SIMPLE EVIDENCE OF NO GODS

[Guest JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:

> On Apr 8, 11:46 am, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Budikka666 wrote:

> > > Pastor Dave ran from my challenge - again! He's all mouth when he

> > > doesn't have to support what he says, but when you put him in the hot

> > > seat, all he does is yell "Ouch!".

> >

> > > I provided the evidence he asked for - the evidence on which he

> > > claimed he could discuss the science, and he ran from the evidence I

> > > supplied and the discussion I offered.

> >

> > > I asked him to provide the same level of evidence for his religious

> > > beliefs that he demands of the evolutionists (who have provided quite

> > > ltierally mountains of evidence for the Theory of Evolution), and he

> > > even ran from that.

> >

> > > Thanks for proving evolution, Pastor Dave. Thanks for evolving from a

> > > jackass to a chicken right before our eyes. No surprises there.

> >

> > > Budikka

> >

> > Next week you have to step up a notch and debate evolution with a rock.

> > The easy days are over.

>

> What about the theory of relativity? No one wants to talk about relativity any more.

 

No, they just don't want to talk about it with you, because you don't

know what you're talking about.

[Guest Andrew]

On 2007-04-12 20:37:07 +0100, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

>

> rbwinn wrote:

>> On Apr 3, 2:31 pm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>

>> wrote:

>>> On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>>> The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the actual

>>>>> existence of millions of atheists.

>>>

>>>>> If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill the

>>>>> atheists and send them to his Hell.

>>>

>>>>> If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly communicate

>>>>> his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them of its

>>>>> existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden causing the

>>>>> atheists to spend eternity in his Hell.

>>>

>>>> What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of

>>>> atheists?

>>>> Robert B. Winn

>>>

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

>>> What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of>

>>> atheists?

>>>> Robert B. Winn

>>>

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

>>> Christan Knut: "We have a living God."

>>>

>>> Objctive person: "You just said 'He died for our sins'.

>>> You can't have it both ways."

>>>

>>> Former Christian: "You got a good point there."

>>

>> Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life.

>

> Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of that claim.

 

Why should he? What's it to you?

[Guest Andrew]

On 2007-04-12 20:36:19 +0100, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

>

> rbwinn wrote:

>> On Apr 3, 1:52 pm, "Lucifer" <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> On Apr 3, 9:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>>> The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the actual

>>>>> existence of millions of atheists.

>>>

>>>>> If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill the

>>>>> atheists and send them to his Hell.

>>>

>>>>> If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly communicate

>>>>> his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them of its

>>>>> existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden causing the

>>>>> atheists to spend eternity in his Hell.

>>>

>>>> What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of

>>>> atheists?

>>>

>>> Prove it, fuckwit.

>>

>> OK. Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

>

> Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of that claim.

 

Sounds like an opinion to me. Asking for objective verifiable evidence

for an opinion of this nature betrays a clear lack of understanding of

different categories of thought.

[Guest rbwinn]

On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

> > Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

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

> > suggestion.

>

> Here's a suggestion: why don't you go fuck yourself?

 

 

You seem to be having some mental problems, Scott.

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

> > > What does this Bible story have to do with the question? Why wouldn't a

> > > loving god demonstrate his existence and eliminate atheism?

>

> > According to the Bible that will happen when he returns the second

> > time.

>

> In other words, atheism will never be eliminated.

>

> Unfortunately, from what we know of history, the far more dangerous

> converse of atheism--superstitious belief systems--will never be

> eliminated either.

All people are going to become believers, otherwise, they would not

even be here. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess, etc.

Well, you are right about not being able to eliminate God. You are

not going to be able to do it.

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

> > > >>What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of

> > > >>atheists?

>

> > > > God did not send Jesus to die. God sent Jesus to overcome death which

> > > > he did. There is a fundamental difference here.

>

> > > So are you claiming Jesus did NOT die?

>

> > > Are you claiming it was not God's will that Jesus died .. Jesus seemed to

> > > think it was?

>

> > > If Jesus is God, why would he need to overcome death .. he is immortal ?

>

> > Because he knew there was no distance contraction.

>

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

> Interesting...

>

> I guess you can assign your imaginary friend any sort of nonsensical

> attributes you please.

 

Well, I was just making fun of you atheists. So are you saying that

Einstein was more intelligent than Jesus Christ?

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

> > Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life.

