

>>

>> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time -

>> > > what a wally- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> > > - Show quoted text -

>>

>> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. ??No need to get irrational.

>> > Isaiah 2:17 ??And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the

>> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be

>> > exalted in that day.

>> > ?? Robert B. Winn

>>

>> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum,

>> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle of

>> primitives

>>

>> Grow up- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> - Show quoted text -

>

> How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were

> monkeys telling me to grow up.

 

Why do you think you can tell us what Bob thinks? Is there some post

which Bob made in which he says he thinks his ancestors were monkeys?

> Robert B. Winn

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 11:29

pm Free Lunch perhaps from lunch@nofreelunch.us wrote:

> On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, in alt.atheism

> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in

> <1172202832.147991.191490@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:

>>On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>>> rbwinn wrote:

>>> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>>> > > rbwinn wrote:

>>> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>> > > > > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism

>>> > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>>> > > > > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:

>>>

>>> > > > > ...

>>>

>>> > > > > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell. �incoln

>>> > > > > >said on several occasions that he believed the Bible.

>>>

>>> > > > > Source with complete context please.

>>>

>>> > > > I can give you the original source. �alk to Abraham Lincoln

>>> > > > after the resurrection. �e can tell you in person.

>>> > > > Robert B. Winn

>>>

>>> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time -

>>> > > what a wally- Hide quoted text -

>>>

>>> > > - Show quoted text -

>>>

>>> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. �o need to get irrational.

>>> > Isaiah 2:17

> nd the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the

>>> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be

>>> > exalted in that day.

>>> > Robert B. Winn

>>>

>>> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum,

>>> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle of

>>> primitives

>>>

>>> Grow up- Hide quoted text -

>>>

>>> - Show quoted text -

>>

>>How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were

>>monkeys telling me to grow up.

>

> We do share our ancestry with the great apes, all other mammals and

> the rest of the organisms in the world. Only liars claim otherwise.

 

Yes, but Robert is wrong when he claims people who accept evolution

believe homo sapiens came from monkeys. He understands nothing about

the topic yet he is willing to arrogantly pontificate against it.

Anyone who accepts the theory of evolution as explaining the facts but

at the same time thinks humans came from monkeys draws from the same

well of ignorance and idiocy as Robert. Luckily, those of us who do

understand the ToE do not think that.

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 7:09 am

rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 22, 9:29?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>> <1172202832.147991.191...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:

>>

>>

>>

>> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> >> rbwinn wrote:

>> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>

>> >> > wrote:

>> >> > > rbwinn wrote:

>> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >> > > > > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> >> > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>> >> > > > > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:

>>

>> >> > > > > ...

>>

>> >> > > > > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell. ??incoln

>> >> > > > > >said on several occasions that he believed the Bible.

>>

>> >> > > > > Source with complete context please.

>>

>> >> > > > I can give you the original source. ??alk to Abraham Lincoln

>> >> > > > after the resurrection. ??e can tell you in person.

>> >> > > > Robert B. Winn

>>

>> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time -

>> >> > > what a wally- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> >> > > - Show quoted text -

>>

>> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. ??o need to get irrational.

>> >> > Isaiah 2:17

>>

>> nd the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the

>>

>> >> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall

>> >> > be exalted in that day.

>> >> > ??Robert B. Winn

>>

>> >> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum,

>> >> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle

>> >> of primitives

>>

>> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> >> - Show quoted text -

>>

>> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were

>> >monkeys telling me to grow up.

>>

>> We do share our ancestry with the great apes, all other mammals and

>> the rest of the organisms in the world. Only liars claim otherwise.-

>> Hide quoted text -

>>

>> - Show quoted text -

>

> Well, since you say that Jesus Christ is a liar, why don't you discuss

> your accusation with him when he returns to judge the earth?

 

Wow!!! You must have some unique and special bible. Where in it does

Joshua discuss the evolutionary tree of life. Please quote chapter and

verse. If he never did (and according to the many bibles I have here,

he never did, then he could not be called a liar because he never

discusses the topic.

 

I await your exact quotes of scripture where Joshua discusses the tree

of life, with bated breath.

