NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[Guest Mettas Mother]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

However that does not automatically mean the contrary is true!

 

"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message

news:1173221471.180043.130960@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>

> The claim of a lack of evidence is proved by the lack of evidence. It

> is you trying to shift the burden of proof.

>

[Guest rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 8:40?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

> > > > Latin is a dead language used by people who have nothing to say.

>

> > > Much like quoting from the Bible...

>

> > Well, Jesus Christ said, Search the scriptures, for in them ye think

> > ye have eternal life.

>

> You've long since proven you have nothing to say. No need to provide any

> more evidence, little fella...

 

Well, I don't need to have anything to say. I am talking to atheists.

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 8:40?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

> > Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the

> > earth?

>

> That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if he

> existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just too

> cute for words!

>

> No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's not

> cute at all, it's just ridiculous.

 

Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with. Why

don't you take an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ after he

returns to judge the earth?

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 8:40?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

> > > It's all a part of his deliberate, intentional, willful, and

> > > self-imposed ignorance.

>

> > So what is it that you claim I am ignorant of?

>

> I'd say.... almost everything.

>

> But, hey, I'm just going on what you write. Maybe you're a lot smarter

> than you sound...

 

Why does it matter how I sound to atheists?

Robert B. Winn

[Guest Scott Richter]

rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> > > Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the

> > > earth?

> >

> > That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if he

> > existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just too

> > cute for words!

> >

> > No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's not

> > cute at all, it's just ridiculous.

>

> Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with. Why

> don't you take an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ after he

> returns to judge the earth?

 

Like I said, a grown man saying these things: ridiculous.

 

Here's a tip, Skippy. For a threat to work, the person at whom the

threat is directed has to believe the threat is real. Otherwise, you

come across like a four year old child trying to scare his parents by

claiming a monster is in the closet.

 

Does any of this make sense to you?

[Guest Scott Richter]

rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> > > > > Latin is a dead language used by people who have nothing to say.

> >

> > > > Much like quoting from the Bible...

> >

> > > Well, Jesus Christ said, Search the scriptures, for in them ye think

> > > ye have eternal life.

> >

> > You've long since proven you have nothing to say. No need to provide any

> > more evidence, little fella...

>

> Well, I don't need to have anything to say.

 

Well, then "Mission Accomplished"...

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:12:40 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <wsidnZhOtZCvRHDYnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@ptd.net>

>Michael Gray wrote:

>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:44:18 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>

>> wrote:

>> - Refer: <WIudndB4R9rhWXDYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@ptd.net>

>>> Michael Gray wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:42:01 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>

>>>> wrote:

>>>> - Refer: <lK6dnd916aE-AXHYnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@ptd.net>

>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:

>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:07:11 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> - Refer: <FOidnYaw9ND0G3HYnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@ptd.net>

>>>>>>> Pastor Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>> "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:N7OdnXGAFvDSUXTYnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@ptd.net...

>>>>>>>>> Pastor Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>> news:eumdnS9prupYvHrYnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@ptd.net...

>>>>>>>>>>> Pastor Frank wrote:

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

>>>>>>>>>>>> news:1172556961.386584.45770@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 8:25?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't. I just think it's amusing how childish you are.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never thought you were amusing. And you are not childish. You

>>>>>>>>>>>> are evil.

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

>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------

>>>>>>>>>>>> These insults are just refuting ploys by Satan's minions to make

>>>>>>>>>>>> people STOP talking about Jesus. Will we let them? Hell NO!!!! We will

>>>>>>>>>>>> shout His most holy and perfect name from the roof tops if need be, and

>>>>>>>>>>>> no atheists are going to stop us!!!!!

>>>>>>>>>>> Just like suicide bombers in Iraq?

>>>>>>>>>>> ~Stumper

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Notice the Golden Rule of Christ below. Are you telling us you would

>>>>>>>>>> never become a terrorist were your country bombed and invaded. Would you

>>>>>>>>>> be suitably shocked and awed and become immediately compliant and docile?

>>>>>>>>>> If not that, what would you do?

