Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 16, 8:08 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > >> I'd like you to send a copy to Jesse Ventura.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > OK. ?Give me his address. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > If you really love god, you'll look it up.- Hide quoted text - > > > I just don't feel inspired to do it. > > Why do you hate God? Jesse Ventura is not God, and I do not hate him in any event. If you want to give me his address, I will send him a Bible. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 16, 10:03 am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Mar 15, 9:27?am, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote: > >> On 15 Mar 2007 04:11:07 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > >>> On Mar 14, 10:00?pm, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote: > >>>> On 14 Mar 2007 20:09:37 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Mar 14, 8:22?am, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote: > >>>>>> On 13 Mar 2007 17:46:23 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Mar 13, 3:56?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 13, 11:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Richo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without "proof" > >>>>>>>>>>> - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable. > >>>>>>>>>> That may be the doctrine in your religion, but not everyone agrees with > >>>>>>>>>> you. For instance: > >>>>>>>>>> "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without > >>>>>>>>>> evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics > >>>>>>>>> Evidence does not work on atheists. > >>>>>>>> I am atheist and evidence works on me. So what you say is false, Bob. > >>>>>>>>>> They only acknowledge evidence > >>>>>>>>> which they believe supports their philosophy. > >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>>>>>> Don't be stupid, Bob. That's the theist MO. > >>>>>>> I am not stupid. > >>>> theists only acknowledge evidence that they believe > >>>>>>> supports their philosophy. %ll, let's check you out. > >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? 7 = velocity of light > >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? 8=wt > >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? 8'=wt' > >>>>>>> ? ? ? 'amma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/w^2) > >>>>>>> ? ? w = x/t = x'/t' = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/w^2)gamma = (x- > >>>>>>> vt)/(t-vt/w) > >>>>>>> ? ? ?f you acknowledge these equations, you will be the first > >>>>>>> atheist to do so. % can go to other subjects if you like. (at else > >>>>>>> would you like to discuss? > >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>>>> Well, Bobby, usually when one presents a series of equations, it is > >>>>>> usually nice to define what all the variables are and what you are > >>>>>> trying to prove. > >>>>>> See, I can use crappy math to prove that 1=2 > >>>>>> Assume a=b > >>>>>> Multiply both sides by a: a a=a b => a^2=ab > >>>>>> Add the same amount (a^2) to both sides of the equation: > >>>>>> ? a^2 + a^2=ab + a^2 > >>>>>> Simplify: 2a^2=ab + a^2 > >>>>>> Subtract the same amount (2ab) from both sides of the equation: > >>>>>> ? 2a^2 - 2ab=ab + a^2 - 2ab > >>>>>> Simplify: 2a^2 - 2ab=a^2 - ab > >>>>>> Factor left side: 2(a^2 - ab)=a^2 - ab > >>>>>> Cancel (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives: 2=1 > >>>>>> However, my 'proof' fails cause it divides by zero at the end. I'm not > >>>>>> enitely sure what your formula is trying to 'prove', but without more > >>>>>> information, it's just a string of nonsense that doesn't tell me > >>>>>> anything. And apparently you are just cutting and pasting it from the > >>>>>> same retarded source each time because every time I've seen you post > >>>>>> it, it's always indented by the exact same, irritating amount.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>> Einstein and Lorentz already defined all the terms in the equations > >>>>> except the term for velocity of light. ? ? ?took that from Poincaire's > >>>>> equations. ?o how do you claim your equations and comments apply to > >>>>> the equations I posted? > >>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>> I am not claiming my equations apply to the ones you posted. What I am > >>>> claiming is that equations with insufficent information as to what > >>>> they pertain to and bad assumptions about what a step might be doing > >>>> (ie dividing by zero), proves absolutely nothing. Explain what you are > >>>> trying to show with your equations and then someone might listen to > >>>> you. No, wait, you are an incoherent babling butt-munch. Instead of > >>>> trying to explain anything you will quote a random bit of your > >>>> scripture thinking that will explain everything.- Hide quoted text - > >>> I already told you what the equations show. ?They show that Einstein > >>> was correct in his original statement that the Lorentz equations show > >>> that light is transmitted at a constant velocity. > > > > What does any of this have to do with the evidence of God you were going > to produce to show that your statement, "Evidence does not work on > atheists' is correct? > > Aren't you just trying to change the subject, trying to create a > diversion away from your inability to produce such evidence? Jesus Christ said he was the light and life of the world. How would equations describing transmission of light be changing the subject? Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 16, 10:08 pm, "ZenIsWhen" <hereslook...