> Robert B. Winn

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 7:16 am

rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 22, 9:44?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> rbwinn wrote:

>> > On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> > > rbwinn wrote:

>> > > > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>

>> > > > wrote:

>> > > > > rbwinn wrote:

>> > > > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> > > > > > > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>> > > > > > > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:

>>

>> > > > > > > ...

>>

>> > > > > > > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell.

>> > > > > > > >??Lincoln said on several occasions that he believed the

>> > > > > > > >Bible.

>>

>> > > > > > > Source with complete context please.

>>

>> > > > > > I can give you the original source. ??Talk to Abraham

>> > > > > > Lincoln after the resurrection. ??He can tell you in

>> > > > > > person. Robert B. Winn

>>

>> > > > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time

>> > > > > - what a wally- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> > > > > - Show quoted text -

>>

>> > > > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. ??No need to get irrational.

>> > > > Isaiah 2:17 ??And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and

>> > > > the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone

>> > > > shall be exalted in that day.

>> > > > ?? Robert B. Winn

>>

>> > > Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum,

>> > > verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle

>> > > of primitives

>>

>> > > Grow up- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> > > - Show quoted text -

>>

>> > How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were

>> > monkeys telling me to grow up.

>> > Robert B. Winn

>>

>> Chimps have 98% of the same genes as homo sapiens

>>

>> whether you like it or not, that is where you came from- Hide quoted

>> text -

>>

>

> That is not where I come from. Humans have more than 90 percent the

> same molecules as water.

> Does that mean we are children of water?

 

That does not even make any sense. You've gone from genes to molecules.

That show a true ignorance of science. And furthermore you are flatly

wrong. Humans have 100% of a molecule of pure water, as it only

contains two elements.

 

Incidentally, we allegorically are children of water. Genesis says god

formed the earth from the vast void which was water, and it also says

god made man from that very dirt/earth by breathing his spirit into it,

hence in the broadest meaning of the term we are children of water.

> Robert B. Winn

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 2:18 am

Michael Gray perhaps from mikegray@newsguy.com wrote:

> On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>

> wrote:

> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com>

>>

>>

>>Pastor Frank wrote:

>>

>>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

>>> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com...

>>> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism

>>> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in

>>> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>>> >>

>>> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just

>>> >> said, as

>>> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system,

>>> >>instead of a

>>> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or

>>> >>admit your

>>> >>just lying for atheism again.

>>> >

>>> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on

>>> > your lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a

>>> > system. You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that?

>>> >

>>> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that

>>> atheism

>>> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are

>>> forever listing all the things you don't believe and never get

>>> around to telling us anything about what you DO believe.

>>

>>I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate

>>constantly that they are liars and

>>charlatans. That's what I believe

>

> I do NOT believe that.

> Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100%

 

How much fairer can you get? I don't think that it is quite 100% as I

know at least 2 people who are Christians and do not fit the bill.

>

> --

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 7:38 am

rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 22, 10:22?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> rbwinn wrote:

>> > On Feb 16, 7:10?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> > > On 16 Feb 2007 17:53:22 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>> > > <1171677202.265303.67...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:

>>

>> > > >On Feb 16, 5:52?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:

>> > > >> On 16 Feb., 13:17, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On Feb

>> > > >> 13, 6:31?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:

>>

>> > > >> > > On 13 Feb., 14:03, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>>

>> > > >> > > > On Feb 12, 9:21?pm, bob young

>> > > >> > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>>

>> > > >> snip

>>

>> > > >> > > What we do not have is any evidence of any miracle.- Hide

>> > > >> > > quoted text -

>>

>> > > >> > > - Show quoted text -

>>

>> > > >> > Well, if you had been one of the people in Jerusalem at

>> > > >> > thattime, you might have seen it a little differently. ??t

>> > > >> > did not seem like a miracle to Sennacherrib after he arrived

>> > > >> > home in Ninevah safe and sound, but when it happened, he was

>> > > >> > not so sure. Robert B. Winn- Skjul tekst i anf?stegn -

>>

>> > > >> Sorry boobie but your fantasies about what happened or what

>> > > >> people thought back then are not evidence.

>>

>> > > >Well, why don't we go right to what Isaiah wrote, Thomas?