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Pastor Frank

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> The most important, yet most ignored commandments of Christ, which

>>>>>>>>>> would

>>>>>>>>>> make war, if not ALL of man's inhumanity to man extinct, nay totally

>>>>>>>>>> unthinkable:

>>>>>>>>>> THE ROYAL LAW OF CHRIST

>>>>>>>>>> Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy

>>>>>>>>>> heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy

>>>>>>>>>> strength: this is the first commandment.

>>>>>>>>>> 31: And the second is alike, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour

>>>>>>>>>> as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

>>>>>>>>>> Jesus in Mat 22:40 "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two

>>>>>>>>>> commandments."

>>>>>>>>>> THE GOLDEN RULE OF CHRIST, or Ethic of Reciprocity

>>>>>>>>>> Jesus in Matt. 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that

>>>>>>>>>> men

>>>>>>>>>> should do to you, do ye even so to them...."

>>>>>>>>> First thing first. Would you stone adulterers?

>>>>>>>>> ~Stumper

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> That's a stupid question about Judaism. Jesus saved the adulteress from

>>>>>>>> getting stoned. But then some butt heads like getting stoned, ...and pay

>>>>>>>> good money for it too!!!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Shouldn't you obey the Ten Commandments?

>>>>>> Which version?

>>>>>>

>>>>> Which one do you have in mind?

>>>> Ve ask ze qvestions here!

>>>>

>>>> There are two versions at least in the Hebrew, many, many more if you

>>>> "rely" on the excresent English or Latin translations.

>>>>

>>> Are you trying to say that

>>> you can read Hebrew?

>>

>> I can read the Bible in Hebrew, yes.

>>

>>> Can you speak Aramaic as well?

>>

>> I don't "speak" it, but can read it, after a fashion.

>>

>>> I heard Benny Hinn does.

>>

>> Benny Hinn only speaks the pure bullshit language of a heartless

>> con-artist.

>> He is a criminally fraudulent money vampire who is responsible for

>> much suffering and premature death in his single-minded pursuit of the

>> dollar.

>> He makes Dracula look like Albert Schweitzer.

>>

>

>Can God speak Chinese?

 

Which god?

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On 6 Mar 2007 14:32:53 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <1173220373.586251.210340@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>

>

>rbwinn wrote:

>> On Mar 4, 7:38?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:

>> > rbwinn wrote:

>> > > On Mar 3, 11:06?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

>> > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>> > > > > > > > > Well, you are an apostate Christian. ?That means you are more

>> > > > > > > > > dishonest than a person who was raised atheist.

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

>> >

>> > > > > > > > On the contrary, my dear Winnie, the ex-Christian has turned away from

>> > > > > > > > dishonesty and embraced truth. ?He is to be more admired and esteemed

>> > > > > > > > for having grappled himself up out of the stifling quicksands of

>> > > > > > > > religion and walked in the verdant and enlightened fields of atheism.

>> >

>> > > > > > > Well, if you atheists are so happy, why can't you stay away from

>> > > > > > > trying to discredit religion?

>> >

>> > > > > > Because our world is under assault by religious groups who invoke their

>> > > > > > superstitions to control what others think and do. Did you miss 9/11?

>> > > > > > Have you not listened to Pat Robertson and other power mad evangelicals?

>> > > > > > Have you not watched the creationists trying to take America back to the

>> > > > > > Dark Ages? Have you not heard the suicide bombers screaming "God is

>> > > > > > great"?

>> >

>> > > > > > It is increasingly clear that religion is a plague on civilization, so

>> > > > > > why would we "stay away" from such an important issue?

>> >

>> > > > > I see. ?Well, we Christians are supposed to return good for evil, so

>> > > > > here is a verse from Isaiah to brighten your day.

>> >

>> > > > It appears that you confuse talk about evil with the evil itself, and

>> > > > that you do not recognize yourself in that evil.

>> >

>> > > > > Isaiah3:13 ?The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the

>> > > > > people.

>> >

>> > > > And so you retreat to your warm fairy tales.