@you.com> wrote: > "Jeff Whittaker" <j...@northnet.org> wrote in message > > news:gmsiv21i3b6bjfqn3mbi3qgl3esbc58ndq@4ax.com... > > > > > On 15 Mar 2007 04:11:07 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > >>On Mar 14, 10:00?pm, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote: > >>> On 14 Mar 2007 20:09:37 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > >>> >On Mar 14, 8:22?am, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote: > >>> >> On 13 Mar 2007 17:46:23 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > >>> >> >On Mar 13, 3:56?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > >>> >> >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> >> >> > On Mar 13, 11:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> Richo wrote: > > >>> >> >> >>> The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without > >>> >> >> >>> "proof" > >>> >> >> >>> - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable. > >>> >> >> >> That may be the doctrine in your religion, but not everyone > >>> >> >> >> agrees with > >>> >> >> >> you. For instance: > > >>> >> >> >> "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things > >>> >> >> >> without > >>> >> >> >> evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics > > >>> >> >> > Evidence does not work on atheists. > > >>> >> >> I am atheist and evidence works on me. So what you say is false, > >>> >> >> Bob. > >>> >> >> >> They only acknowledge evidence > >>> >> >> > which they believe supports their philosophy. > >>> >> >> > Robert B. Winn > > >>> >> >> Don't be stupid, Bob. That's the theist MO. > > >>> >> >I am not stupid. > > >>> theists only acknowledge evidence that they believe > > >>> >> >supports their philosophy. %ll, let's check you out. > >>> >> > 7 = velocity of light > >>> >> > 8=wt > >>> >> > 8'=wt' > >>> >> > 'amma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/w^2) > > >>> >> > w = x/t = x'/t' = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/w^2)gamma = (x- > >>> >> >vt)/(t-vt/w) > > >>> >> > f you acknowledge these equations, you will be the first > >>> >> >atheist to do so. % can go to other subjects if you like. (at else > >>> >> >would you like to discuss? > >>> >> >Robert B. Winn > > >>> >> Well, Bobby, usually when one presents a series of equations, it is > >>> >> usually nice to define what all the variables are and what you are > >>> >> trying to prove. > > >>> >> See, I can use crappy math to prove that 1=2 > > >>> >> Assume a=b > >>> >> Multiply both sides by a: a a=a b => a^2=ab > >>> >> Add the same amount (a^2) to both sides of the equation: > >>> >> a^2 + a^2=ab + a^2 > >>> >> Simplify: 2a^2=ab + a^2 > >>> >> Subtract the same amount (2ab) from both sides of the equation: > >>> >> 2a^2 - 2ab=ab + a^2 - 2ab > >>> >> Simplify: 2a^2 - 2ab=a^2 - ab > >>> >> Factor left side: 2(a^2 - ab)=a^2 - ab > >>> >> Cancel (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives: 2=1 > > >>> >> However, my 'proof' fails cause it divides by zero at the end. I'm > >>> >> not > >>> >> enitely sure what your formula is trying to 'prove', but without more > >>> >> information, it's just a string of nonsense that doesn't tell me > >>> >> anything. And apparently you are just cutting and pasting it from the > >>> >> same retarded source each time because every time I've seen you post > >>> >> it, it's always indented by the exact same, irritating amount.- Hide > >>> >> quoted text - > > >>> >Einstein and Lorentz already defined all the terms in the equations > >>> >except the term for velocity of light. took that from Poincaire's > >>> >equations. o how do you claim your equations and comments apply to > >>> >the equations I posted? > >>> >Robert B. Winn > > >>> I am not claiming my equations apply to the ones you posted. What I am > >>> claiming is that equations with insufficent information as to what > >>> they pertain to and bad assumptions about what a step might be doing > >>> (ie dividing by zero), proves absolutely nothing. Explain what you are > >>> trying to show with your equations and then someone might listen to > >>> you. No, wait, you are an incoherent babling butt-munch. Instead of > >>> trying to explain anything you will quote a random bit of your > >>> scripture thinking that will explain everything.- Hide quoted text - > > >>I already told you what the equations show. They show that Einstein > >>was correct in his original statement that the Lorentz equations show > >>that light is transmitted at a constant velocity. Then Einstein > >>immediately used c=186,000 miles per second for velocity of light, > >>completely ignoring the fact that if light is proceeding in the -x > >>direction relative to a set of Cartesian coordinates such as he said > >>he was using, the velocity of a photon going in that direction would > >>be -186,000 miles per second relative to the Cartesian coordinates, > >>not +186,000 miles per second. > >>This eliminates the distance contraction that scientists use to > >>explain their interpretation of transmission of light. > >>The fact that you cannot understand what I just said does not affect > >>it in any way. The same is true of anything said in the Bible. The > >>ignorance of one person does not affect God and his works. > >>Robert B. Winn > > > Does somebody that knows a more about physics and relativity want to > > take this? I don't know enough about the details to argue effectively. > > The only thing I can say at this point is that suddenly slapping a > > negative sign on a velocity shouldn't change anything as far as the > > equations are concerned...it's just