>> > > >Isaiah 1:20 ??But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured

>> > > >with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

>>

>> > > And you arrogantly think that you are the one to interpret it and

>> > > apply it here.- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> > I did not interpret anything. ??I just quoted the scripture the way

>> > it was written.

>> > Robert B. Winn

>>

>> you mean

>> 'how the last translator conceptualized the previous translator's

>> work, don't you?- Hide quoted text -

>>

> You do not know a lot about the Jews, do you? They prided themselves

> on not changing scripture.

 

There goes that arrogance again. Why do you pontificate upon that which

you know little to nothing? Do you know how may different versions of

the Hebrew bible there were? In each of those, some verses were

deleted, some verses were added and words were outright changed and

that doesn't even begin to address all the various misspellings and

scribal errors. Even the link I provided show that in the book of

Isaiah alone there were 40,000 differences between the Hebrew Great

Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text. And ther

were even more among the other Hebrew texts of Isaiah found in the DDS.

And we haven't even begun to examine the Samaritan Hebrew bible. To

complicate matters further scholars know that there were at least three

different versions of the Greek Old Testament (only one of which

survives today).

 

But because you are ignorant of the Hebrew and Greek you cannot see that

for yourself and cannot follow the conversations of the Jewish scholar

who showed the differences letter by letter in the link which I

provided.

> They were not always successful, but they

> had no overriding motive to change meanings the way atheists of today

> have.

 

 

Of course they did. There was no one, single, unifying Jewish movement

throughout the whole of history. There were many Jewish philosophies

throughout history and Christianity developed from one of them. Each

had a motive for changing scripture.

 

But even more to the point, you are not discussing the Hebrew bible

because by your own admission you are not equipted to do that. Rather

you are discussing an interpretation and translation of the Hebrew and

Greek scriptures. And to make matters worse, the translation you use

and worship was developed from very, very late Hebrew and Greek

manuscripts including two which were only completed a decade before

that translation was made and the Hebrew version which was only 400

years old.

 

You have no ammunition for this discussion. Even more to your

discredit, you do not even have a gun to fire it from. And upon

further consideration -- not even the arms to use the gun. You are

handicapped in any discussion of biblical scholarship, and that comes

from your own admissions.

> Robert B. Winn

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Guest Darrell Stec
Posted

After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 7:13 am

rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 22, 9:44?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> rbwinn wrote:

>> > On Feb 15, 9:08?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> > > rbwinn wrote:

>> > > > On Feb 15, 6:46?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:

>> > > > > On 15 Feb., 13:22, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On Feb

>> > > > > 15, 2:17?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:

>>

>> > > > > > > On 15 Feb., 00:29, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>>

>> > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:34?pm, bob young

>> > > > > > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>>

>> > > > > snip

>>

>> > > > > > > > Well, Bob, does the Bible exist or not? ?You say

>> > > > > > > > whether it exists. Don't try to call me a liar just

>> > > > > > > > because I called your bluff.

>>

>> > > > > > > You are a liar. ?You said that I and others claimed the

>> > > > > > > Bible did not exist. ?Not only was that a lie, it was

>> > > > > > > incredibly silly. ?You called nobody's bluff; you just

>> > > > > > > told a silly lie.- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -

>>

>> > > > > > You are still claiming that the Bible does not exist. ?? If

>> > > > > > I ask you about Isaiah's account of the Assyrian invasion

>> > > > > > of Judea, you reply with an inane question about fictional

>> > > > > > characters. ??So, the conversation is over. ??You are

>> > > > > > claiming that the Bible does not exist.

>>

>> > > > > Little Bobby is such a pathetic twit, but we should be nice

>> > > > > to him; he does such good work for atheism.

>>

>> > > > Your personal attacks show everyone who you work for.

>> > > > Robert B. Winn

>>

>> > > These - wizards, satans, evil spirits, ??devils, lucifers,

>> > > ghouls, diabolous, Auld Hornies, Fiends, Old Nicks etc., ??do not

>> > > exist ...........any more than your god exists.

>>

>> > > They, along with your god, were all manufactured by fearful

>> > > humans long before you were borne Robert - get used to it- Hide

>> > > quoted text -

>>

>> > Well, the most common lie told by Satan is that the devil does not

>> > exist.