>

> Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to give

> them...

 

We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ

returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Apr 12, 11:44 am, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:

> On Apr 12, 10:06 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>

> > On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:

>

> > > Oh ho. Sins of atheists you say? So you are a religious crank as

> > > well as an antirelativity crank. Why am I unsurprised to learn this?

>

> > > > Robert B. Winn

>

> > Well, here is another atheist who wants to talk about relativity.

> > Just a simple little problem for you, Mike. There is an observer

> > beside a railroad track. There is a train traveling on the railroad

> > track toward the observer. There is an observer on the train at the

> > middle of the train. When the observer on the train reaches the

> > position of the observer on the ground, lightning strikes both ends of

> > the train simultaneously,

>

> Simultaneous with respect to which observer? If observer B has

> relative motion with respect to observer A, then events that one

> observer sees as simultaneous will not be simultaneous with respect to

> the other observer. You need to clarify this before the question can

> be answered.

>

> > leaving marks on the front and rear of the

> > train and marks on the railroad track. How far apart are the marks on

> > the railroad track?

> > Einstein thought of this problem. It should be a simple task for

> > someone as knowledgable as you to answer this question.

> > Robert B. Winn

 

Well, make them simultaneous any way you want them simultaneous.

Just so they are simultaneous. I can answer the question without any

further clarification. The lightning bolts are simultaneous in both

frames of reference. But you go ahead and work the problem your way.

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Apr 12, 11:58 am, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:

> On Apr 12, 10:06 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>

>

>

> > On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:

>

> > > On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>

> > > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of

> > > > atheists?

>

> > > Oh ho. Sins of atheists you say? So you are a religious crank as

> > > well as an antirelativity crank. Why am I unsurprised to learn this?

>

> > > > Robert B. Winn

>

> > Well, here is another atheist who wants to talk about relativity.

> > Just a simple little problem for you, Mike. There is an observer

> > beside a railroad track. There is a train traveling on the railroad

> > track toward the observer. There is an observer on the train at the

> > middle of the train. When the observer on the train reaches the

> > position of the observer on the ground, lightning strikes both ends of

> > the train simultaneously,

>

> In relativity you can't use the word "simultaneously" without

> specifying the frame of reference. If observers A and B have relative

> motion they will not agree about simultaneity of space-time points.

> Did you mean simultaneously for the observer stationary with respect

> to the track or simultaneously for the observer moving with the train?

>

> > leaving marks on the front and rear of the

> > train and marks on the railroad track. How far apart are the marks on

> > the railroad track?

> > Einstein thought of this problem. It should be a simple task for

> > someone as knowledgable as you to answer this question.

> > Robert B. Winn

 

I can do it by saying the lightning strikes are simultaneous in both

frames of reference. That is the only way the mathematics works. If

you say they are not simultaneous in one frame of reference, then you

have to have a distance contraction. So how far apart are the marks

on the track?

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Apr 12, 12:37 pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:

> rbwinn wrote:

> > On Apr 3, 2:31 pm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>

> > wrote:

> > > On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>

> > > > On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

> > > > > The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the actual

> > > > > existence of millions of atheists.

>

> > > > > If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill the

> > > > > atheists and send them to his Hell.

>

> > > > > If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly communicate

> > > > > his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them of its

> > > > > existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden causing the

> > > > > atheists to spend eternity in his Hell.

>

> > > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of

> > > > atheists?

> > > > Robert B. Winn

>

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

> > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of> atheists?

> > > > Robert B. Winn

>

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

> > > Christan Knut: "We have a living God."

>

> > > Objctive person: "You just said 'He died for our sins'.

> > > You can't have it both ways."

>

> > > Former Christian: "You got a good point there."

>

> > Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life.

>

> Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of that claim.

 

You and I are both alive right now. How does that happen without

Jesus Christ?

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Apr 12, 12:38 pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:

> rbwinn wrote:

> > On Apr 3, 4:33 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

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

>

> > >news:1175632098.792754.327060@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>

> > > > On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > >> The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the

> > > >> actual

> > > >> existence of millions of atheists.

>

> > > >> If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill the

> > > >> atheists and send them to his Hell.

>

> > > >> If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly communicate

> > > >> his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them of

> > > >> its

> > > >> existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden causing the

> > > >> atheists to spend eternity in his Hell.

>

> > > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of

> > > > atheists?