the same velocity in the opposite > > direction. So instead of our observer seeing things going from left to > > right, he is instead seeing them go from right to left. > > Well, the first thing, of course, is to demand that winn supply reference > for his base claims. > He can't and won't. > Einstein used that particular speed of light because it was scientifically > determined many-many years before. > There is no "-x" speed. > You're just totally, and ignorantly, mixing direction with speed. > > The fact is, I can understand what you just said, and, as usual, it's > nothing more than a pile of deranged crap! Well, you have made a statement, now prove it. Mathematics supports my equations, not Einstein's. Speed is nothing more than the magnitude of velocity. Velocity has both magnitude and direction. Einstein set the problem up, not me. He worked it wrong, causing the ignorance that exists in the scientific world on this subject today. I worked the problem correctly, causing the outcry and persecution presently taking place. All I need to do to show my equations correct is use them to describe a photon traveling along the x axis in the -x direction. When you have found a physicist or mathematician who says he can prove the equations worng, come back and tell me about it. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 17, 6:13 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > On Mar 15, 5:55?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > How do you know that the father of Jesus is GOD! > > > Jesus Christ said that he was the Son of God. > > My crazy Uncle Harold claimed HE was the Son of God, just before they > institutionalized him. > > Small world, I guess... You did not have a crazy Uncle Harold who said he was the Son of God. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 15, 5:55 am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > How do you know that the father of Jesus is GOD! > Jesus Christ said he was the Son of God. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 8:08 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > >> I'd like you to send a copy to Jesse Ventura.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > OK. ?Give me his address. > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > If you really love god, you'll look it up.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > I just don't feel inspired to do it. > > > > Why do you hate God? > > Jesse Ventura is not God, and I do not hate him in any event. Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it? Sheesh... > If you want to give me his address, I will send him a Bible. Why don't you just put a copy in the mail and trust your God to deliver it to the right place? Or do you mistrust your God, as well as hating him? Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > > > > We've heard your lame argument that "Stalin was an atheist and he killed > > > > millions of people" countless times before. It doesn't stand up. > > > > Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his motives, he didn't kill in > > > > the name of atheism--unlike the nineteen hijackers. > > > > > Well, I think he did. What about abortion doctors? They have killed > > > about 60,000,000 Americans since 1973. Are you saying that they do > > > not do what they do in the name of atheism? > > > > No, of course they don't. > > > > Do you have any conception (no pun intended) that other people can have > > different opinions about issues like abortion without being atheists or > > doing things "in the name of atheism" (whatever that means)? Abortion is > > a safe and legal medical procedure, and is done at the request of the > > woman seeking medical attention. Your moral posturing contributes > > nothing to the discussion. > > > > Your figure of 60,000,000 abortions in the US since 1973 is too high by > > at least a factor of two; if you're going to quote statistics, please be > > a little more accurate. > > > > And finally, we're not talking about "Americans" any more than you could > > describe unborn fetuses as "truck drivers" or "golfers" or "Dixie Chicks > > fans". They're FETUSES, they aren't people. I'm not sure where you come > > up with such kooky descriptions (actually, I am pretty sure where you > > come up with such kooky descriptions.) > > > > If this is the level of your debating skills, then we have little > > further to talk about. > > > We have nothing to talk about. I use words with their actual > meanings, not with meanings given to them by atheists. The word "fetus" is a precise, specific term--unlike the many nonsense religious terms created solely to inflame emotions over the abortion issue. > The fact that atheists can say that unborn children are not human beings > means nothing to me. Actually, the law says that "unborn children" (there's one of those nonsense terms) are not human beings. > I can tell that they are human beings. Actually, I'd bet you can't. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 15, 5:57 am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > How could I be rejecting any atonement when I don't know if it ever occurred! > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1173926624.857336.118180@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 14, 6:43?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Why did you ask that? Do you think that there is reason to think so? > > Do you have the evidence to back up! > > Reference to unsubstantial claims in books are not accepted! > > Well, if you reject the atonement of Christ, you are also going to > reject anything I might say to you. > Why don't you discuss it with Jesus Christ when he returns to judge > the earth? You will have to work out your salvation with God, not me. I have no way to save anyone. Jesus Christ is the one with a plan of salvation. Robert B. Winn > Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 15, 6:58 am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Mar 14, 6:43?