>> > Robert B. Winn

>>

>> Seen him have you? ??you really do need help- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> - Show quoted text -

>

> Why would a person who has seen Satan need help? Jesus Christ did not

> need any help after he saw Satan.

 

Nor would most when they saw their uncle.

> Robert B. Winn

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Guest Day Brown
Posted

Inasmuch as none of the Greek philosophers who invented the rules of

logic that have been applied to this question were atheist, one has to

pause for thot, as they certainly did. By and large, atheism is

sophistry. If one thinks there is no god, then what is the motivation

for trying to refute the premise that there is? Why should you fucking

care? You have no moral mandate to convert humanity.

 

To argue that religion risks your own welfare with WMD may be so, but

not all religion. The Buddhist monks who destroyed the moral high

ground of the LBJ administration in Vietnam took pains to see that no

body else (in stark contrast to the Jihadim or innumerable examples of

Christian zealots) would be harmed when they immolated themselves in

front of the TV cameras. Any atheist would be hard put to find any

risk to his welfare from Buddhists, Taoists, Confucians and several

other obscure religions.

 

No, the problem the atheist focuses on are the Levantine religions

based on various forms of scripture. If they could all agree on which

texts, or which interpretations of the holy word, that would be one

thing. But as David Hume pointed out, since they dont, how then can

you expect any of them to compromise what they say is divine word? The

result he saw was that they inevitably resort to the use of force, the

survivors assumed to be on "the side of god". I beg to differ; they

are on the side of the alpha males who have crafted a concept of the

divine that panders to their sensibilities, and justifies their

instinctive attempts to dominate others.

 

These other Oriental, originally central asian Aryan, religions dont

have idea of the divine as an alpha male tyrant, and dont have the

problem. What they relied on, rather than scripture, was meditation,

sacred sex, and sacred potions to alter the state of consciousness and

have a direct experience of the divine presence. You dont need a

pope, bishop, rabbi, or mullah, or any of the steep pyramidal power

structures these men create to see the divine this way.

Guest Michael Gray
Posted

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:05:01 -0500, Darrell Stec

<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

- Refer: <548s4dF1vf5q5U6@mid.individual.net>

>After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 7:09 am

>rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

>

>> On Feb 22, 9:29?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>> On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, in alt.atheism

>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>>> <1172202832.147991.191...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>>> >> rbwinn wrote:

>>> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>

>>> >> > wrote:

>>> >> > > rbwinn wrote:

>>> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>> >> > > > > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism

>>> >> > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>>> >> > > > > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:

>>>

>>> >> > > > > ...

>>>

>>> >> > > > > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell. ??incoln

>>> >> > > > > >said on several occasions that he believed the Bible.

>>>

>>> >> > > > > Source with complete context please.

>>>

>>> >> > > > I can give you the original source. ??alk to Abraham Lincoln

>>> >> > > > after the resurrection. ??e can tell you in person.

>>> >> > > > Robert B. Winn

>>>

>>> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time -

>>> >> > > what a wally- Hide quoted text -

>>>

>>> >> > > - Show quoted text -

>>>

>>> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. ??o need to get irrational.

>>> >> > Isaiah 2:17

>>>

>>> nd the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the

>>>

>>> >> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall

>>> >> > be exalted in that day.

>>> >> > ??Robert B. Winn

>>>

>>> >> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum,

>>> >> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle

>>> >> of primitives

>>>

>>> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text -

>>>

>>> >> - Show quoted text -

>>>

>>> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were

>>> >monkeys telling me to grow up.

>>>

>>> We do share our ancestry with the great apes, all other mammals and

>>> the rest of the organisms in the world. Only liars claim otherwise.-

>>> Hide quoted text -

>>>

>>> - Show quoted text -

>>

>> Well, since you say that Jesus Christ is a liar, why don't you discuss

>> your accusation with him when he returns to judge the earth?

>

>Wow!!! You must have some unique and special bible. Where in it does

>Joshua discuss the evolutionary tree of life. Please quote chapter and

>verse. If he never did (and according to the many bibles I have here,

>he never did, then he could not be called a liar because he never

>discusses the topic.