>> >

>> > > > Interesting choice of verse, by the way. After all, Christianity (as

>> > > > most religions) employs judgement has a primary tool of control. As I've

>> > > > said before, Christians all seem to LOVE to judge people; I guess you're

>> > > > no exception...- Hide quoted text -

>> >

>> > > Actually, I was just going through the book of Isaiah verse by verse.

>> > > The next one is ?Isaiah 3:14.

>> > > The Lord will enter ?into judgment with the ancients of his people,

>> > > and the princes thereof: ?for ye have eaten up the vineyard: ?the

>> > > spoil of the poor is in your houses.

>> > > I discovered some time ago that you can have a conversation with

>> > > atheists just by answering each atheist in turn with a verse from

>> > > Isaiah. ?This results in a much better conversation than relying on

>> > > your own knowledge in trying to answer each accusation. ?Isaiah was a

>> > > much better judge than anyone living today.

>> >

>> > So rather than think about something and answer someone, you punt?- Hide quoted text -

>> >

>> Well, no, it is not a game. I just quote verses from Isaiah until all

>> of the atheists are gone.

>

>So you think it's a good idea to deliberately disobey orders straight

>from your deity. How's that working out for you?

 

The nurses tighten his jacket straps tomorrow.

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On 6 Mar 2007 14:35:11 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <1173220508.251777.92630@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

>

>rbwinn wrote:

>> On Mar 4, 11:36?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

>> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>> > > I discovered some time ago that you can have a conversation with

>> > > atheists just by answering each atheist in turn with a verse from

>> > > Isaiah. This results in a much better conversation than relying on

>> > > your own knowledge in trying to answer each accusation.

>> >

>> > Presumably, few of those atheists continue the conversation for long,

>> > since by your own admission you aren't interested in discussion, but

>> > pontification.

>> >

>> > > Isaiah was a much better judge than anyone living today.

>> >

>> > If you want to judge people, you should at least have the character to

>> > do so directly, rather than hiding behind Biblical figures.

>> >

>> > But you miss the key point of your own sentence--Isaiah is NOT living

>> > today. You and I are. And I have no interest in talking to the dead

>> > because they are notoriously poor conversationalists.

>> >

>> Not as poor as atheists.

>> Isaiah 3:22 The changable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the

>> wimples, and the crisping pins,

>

>You enjoy making xians look like ill-mannered idiots, don't you?

 

Why buck the trend?

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:07:51 -0800, Sippuuden <sipp@macrosoft.net>

wrote:

- Refer: <19idnSxmGoq1RXDYnZ2dnUVZ_qmpnZ2d@comcast.com>

>Michael Gray wrote:

>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:13:03 -0800, Sippuuden <sipp@macrosoft.net>

>> wrote:

>> - Refer: <j6SdnbyJ15LcQXHYnZ2dnUVZ_uXinZ2d@comcast.com>

>>> rbwinn wrote:

>>>> On Mar 5, 11:48?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:

>>>>> On 4 Mar., 17:21, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>

>>>>>> news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...

>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:

>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>>>> snip

>>>>>

>>>>>>> Matthew 10:14

>>>>>>> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye

>>>>>>> depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

>>>>>> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very

>>>>>> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones

>>>>>> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants

>>>>>> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to

>>>>>> point to this verse as a defense

>>>>> We have, and, just like you and the inane champion of the world

>>>>> (little Winn), they ignore it.

>>>> Well, as I told you before, that was Christ's instruction to his

>>>> twelve apostles. I am not an apostle.

>>>> I am just an ordinary person quoting verses from Isaiah.

>>>> Robert B. Winn

>>>>

>>> Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:

>>>

>>> "An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to

>>> refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html

>>

>> One has to actually have a theory in the first place.

>> Bobby has only crazed schizophrenic ramblings.

>>

>He has a 'theory' [using the term very loosely] that he is not bound by

>instructions in his manual to beat a speedy retreat from alt.atheism.

>The facts seem to refute his theory. That's why he resorts to the

>logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis, to try to explain away the facts

>that seem to refute his theory.

>

>Now he resorts to another one, that the term, 'ad hoc' is not an

>acceptable English term. Go figure.