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Why did you ask that? ?Do you think that there is reason to think so? > > > Do you have the evidence to back up! > > > Reference to unsubstantial claims in books are not accepted! > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > > >news:1173835556.418159.261710@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Why do you have no reason to think it exists? ? You think God did not do his part? > > > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - > > > Well, if you reject the atonement of Christ, you are also going to reject anything I might say to you. > > Why don't you discuss it with Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the earth? > > Because he isn't real and won't return, that's why. Well, tell your idea to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the earth. It means nothing to me. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 6:13 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 15, 5:55?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > How do you know that the father of Jesus is GOD! > > > > > Jesus Christ said that he was the Son of God. > > > > My crazy Uncle Harold claimed HE was the Son of God, just before they > > institutionalized him. > > > > Small world, I guess... > > You did not have a crazy Uncle Harold who said he was the Son of God. Actually, yes, I do... And the point, of course, is that claiming to be the Son of God and mental illness are connected. The medical literature is full of such cases. It could well be that Jesus was just like my poor uncle. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 15, 7:07 am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Mar 14, 6:52?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 12:10?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 13, 8:03?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 4:59?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Then who lied? > > > > > > > > > The people who accuse Jesus Christ of lying lied. > > > > > > > > Really. ?So who is still alive that was there listening to Jesus when > > > > > > > he said "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which > > > > > > > shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his > > > > > > > kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)? > > > > > > > John 21:20 ?Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus > > > > > > loved following: which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, > > > > > > Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? > > > > > > 21 ?Peter seeing him saith unto Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man > > > > > > do? > > > > > > 22 ?Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is > > > > > > that to thee? ?follow thou me. > > > > > > So your response is to dodge the question, because you can't admit > > > > > Jesus lied.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > Jesus Christ did not lie. ?The Apostle John is still somewhere on earth. > > > > Your objective, verifiable evidence for that assertion?- Hide quoted text - > > > Well, give me your address, and I will send you a copy of the Bible. > > I have several already. Unfortunately for you, the bible is not > evidence the bible is true. If you atheists want to pretend that the Bible does not exist it is. Since say you have several Bibles, then you are admitting that the Bible exists. Robert B. Winn Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 5:55 am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > How do you know that the father of Jesus is GOD! > > > Jesus Christ said he was the Son of God. Claiming to be the Son of God is a symptom of mental illness. Don't you know that? Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 15, 7:13 am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Mar 14, 7:04?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 4:35?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Mar 2007 21:15:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > > > > <1173759337.896438.204...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > >On Mar 12, 5:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:54:56 +0800, in alt.atheism > > > > > >> "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > > > > >> <et4p7h$n4...@registered.motzarella.org>: > > > > > > >> >It is not that I do not want to accept, but like to see jesus being crucified. so can you make the > > > > > >> >necessary arrangements. > > > > > > >> >"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > > > > >> >news:1173737798.798364.161660@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > > > > > >> >> On Mar 12, 2:11?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > So is anyone saved by the atonement? > > > > > > >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >> >> >news:1173723597.337466.251030@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >> >> > > There would be no way anyone who sinned could be saved if the > > > > > >> >> > > atonement had not happened. > > > > > >> >> > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > >> >> > > On Mar 12, 9:03?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > > How do you know that the sins were atoned?