>

>I await your exact quotes of scripture where Joshua discusses the tree

>of life, with bated breath.

 

He has a copy of "The Joshua Tree" by U2, and is getting horribly

confused.

 

--

Guest Michael Gray
Posted

On 23 Feb 2007 04:54:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <45DEC75B.8B3E5B1D@netvigator.com>

>

>

>Michael Gray wrote:

>

>> On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>

>> wrote:

>> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com>

>> >

>> >

>> >Pastor Frank wrote:

>> >

>> >> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

>> >> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com...

>> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism

>> >> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in

>> >> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just said, as

>> >> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system, instead of a

>> >> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or admit

>> >> >>your

>> >> >>just lying for atheism again.

>> >> >

>> >> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on your

>> >> > lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a system.

>> >> > You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that?

>> >> >

>> >> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that atheism

>> >> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are forever

>> >> listing all the things you don't believe and never get around to telling us

>> >> anything about what you DO believe.

>> >

>> >I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate constantly that

>> >they are liars and

>> >charlatans. That's what I believe

>>

>> I do NOT believe that.

>> Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100%

>

>One must allow for the ordinary person longing for security thinking they can find

>it with an imaginary god, reinforced by following what their parents and

>grandparents believed. These are not charlatans, the charlatans are the

>propagators that lie and deceive.

 

So, they do not lie when they claim that Jesus was born of a virgin?

Flew up into the sky after being tortured to death?

Came back down again and quietly chatted with a few people who never

existed, and then went back up into the sky, and will come back down

after 2,000 years?

That when a priest raves some mumbo jumbo over a biscuit and some

cheap vino, that it ACTUALLY turns into half-human flesh, and REAL

blood of ONE person?

Fot they quite simply MUST believe all this fraudulent crap to be

considered Christian.

 

Their very best defence against lying is that they are quite insane.

I'm judging that of the semi-sane christians, none of them are stupid

enough to actually fully believe that crock-o-shit, at least not deep

down.

 

--

Guest Michael Gray
Posted

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:15:38 -0500, Darrell Stec

<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

- Refer: <548soaF1vq660U2@mid.individual.net>

>After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 2:18 am

>Michael Gray perhaps from mikegray@newsguy.com wrote:

>

>> On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>

>> wrote:

>> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com>

>>>

>>>

>>>Pastor Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

>>>> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com...

>>>> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism

>>>> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in

>>>> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just

>>>> >> said, as

>>>> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system,

>>>> >>instead of a

>>>> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or

>>>> >>admit your

>>>> >>just lying for atheism again.

>>>> >

>>>> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on

>>>> > your lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a

>>>> > system. You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that?

>>>> >

>>>> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that

>>>> atheism

>>>> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are

>>>> forever listing all the things you don't believe and never get

>>>> around to telling us anything about what you DO believe.

>>>

>>>I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate

>>>constantly that they are liars and

>>>charlatans. That's what I believe

>>

>> I do NOT believe that.

>> Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100%

>

>How much fairer can you get? I don't think that it is quite 100% as I

>know at least 2 people who are Christians and do not fit the bill.

 

Of all the self-labelled Christians that I know who do not fit that

bill, when pressed on the finer points of their church canon, admit

grudgingly that they are strictly NOT Christians, in the formal sense,

as they atively disbelieve one or more of the essential bits of dogma.

 

I would like to meet a Christian who:

1) is demonstrably sane, (this excludes idiots like R. Winn)

2) believes every one of the church rules, having reasoned them

through

3) Can demonstrate that they are not lying about believing any single

one of these dramatically self-contradictory tenets.

 

--

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On 23 Feb 2007 04:08:42 -0800, in alt.atheism

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in

<1172232522.728606.101860@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:

>On Feb 22, 9:28?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> On 22 Feb 2007 19:19:49 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>> <1172200789.128447.246...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:

 

....

>> >Well, actually, it does. Paul stated that in the last days men would

>> >be turned to fables, being unable to abide sound doctrine.