> > > > Robert B. Winn

>

> > > What does this Bible story have to do with the question? Why wouldn't a

> > > loving god demonstrate his existence and eliminate atheism?

>

> > According to the Bible that will happen when he returns the second time.

>

> Non responsive.

 

Non responsive? Well, explain your objection to Jesus Christ when he

returns.

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Apr 12, 12:40 pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:

> rbwinn wrote:

> > On Apr 8, 7:28 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

> > > On 8 Apr 2007 07:01:42 -0700, sncco...@gmail.com wrote:

>

> > > >On Apr 3, 7:19 pm, "flightlessvacuum" <flightlessvacuums...@gmail.com>

> > > >wrote:

> > > >> On Apr 4, 8:28 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>

> > > >> > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of

> > > >> > atheists?

>

> > > >> It's a sin to think?

>

> > > >In no way shape or form is it a sin to think. God wants us to look at

> > > >everything he has created and examine it. He would have made a

>

> > > Prove it, moron.

>

> > > [rest of this question-begging stupidity deleted]

>

> > > Can't you assholes say anything without preaching?

>

> > Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

>

> Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of that claim.

>

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

>

> Why don't you try obeying your deity's command to leave from where you

> aren't wanted? Why don't you try supporting your assertion? Just a

> suggestion.

 

I am not wanted in alt.bible? This is the first anyone has told me.

Why are you the person who say who is and who is not wanted in

alt.bible?

Robert B. Winn

[Guest rbwinn]

On Apr 12, 12:41 pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:

> rbwinn wrote:

> > On Apr 8, 11:46 am, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > > Budikka666 wrote:

> > > > Pastor Dave ran from my challenge - again! He's all mouth when he

> > > > doesn't have to support what he says, but when you put him in the hot

> > > > seat, all he does is yell "Ouch!".

>

> > > > I provided the evidence he asked for - the evidence on which he

> > > > claimed he could discuss the science, and he ran from the evidence I

> > > > supplied and the discussion I offered.

>

> > > > I asked him to provide the same level of evidence for his religious

> > > > beliefs that he demands of the evolutionists (who have provided quite

> > > > ltierally mountains of evidence for the Theory of Evolution), and he

> > > > even ran from that.

>

> > > > Thanks for proving evolution, Pastor Dave. Thanks for evolving from a

> > > > jackass to a chicken right before our eyes. No surprises there.

>

> > > > Budikka

>

> > > Next week you have to step up a notch and debate evolution with a rock.

> > > The easy days are over.

>

> > What about the theory of relativity? No one wants to talk about relativity any more.

>

> No, they just don't want to talk about it with you, because you don't

> know what you're talking about.

 

Well, what do you think, JessHC? If there is an observer by a

railroad track, and a train coming down the railroad track toward the

observer, with another observer on the train at the middle, if

lightning strikes both ends of the train simultaneously when the

observer on the train is opposite the observer on the ground, how far

apart are the marks left on the railroad track by the lighting?

This seems like the kind of a question that atheists would want to

answer, don't you think so?

Robert B. Winn

[Guest JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:

> On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

> > > Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

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

> > > suggestion.

> >

> > Here's a suggestion: why don't you go fuck yourself?

>

> You seem to be having some mental problems, Scott.

 

Yes, trying to think down to your level is a mental problem.

[Guest JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:

> On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

> > > > What does this Bible story have to do with the question? Why wouldn't a

> > > > loving god demonstrate his existence and eliminate atheism?

> >

> > > According to the Bible that will happen when he returns the second

> > > time.

> >

> > In other words, atheism will never be eliminated.

> >

> > Unfortunately, from what we know of history, the far more dangerous

> > converse of atheism--superstitious belief systems--will never be

> > eliminated either.

> All people are going to become believers, otherwise, they would not

> even be here. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess, etc.

> Well, you are right about not being able to eliminate God. You are

> not going to be able to do it.

 

Revel in your superstition.

[Guest JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:

> On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

> > > > >>What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of

> > > > >>atheists?

> >

> > > > > God did not send Jesus to die. God sent Jesus to overcome death which

> > > > > he did. There is a fundamental difference here.

> >

> > > > So are you claiming Jesus did NOT die?

> >

> > > > Are you claiming it was not God's will that Jesus died .. Jesus seemed to

> > > > think it was?