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > >> >> Those who accept the atonement of Christ will be saved. theists say > > > > > >> >> they will not accept the atonement of Christ. > > > > > > >> Do they? I certainly don't say that. It would be interesting for you to > > > > > >> present a statement from an atheist showing that the atheist would > > > > > >> reject such a thing. > > > > > > >> I don't believe the claims of people about gods because the claims are > > > > > >> unsupported by evidence.- > > > > > > >Well, how do you accept the atonement of Christ without admitting he exists? > > > > > > The claim that there is such an atonement is one of the claims about > > > > > gods that is unsupported by the evidence.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > Well, so you reject the atonement of Christ, just as I said in the beginning. > > > > If by "atonement of christ" you mean "unsupported assertion," then yes.- Hide quoted text - > > > Well, obviously words in the English language have no meaning to you. > > Why don't you quote some Latin phrases? I am sure that would make you > > feel better. > > Aw, punkin, don't pout. Well, just take your time and show how you get that atonement of Christ means unsupported assertation from anything I said. If you want to advertise your ignorance and dishonesty, go advertise it to someone else. I am not interested in how dishonest and ignorant you are. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 15, 7:15 am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Mar 14, 7:10?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 6:10?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On 13 Mar 2007 17:51:48 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > > > > <1173833508.636582.7...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > >On Mar 13, 4:35?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On 12 Mar 2007 21:15:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > > > > >> <1173759337.896438.204...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > >> >On Mar 12, 5:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> >> I don't believe the claims of people about gods because the claims are > > > > > >> >> unsupported by evidence.- > > > > > > >> >Well, how do you accept the atonement of Christ without admitting he exists? > > > > > > >> The claim that there is such an atonement is one of the claims about > > > > > >> gods that is unsupported by the evidence.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > >Well, so you reject the atonement of Christ, just as I said in the beginning. > > > > > > No, I do not reject it. I merely have no reason to think it exists.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > Why do you have no reason to think it exists? > > > > Lack of objective, verifiable evidence. ?This has been explained to > > > you numerous times; it isn't a difficult concept for most people. > > > > > You think God did not do his part? > > > > Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of this "god" you assert.- Hide quoted text - > > > OK, I can send you a copy of the Bible. Where should I send it? > > I asked for objective, verifiable evidence, not circular reasoning. I offered to send a copy of the Bible. That would be accepted as evidence in any court of law. Since you do not accept it, we can plainly see that you are only multiplying words, not carrying on a conversation. Any book can be entered as evidence in a court of law. It is then up to the side that enters the evidence to show how it is evidence. So far your only comment concerning the Bible is that you will not accept it as evidence. That is the same as saying it does not exist. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but the Bible does exist. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 15, 7:25 am, jesshc <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Mar 14, 6:10?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> What were written, were they written correctly? > > > Well, what do you think was written incorrectly? > > Robert B. Winn > > Are bats birds? Where did the light come from before there were stars? Why don't you get some biologists and astronomers and discuss it with Moses after the resurrection? I am sure he could tell you how those particular verses came to be. As far as I can tell, they could be mistranslations made by some Old Testament scribe. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 15, 7:29 am, jesshc <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Mar 12, 2:11?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> So is anyone saved by the atonement? > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1173723597.337466.251030@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > > >>> There would be no way anyone who sinned could be saved if the > >>> atonement had not happened. > >>> Robert B. Winn > >>> On Mar 12, 9:03?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> How do you know that the sins were atoned?- Hide quoted text - > > Those who accept the atonement of Christ will be saved. Atheists say > > they will not accept the atonement of Christ. > > Robert B. Winn > > Atheists say "Why should we accept your unsupported assertions which > contradict reality?" Well, it would be up to you what you accept. I offered to send you a copy of the Bible and you said you would not accept that. Jesus Christ offered to accept the punishment for your sins, and you said you would not accept that. Why don't you just decide for yourself what you are going to accept? If you change your mind about the Bible, let me know. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Mar 15, 7:35 am, jesshc <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Mar 10, 6:11?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Mar 9, 12:11?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Mar 8, 8:07?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Mar 7, 4:25?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Theists are also inventive. ?Can you deny that theist invented god! > >>>>>>> God is eternal. > >>>>>> Unsupported assertion. > >>>>> Wrong. ?God sent his Only Begotten Son. > >>>> Circular argument. > >>> It is not an argument. > >> Yes, it is. ?You should learn was an argument is. > > >>> It is a fact. > >> No, it isn't. ?You should learn what a fact is. > > >>> Sorry you disapprove of what God did. > >> There is no evidence for any deities. ?Therefore, there is no evidence > >> any deities ever did anything. ?I can hardly disapprove of what a non- > >> existent thing couldn't have done; it would be pointless. ?I can, > >> though, point out your delusions, lies, and hypocrisies.- Hide quoted text - > > > Well, I certainly have no objection to your practicing what you intend > > to say to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the earth. Evidently > > your idea is that if you can convince me of something then it will > > work on Jesus Christ. > > I assume you aren't a fictional character, but I could be wrong. Well, if you want to try to convince me that I am a fictional character, go ahead and try. You say you are going to use that logic on Jesus Christ. Quote
Guest Elroy Willis Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in alt.atheism > Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message >> rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism >>> Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism >>>>> On Mar 12, 6:39?am, Elroy Willis wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism >>>>>>> Our Father Which art in Heaven. >>>>>> Where's heaven? Outer space? >>>> > Where there is no sin. >>>> So it can't possibly be on Earth, since sin is so rampant here, right? >>> Earth will become part of the kingdom of heaven after Jesus Christ >>> returns and the earth is cleansed of wickedness. >> Jesus is gonna kill people? > Jesus will be your defender, ...but only if you want Him to. He will not > force your into His heaven. What will he defend me against? -- Elroy Willis http://www.elroysemporium.com Quote
Guest Mettas Mother Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 Is others belief is what you are going to use to justify your belief? "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message news:45fb10d5$0$16367$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > news:aerbv2t4fu5gcq3juhe9lhodsf5mdad6m4@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:59:38 +0800, in alt.atheism > > "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote in > > <et4pgb$nee$1@registered.motzarella.org>: > >>Then who lied? > >>"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message > >>news:1173736219.690065.4540@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> > On Mar 12, 4:14?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > How do you know that that was not a lie? > >> > >>Well, go ahead and point. Jesus Christ did not lie. > > > > We have no idea if any of the claims made in the gospels are true. > > We have no idea what Jesus actually said. > > We have no idea whether Jesus had anything to do with any god or not. > > We have no idea whether you have interpreted what is written correctly. > > > Is that what you are going to use to justify your disbelief? I.e. "I had > no idea" that almighty God exists, and actually is going to judge us all. > > > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:20:48 +0800, in alt.atheism "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in <45fb10d5$0$16367$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >news:aerbv2t4fu5gcq3juhe9lhodsf5mdad6m4@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:59:38 +0800, in alt.atheism >> "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote in >> <et4pgb$nee$1@registered.motzarella.org>: >>>Then who lied? >>>"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message >>>news:1173736219.690065.4540@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>> > On Mar 12, 4:14?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> > How do you know that that was not a lie? >>> >>>Well, go ahead and point. Jesus Christ did not lie. >> >> We have no idea if any of the claims made in the gospels are true. >> We have no idea what Jesus actually said. >> We have no idea whether Jesus had anything to do with any god or not. >> We have no idea whether you have interpreted what is written correctly. >> > Is that what you are going to use to justify your disbelief? I.e. "I had >no idea" that almighty God exists, and actually is going to judge us all. I don't have to justify my 'disbelief'. The mere fact that you cannot justify your beliefs is sufficient for me not to accept your claims about gods or religion. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:41:34 +0800, in alt.atheism "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in <45fb10d8$0$16367$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >news:5jrbv2p5117684jph7pbgk44t71rbgtv6r@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:54:56 +0800, in alt.atheism >> "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote in >> <et4p7h$n4c$1@registered.motzarella.org>: >>>It is not that I do not want to accept, but like to see jesus being >>>crucified. so can you make the >>>necessary arrangements. >>>"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message >>>news:1173737798.798364.161660@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Mar 12, 2:11?