>>

>> Since you teach things that have no evidence to back them, why would I

>> think your teachings are sound doctrine?- Hide quoted text -

>>

>It does not matter much what an atheist thinks. Since you have alread

>declared your opposition to God, there is really not much reason to

>even talk to you. I just do it to be polite.

 

If you would look back, you would see that I have never stated that I am

opposed to God. That is a claim that you invented. Why would you make

things up like this?

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On 23 Feb 2007 04:09:57 -0800, in alt.atheism

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in

<1172232597.816482.29610@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:

>On Feb 22, 9:29?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>> <1172202832.147991.191...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:

>>

>>

>>

>> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> >> rbwinn wrote:

>> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> >> > > rbwinn wrote:

>> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >> > > > > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> >> > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in

>> >> > > > > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:

>>

>> >> > > > > ...

>>

>> >> > > > > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell. )ncoln said on

>> >> > > > > >several occasions that he believed the Bible.

>>

>> >> > > > > Source with complete context please.

>>

>> >> > > > I can give you the original source. !lk to Abraham Lincoln after the

>> >> > > > resurrection. % can tell you in person.

>> >> > > > Robert B. Winn

>>

>> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time - what a

>> >> > > wally- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> >> > > - Show quoted text -

>>

>> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. / need to get irrational.

>> >> > Isaiah 2:17

>>

>> nd the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the

>>

>> >> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be

>> >> > exalted in that day.

>> >> > �obert B. Winn

>>

>> >> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum,

>> >> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle of

>> >> primitives

>>

>> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> >> - Show quoted text -

>>

>> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were

>> >monkeys telling me to grow up.

>>

>> We do share our ancestry with the great apes, all other mammals and the

>> rest of the organisms in the world. Only liars claim otherwise.- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> - Show quoted text -

>

>Well, since you say that Jesus Christ is a liar, why don't you discuss

>your accusation with him when he returns to judge the earth?

 

Could you please point out where I said that Jesus was a liar? If you

cannot, I will expect an apology from you.

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On 23 Feb 2007 04:19:41 -0800, in alt.atheism

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in

<1172233181.392841.144580@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>:

>On Feb 22, 9:51?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

 

....

>> OLD HAT.- Hide quoted text -

>>

>Small percentage? The majority of people today are pro-abortion.

>Robert B. Winn

 

Why do you insist on mischaracterizing what people support?

 

Would you like it better if I stated that you support fascism and that

you want to destroy our constitution? I am confident that I can gather

more evidence for my statement than you can for yours

 

(Hint: pro-choice is not pro-abortion any more than pro-freedom of

religion makes you a Satanist)

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On 22 Feb 2007 23:06:01 -0600, in alt.atheism

bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in

<45DE75BE.81EF8CFF@netvigator.com>:

>

>

>Pastor Frank wrote:

>

>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

>> news:e2dkt2tov0701orpfmvmtnl208e7ocdi9u@4ax.com...

>> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:53:25 +0800, in alt.atheism

>> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in

>> > <45d9c68a$0$16269$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>> >>"Paul Ransom Erickson" <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in message

>> >>news:u4qft2ppbprus69bal5qdcjtjptkp7inf6@4ax.com...

>> >>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:51:58 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>

>> >>> wrote:

>> >>>>On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:35:48 +0800, in alt.atheism

>> >>>>"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in

>> >>>><45d6f3c4$0$16389$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>> >>>>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

>> >>>>>news:021at2dduc81elh421vfel0tr3he94oqc0@4ax.com...

>> >>>>>> On 15 Feb 2007 04:31:43 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> >>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in

>> >>>>>> <1171542703.680913.131700@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:

>> >>>>>>>

>> >>>>>>>Well, Thomas, here we see the last refuge of the atheist, the

>> >>>>>>>personal

>> >>>>>>>attack. We were discussing the Bible here in alt.bible. Now

>> >>>>>>>everyone

>> >>>>>>>can see your purpose in intruding in our conversation. If you do not

>> >>>>>>>want to talk about the Bible, why don't you go live the happy life of

>> >>>>>>>an atheist?

>> >>>>>>

>> >>>>>> I'm in alt.atheism watching you tell your lies. Why are you posting

>> >>>>>> your

>> >>>>>> lies in alt.atheism.