 

I have figured.

He is clinically insane.

 

The prosecution rests, m'lud.

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:53:34 -0800, scottrichter422@yahoo.com (Scott

Richter) wrote:

- Refer: <1hukpsp.1pxrmuu1t335k3N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com>

>rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

>

>> > > Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the

>> > > earth?

>> >

>> > That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if he

>> > existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just too

>> > cute for words!

>> >

>> > No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's not

>> > cute at all, it's just ridiculous.

>>

>> Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with. Why

>> don't you take an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ after he

>> returns to judge the earth?

>

>Like I said, a grown man saying these things: ridiculous.

>

>Here's a tip, Skippy. For a threat to work, the person at whom the

>threat is directed has to believe the threat is real. Otherwise, you

>come across like a four year old child trying to scare his parents by

>claiming a monster is in the closet.

>

>Does any of this make sense to you?

 

Too many big words.

Too much threatening reality.

Too much sanity for pathetic little Bobby.

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On 6 Mar 2007 14:52:00 -0800, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <1173221520.689544.138290@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

>

>rbwinn wrote:

>> On Mar 5, 1:27?am, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:

>> > On Mar 5, 3:36 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > > "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message

>> >

>> > >news:1173060933.990849.262500@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>> >

>> > > > On Mar 4, 6:05 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> > > > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> >

>> > > > >news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...

>> >

>> > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>> >

>> > > > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim?

>> >

>> > > > Yes.

>> >

>> > > > > If so, whose responsibility

>> > > > > is ?proof?

>> >

>> > > > Anybody can prove it wrong at any time by presenting evidence.

>> > > > Nobody can ever prove it correct.

>> >

>> > > > > ?I would contend there is no way to prove such a

>> > > > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the

>> > > > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.

>> >

>> > > > "The claim cannot be proved - so therefore it is the claiments

>> > > > responsibility to prove it."

>> > > > That doesn't sound at all logical to me - forcing the impossible onto

>> > > > a party as an obligation.

>> >

>> > > If the claiment cannot prove his claim, he is a fool to make it;

>> > > trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't get him off the hook!

>> >

>> > I would like to point out that calling every belief a person has a

>> > "claim" would be misleading.

>> > If someone says "I believe I saw a cat." - in some technical sense

>> > this is a claim - but to insist that every thought, belief or

>> > impression one has ever had about the truth of something needs "proof"

>> > is unreasonable.

>> >

>> > The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without "proof"

>> > - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable.

>> >

>> > So if someone genuinely believes "there is no evidence of Gods

>> > existence" then it would seem to me that to call this a "claim" is to

>> > exagerate.

>> >

>> > Indeed if it was expressed as "I believe there is no evidence for God"

>> > then instead of trying to get them on some technicality of rhetoric it

>> > would be a lot more straightforward just to produce the evidence.

>> > (Assuming the evidence existed of course.)

>> >

>> > Cheers, Mark.- Hide quoted text -

>> >

>> Well, what about this scripture from Isaiah, Mark? Have you

>> considered this scripture?

>> Isaiah 3:25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the

>> war.

>

>Have you considered you're just making an ass of yourself?

 

That appears to be an avowed goal of his.

 

--

[Guest Sippuuden]

Mettas Mother wrote:

> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

>

No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of proof

cannot be shifted to the non-believers.

 

The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the

null, 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever.

 

http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm

 

http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm

[Guest Sippuuden]

rbwinn wrote:

> On Mar 6, 2:21�pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

>> rbwinn wrote:

>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:13:03 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>

>>>> wrote:

>>>> � - Refer: <j6SdnbyJ15LcQXHYnZ2dnUVZ_uXin...@comcast.com>

>>>>> rbwinn wrote:

>>>>>> On Mar 5, 11:48?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:

>>>>>>> On 4 Mar., 17:21, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...