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> > >>> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message >>>> > news:1173723597.337466.251030@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... >>>> > > Robert B. Winn >>>> > > On Mar 12, 9:03?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> >>>> > > wrote: >> >>>> > > > How do you know that the sins were atoned?- Hide quoted text - >>>>> >>>> > > There would be no way anyone who sinned could be saved if the >>>> > > atonement had not happened. >> >>>> >So is anyone saved by the atonement? >>>> >>>> Those who accept the atonement of Christ will be saved. Atheists say >>>> they will not accept the atonement of Christ. >> >> Do they? I certainly don't say that. It would be interesting for you to >> present a statement from an atheist showing that the atheist would >> reject such a thing. >> >> I don't believe the claims of people about gods because the claims are >> unsupported by evidence. >> > What "claims" are you talking about? Or are you just misreading and >miss-interpreting what is in essence poetic licence, NOT scientific >exposition? There is no evidence to support any special claims about any gods. Quote
Guest Mettas Mother Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 But how could I save Jesus if he does not reveal himself to me? "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1174140955.529436.143550@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 15, 5:57 am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > How could I be rejecting any atonement when I don't know if it ever occurred! > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1173926624.857336.118180@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > On Mar 14, 6:43?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Why did you ask that? Do you think that there is reason to think so? > > > Do you have the evidence to back up! > > > Reference to unsubstantial claims in books are not accepted! > > > > Well, if you reject the atonement of Christ, you are also going to > > reject anything I might say to you. > > Why don't you discuss it with Jesus Christ when he returns to judge > > the earth? > > You will have to work out your salvation with God, not me. I have no > way to save anyone. Jesus Christ is the one with a plan of salvation. > Robert B. Winn > > Robert B. Winn > > Quote
Guest Mettas Mother Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 Is that not hear say? "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1174140807.783848.51470@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 15, 5:55 am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > How do you know that the father of Jesus is GOD! > > > Jesus Christ said he was the Son of God. > Robert B. Winn > Quote
Guest Mettas Mother Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 Agreed! I think it was the Son of God that claimed to be his uncle! "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1174140616.896263.288600@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 17, 6:13 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 15, 5:55?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > How do you know that the father of Jesus is GOD! > > > > > Jesus Christ said that he was the Son of God. > > > > My crazy Uncle Harold claimed HE was the Son of God, just before they > > institutionalized him. > > > > Small world, I guess... > > You did not have a crazy Uncle Harold who said he was the Son of God. > Robert B. Winn > Quote
Guest ZenIsWhen Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message news:45fb10d8$0$16367$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > news:5jrbv2p5117684jph7pbgk44t71rbgtv6r@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:54:56 +0800, in alt.atheism >> "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote in >> <et4p7h$n4c$1@registered.motzarella.org>: >>>It is not that I do not want to accept, but like to see jesus being >>>crucified. so can you make the >>>necessary arrangements. >>>"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message >>>news:1173737798.798364.161660@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Mar 12, 2:11?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> > >>> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message >>>> > news:1173723597.337466.251030@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... >>>> > > Robert B. Winn >>>> > > On Mar 12, 9:03?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> >>>> > > wrote: >> >>>> > > > How do you know that the sins were atoned?- Hide quoted text - >>>>> >>>> > > There would be no way anyone who sinned could be saved if the >>>> > > atonement had not happened. >> >>>> >So is anyone saved by the atonement? >>>> >>>> Those who accept the atonement of Christ will be saved. Atheists say >>>> they will not accept the atonement of Christ. >> >> Do they? I certainly don't say that. It would be interesting for you to >> present a statement from an atheist showing that the atheist would >> reject such a thing. >> >> I don't believe the claims of people about gods because the claims are >> unsupported by evidence. >> > What "claims" are you talking about? Or are you just misreading and > miss-interpreting what is in essence poetic licence, NOT scientific > exposition? Gee............... here's one ...... "God is Love". Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.