> >

> > > > If Jesus is God, why would he need to overcome death .. he is immortal ?

> >

> > > Because he knew there was no distance contraction.

> >

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

> > Interesting...

> >

> > I guess you can assign your imaginary friend any sort of nonsensical

> > attributes you please.

>

> Well, I was just making fun of you atheists. So are you saying that

> Einstein was more intelligent than Jesus Christ?

 

It's easy to be more intelligent that a fictional character; one

merely needs to exist, and the criteria is fulfilled.

[Guest JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:

> On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

> > > Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life.

> >

> > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to give

> > them...

>

> We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ

> returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.

 

How long must one wait for the return of a fictional character before

admitting it isn't coming back?

[Guest Andrew]

On 2007-04-12 22:36:51 +0100, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

>

> rbwinn wrote:

>> On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

>>>> Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life.

>>>

>>> Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to give

>>> them...

>>

>> We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ

>> returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.

>

> How long must one wait for the return of a fictional character before

> admitting it isn't coming back?

 

One assumes one would wait for eternity for a fictional character. Do

you have any hard, objective, verifiable evidence that Jesus is a

fictional character?

[Guest Andrew]

On 2007-04-12 22:36:03 +0100, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

>

> rbwinn wrote:

>> On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

>>>>>>> What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of

>>>>>>> atheists?

>>>

>>>>>> God did not send Jesus to die. God sent Jesus to overcome death which

>>>>>> he did. There is a fundamental difference here.

>>>

>>>>> So are you claiming Jesus did NOT die?

>>>

>>>>> Are you claiming it was not God's will that Jesus died .. Jesus seemed to

>>>>> think it was?

>>>

>>>>> If Jesus is God, why would he need to overcome death .. he is immortal ?

>>>

>>>> Because he knew there was no distance contraction.

>>>

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

>>> Interesting...

>>>

>>> I guess you can assign your imaginary friend any sort of nonsensical

>>> attributes you please.

>>

>> Well, I was just making fun of you atheists. So are you saying that

>> Einstein was more intelligent than Jesus Christ?

>

> It's easy to be more intelligent that a fictional character; one

> merely needs to exist, and the criteria is fulfilled.

 

Then clearly you do not exist.

[Guest Andrew]

On 2007-04-12 22:35:05 +0100, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

>

> rbwinn wrote:

>> On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

>>>>> What does this Bible story have to do with the question? Why wouldn't a

>>>>> loving god demonstrate his existence and eliminate atheism?

>>>

>>>> According to the Bible that will happen when he returns the second

>>>> time.

>>>

>>> In other words, atheism will never be eliminated.

>>>

>>> Unfortunately, from what we know of history, the far more dangerous

>>> converse of atheism--superstitious belief systems--will never be

>>> eliminated either.

>> All people are going to become believers, otherwise, they would not

>> even be here. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess, etc.

>> Well, you are right about not being able to eliminate God. You are

>> not going to be able to do it.

>

> Revel in your superstition.

 

We do - as do you in your own belief system.

[Guest rbwinn]

On Apr 12, 2:35 pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:

> rbwinn wrote:

> > On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

> > > > > What does this Bible story have to do with the question? Why wouldn't a

> > > > > loving god demonstrate his existence and eliminate atheism?

>

> > > > According to the Bible that will happen when he returns the second

> > > > time.

>

> > > In other words, atheism will never be eliminated.

>

> > > Unfortunately, from what we know of history, the far more dangerous

> > > converse of atheism--superstitious belief systems--will never be

> > > eliminated either.

> > All people are going to become believers, otherwise, they would not

> > even be here. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess, etc.

> > Well, you are right about not being able to eliminate God. You are

> > not going to be able to do it.

>

> Revel in your superstition.- Hide quoted text -

>

Superstition? I do not believe in the distance contraction.

Robert B. Winn

[Guest Mike]

On Apr 12, 5:15 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

> On Apr 12, 11:58 am, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:

>

>

>

> > On Apr 12, 10:06 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>

> > > On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:

>

> > > > On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>

> > > > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of

> > > > > atheists?

>

> > > > Oh ho. Sins of atheists you say? So you are a religious crank as

> > > > well as an antirelativity crank. Why am I unsurprised to learn this?

>

> > > > > Robert B. Winn

>

> > > Well, here is another atheist who wants to talk about relativity.