>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> snip

>>>>>>>>> Matthew 10:14

>>>>>>>>> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye

>>>>>>>>> depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

>>>>>>>> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very

>>>>>>>> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones

>>>>>>>> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants

>>>>>>>> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to

>>>>>>>> point to this verse as a defense

>>>>>>> We have, and, just like you and the inane champion of the world

>>>>>>> (little Winn), they ignore it.

>>>>>> Well, as I told you before, that was Christ's instruction to his

>>>>>> twelve apostles. �I am not an apostle.

>>>>>> I am just an ordinary person quoting verses from Isaiah.

>>>>>> Robert B. Winn

>>>>> Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:

>>>>> "An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to

>>>>> refute one's theory." -- �http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html

>>>> One has to actually have a theory in the first place.

>>>> Bobby has only crazed schizophrenic ramblings.

>>> You were the ones who were trying to promote me to the position of

>>> apostle. �You have no authority to make any such promotion. � I am not

>>> being sent with the same responsibility the apostles were given. �I

>>> have yet to see you use any verse of the Bible in context. �All you

>>> ever do is take random verses and apply them according to your

>>> interpretation.

>>> Robert B. Winn

>> Robert, why would you believe that you are somehow exempt from a simple

>> instruction in your manual: to beat a speedy retreat from any place like

>> alt dot atheism where your proselytizing is not welcome, and 'shake the

>> dust of that place off your feet' [don't have anything further to do

>> with it]?

>>

>> Your hypothesis that things in your manual only apply to the original

>> twelve apostles is just the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis. If they were

>> to apply only to the original twelve apostles then there would be no

>> proselytizing today, would there?- Hide quoted text -

>>

> Who told you I was proselytizing?

> Robert B. Winn

>

You did, Robert, when you started quoting your book of myth to us

non-believers.

[Guest Mettas Mother]

Agreed that burden of proof should not be shifted to those who question the claimers!

But that does not mandate any default status other then 'undetermined at the moment'.

 

"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message

news:y5edna5NbpcM93PYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Mettas Mother wrote:

> > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

> >

> No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of proof

> cannot be shifted to the non-believers.

>

> The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the

> null, 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever.

>

> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm

>

> http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm

[Guest Mistylien]

"stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message

news:wsidnZhOtZCvRHDYnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@ptd.net...

> Michael Gray wrote:

>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:44:18 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>

>> wrote:

>> - Refer: <WIudndB4R9rhWXDYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@ptd.net>

snip<

>>> Are you trying to say that

>>> you can read Hebrew?

>>

>> I can read the Bible in Hebrew, yes.

>>

>>> Can you speak Aramaic as well?

>>

>> I don't "speak" it, but can read it, after a fashion.

>>

>>> I heard Benny Hinn does.

>>

>> Benny Hinn only speaks the pure bullshit language of a heartless

>> con-artist.

>> He is a criminally fraudulent money vampire who is responsible for

>> much suffering and premature death in his single-minded pursuit of the

>> dollar.

>> He makes Dracula look like Albert Schweitzer.

>>

>

> Can God speak Chinese?

 

God is the giver of all languages.

 

Have you ever heard of the Tower of Babble?

 

It was God that confused their languages and gave some one language

and other a differnt one so they could not even comunicate and keep on trying

to buld the towser that the top could even reach into heaven.

 

>

> --

> ~Stumper

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 02:29:56 -0600, "Mistylien"

<yardholler@charter.net> wrote:

- Refer: <3MuHh.198$_l5.76@newsfe03.lga>

>

>"stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message

>news:wsidnZhOtZCvRHDYnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@ptd.net...

>> Michael Gray wrote:

>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:44:18 -0500, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>

>>> wrote:

>>> - Refer: <WIudndB4R9rhWXDYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@ptd.net>

>snip<

>

>>>> Are you trying to say that

>>>> you can read Hebrew?

>>>

>>> I can read the Bible in Hebrew, yes.

>>>

>>>> Can you speak Aramaic as well?

>>>

>>> I don't "speak" it, but can read it, after a fashion.

>>>

>>>> I heard Benny Hinn does.

>>>

>>> Benny Hinn only speaks the pure bullshit language of a heartless

>>> con-artist.