>> >>>>>>

>> >>>>> Because a.a. is ABOUT atheism, not a refuge FOR atheists. Also,

>> >>>>> atheist

>> >>>>>doctrine demands, that what we consider the truth, atheists MUST call

>> >>>>>lies

>> >>>>>or face excommunication and confiscation of their number.

>> >>>>

>> >>>>As people have pointed out again and again, yet you, in your hubris

>> >>>>refuse to acknowledge, there is no such thing as atheist doctrine.

>> >>>>

>> >>>>It appears that you hate people.

>> >>>

>> >>> Indeed. He spends a lot of time on alt.atheism telling us how awful

>> >>> he thinks we are.

>> >>>

>> >> Non sequitur to what I wrote. My comments concerned atheism as a

>> >>philosophy of life, not atheists as persons. But then atheism requires

>> >>atheists to ALWAYS emphasis faults, errors, shortcomings, insufficiencies

>> >>etc. to the exclusion of affirming what is good, right, desirable, and

>> >>salutary.

>> >> That is what hell is all about, all negative and despairing and

>> >> nothing

>> >>positive and hopeful. And that is also why Christ came to bring us the

>> >>Good

>> >>News.

>> >

>> > As you know, atheism is not a philosophy of life.

>> > You choose to lie about it. Why is that?

>> > Is your god so pitifully weak that he needs your help? Does he fail if

>> > no one lies for him?

>> >

>> Our Christian "God is love" and there is nothing "pitiful" about love.

>> Nor does love "lie". If atheism is not a philosophy of life, then why are

>> you wasting your life arguing against our philosophy of life, unless you

>> think your philosophy of life is better?

>> You just got yourself all muddled again.

>

>You are the muddled one,

>'He' was supposed to have sent his only begotten son down to earth and then had

>him ascend up to a heaven somewhere [just above the clouds back then]

>

>'Love' alone can do that?

>

>GROAN

>

>[stand by for more deviation]

 

Haven't you ever heard of a 'love child'?

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On 23 Feb 2007 04:21:33 -0800, in alt.atheism

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in

<1172233293.851121.149140@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>:

>On Feb 22, 9:52?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

>> "thomas p." wrote:

>> > On 15 Feb., 00:54, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>> > > On Feb 13, 11:48?pm, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:

>> > snip

>>

>> > > > > I offered to send you a copy of the Bible. ?You have consistently

>> > > > > maintained that the Bible does not exist.

>>

>> > > > Poor little Bobby thinks that repeating inane lies accomplishes

>> > > > something besides making him look like a fool.- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> > > > - Show quoted text -

>>

>> > > Well, let's get right to it. n what way do you acknowedge that the

>> > > Bible exists?

ob has a list that he keeps posting. �oes the Bible

>> > > exist the same way something on Bob's list exists?

>>

>> > And the twit continues to make a fool of himself.

>>

>> The fact that he exists confirms it- Hide quoted text -

>>

>Ask a question an atheist does not want to answer, and he will call

>you a fool.

 

You are a fool. You are the one who foolishly claims that there are

atheists who deny that the Bible exists. You are a tremendous fool.

--

 

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel

to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy

Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should

take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in

which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh

it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:48:24 +1030, in alt.atheism

Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in

<p85tt21v7s8ma863a82duja9b2vgas289s@4ax.com>:

>On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>

>wrote:

> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com>

>>

>>

>>Pastor Frank wrote:

>>

>>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

>>> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com...

>>> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism

>>> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in

>>> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>>> >>

>>> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just said, as

>>> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system, instead of a

>>> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or admit

>>> >>your

>>> >>just lying for atheism again.

>>> >

>>> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on your

>>> > lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a system.

>>> > You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that?

>>> >

>>> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that atheism

>>> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are forever

>>> listing all the things you don't believe and never get around to telling us

>>> anything about what you DO believe.

>>

>>I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate constantly that

>>they are liars and

>>charlatans. That's what I believe

>

>I do NOT believe that.

>Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100%

 

I think you are being far too hard on religionists. Some of them, Albert

Schweitzer for example, were wonderful people who have done great things

for the world (whether or not they were religious).

Posted

On Feb 23, 6:40�am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Feb 21, 7:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...