>>> He is a criminally fraudulent money vampire who is responsible for

>>> much suffering and premature death in his single-minded pursuit of the

>>> dollar.

>>> He makes Dracula look like Albert Schweitzer.

>>>

>>

>> Can God speak Chinese?

>

>God is the giver of all languages.

 

Whih "god"?

>Have you ever heard of the Tower of Babble?

 

Yes. It's a juvenile fairy story.

>It was God that confused their languages and gave some one language

>and other a differnt one so they could not even comunicate and keep on trying

>to buld the towser that the top could even reach into heaven.

 

Is that why you do not make any sense, beyond your infantile babble?

 

--

[Guest Mettas Mother]

So did the storm come?

 

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

news:1173267775.211415.259560@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 7, 12:32?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

> Have you considered this verse from Isaiah?

> Isaiah 4:6 And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the

> daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge , and for a covert

> from storm , and from rain.

> Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 10:53�pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

> > > > Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the

> > > > earth?

>

> > > That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if he

> > > existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just too

> > > cute for words!

>

> > > No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's not

> > > cute at all, it's just ridiculous.

>

> > Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with.

[Guest rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 10:57�pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Latin is a dead language used by people who have nothing to say.

>

> > > > > Much like quoting from the Bible...

>

> > > > Well, Jesus Christ said, Search the scriptures, for in them ye think

> > > > ye have eternal life.

>

> > > You've long since proven you have nothing to say. No need to provide any

> > > more evidence, little fella...

>

> > Well, I don't need to have anything to say.

[Guest Mettas Mother]

Theists are also inventive. Can you deny that theist invented god!

 

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

news:1173266943.230137.85580@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

> Well, here we have people from medical science claiming to be my

> diety. Atheists are nothing if not inventive.

> Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 11:06�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> On 6 Mar 2007 14:32:53 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>

> wrote:

>

[Guest rbwinn]

On Mar 7, 12:07 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:07:51 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>

> wrote:

> - Refer: <19idnSxmGoq1RXDYnZ2dnUVZ_qmpn...@comcast.com>

>

>

>

>

>

> >Michael Gray wrote:

> >> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:13:03 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>

> >> wrote:

> >> - Refer: <j6SdnbyJ15LcQXHYnZ2dnUVZ_uXin...@comcast.com>

> >>> rbwinn wrote:

> >>>> On Mar 5, 11:48?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:

> >>>>> On 4 Mar., 17:21, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message

>

> >>>>>>news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...

> >>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:

> >>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >>>>> snip

>

> >>>>>>> Matthew 10:14

> >>>>>>> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye

> >>>>>>> depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

> >>>>>> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very

> >>>>>> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones

> >>>>>> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants

> >>>>>> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to

> >>>>>> point to this verse as a defense

> >>>>> We have, and, just like you and the inane champion of the world

> >>>>> (little Winn), they ignore it.

> >>>> Well, as I told you before, that was Christ's instruction to his

> >>>> twelve apostles. I am not an apostle.

> >>>> I am just an ordinary person quoting verses from Isaiah.

> >>>> Robert B. Winn

>

> >>> Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:

>

> >>> "An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to

> >>> refute one's theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html

>

> >> One has to actually have a theory in the first place.

> >> Bobby has only crazed schizophrenic ramblings.

>

> >He has a 'theory' [using the term very loosely] that he is not bound by

> >instructions in his manual to beat a speedy retreat from alt.atheism.

> >The facts seem to refute his theory. That's why he resorts to the

> >logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis, to try to explain away the facts

> >that seem to refute his theory.

>

> >Now he resorts to another one, that the term, 'ad hoc' is not an

> >acceptable English term. Go figure.

>

> I have figured.

> He is clinically insane.

>

> The prosecution rests, m'lud.

>

That one has already been tried. So what is your theory, that mental

patients are provided with computers nowadays?

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Mar 7, 12:09�am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:53:34 -0800, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (ScottRichter) wrote:

>

>

[Guest rbwinn]

On Mar 7, 12:10�am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> On 6 Mar 2007 14:52:00 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>

> wrote:

>