> > > Just a simple little problem for you, Mike. There is an observer

> > > beside a railroad track. There is a train traveling on the railroad

> > > track toward the observer. There is an observer on the train at the

> > > middle of the train. When the observer on the train reaches the

> > > position of the observer on the ground, lightning strikes both ends of

> > > the train simultaneously,

>

> > In relativity you can't use the word "simultaneously" without

> > specifying the frame of reference. If observers A and B have relative

> > motion they will not agree about simultaneity of space-time points.

> > Did you mean simultaneously for the observer stationary with respect

> > to the track or simultaneously for the observer moving with the train?

>

> > > leaving marks on the front and rear of the

> > > train and marks on the railroad track. How far apart are the marks on

> > > the railroad track?

> > > Einstein thought of this problem. It should be a simple task for

> > > someone as knowledgable as you to answer this question.

> > > Robert B. Winn

>

> I can do it by saying the lightning strikes are simultaneous in both

> frames of reference. That is the only way the mathematics works. If

> you say they are not simultaneous in one frame of reference, then you

> have to have a distance contraction. So how far apart are the marks

> on the track?

> Robert B. Winn

 

No, no, and NO!!!! In different frames or reference things are NOT

dimultaneous.

 

 

Try to distinguish betweeen three separate questions.

 

1) What does relativity actually say?

 

2) Is relativity a logically consistent theory?

 

3) Does the theory of relativity accurately describe nature?

 

These are logically distinct questions!!

 

So what the hell is your problem with distance contration?

[Guest Jeckyl]

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

news:1176387534.952826.289660@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 6, 4:52 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>

>> news:1175893536.357762.22000@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

>>

>>

>>

>> > On Apr 6, 11:36 am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:

>> >> <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>

>> >>news:1175834114.259533.237680@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>>

>> >> > On Apr 3, 5:27 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>> >> >> "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> said:

>>

>> >> >> There is an "argument from disbelief" as follows, that dispenses

>> >> >> with

>> >> >> certain gods, including notably the God of many believers. This is

>> >> >> not

>> >> >> to be confused with much weaker arguments from disbelief.

>>

>> >> > This argument from disbelief is flawed and disproves nothing. Let me

>> >> > show you:

>>

>> >> Here's a thought - Prove your god exists. And please back it up with

>> >> objective, verifiable evidence. Look up those words in a dictionary if

>> >> you

>> >> don't know what they mean.

>>

>> > I guess you didn't like that I completely discredited your "theory".

>>

>> > Here's a thought: prove anything you know was true 1,000 years ago

>> > exists. And please back it up with objective, verifiable evidence. Oh,

>> > that's right -- you're in the same boat.

>>

>> No.. there is objective verifiable proof of other things .. and even of

>> things from around the time of Jesus.

>>

>> But no proof of God. No proof of the miraculous events in the Gospels.

>>

>> It really comes down to a matter of blind faith.

>>

>> > As it stands now there's more than enough evidence around you.

>>

>> Really .. where?

>

> The people who have blind faith are the ones who believe in the

> distance contraction.

 

The ones with blind faith are those that cannot accept the Galilean

transforms were disproven by the MMX experiments over a century ago .. and

who keep peddling the same disproven theories for ten years despite being

proven wrong over and over and over again.

[Guest Jeckyl]

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

news:1176426652.101999.304210@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 12, 2:35 pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:

>> rbwinn wrote:

>> > On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:

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

>> > > > > What does this Bible story have to do with the question? Why

>> > > > > wouldn't a

>> > > > > loving god demonstrate his existence and eliminate atheism?

>>

>> > > > According to the Bible that will happen when he returns the second

>> > > > time.

>>

>> > > In other words, atheism will never be eliminated.

>>

>> > > Unfortunately, from what we know of history, the far more dangerous

>> > > converse of atheism--superstitious belief systems--will never be

>> > > eliminated either.

>> > All people are going to become believers, otherwise, they would not

>> > even be here. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess, etc.

>> > Well, you are right about not being able to eliminate God. You are

>> > not going to be able to do it.

>>

>> Revel in your superstition.- Hide quoted text -

>>

> Superstition? I do not believe in the distance contraction.

 

Yet you believe in disproven Galilean transforms .. very foolish.

[Guest Jeckyl]

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

news:1176412601.518801.131720@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 12, 12:37 pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:

>> rbwinn wrote:

>> > On Apr 3, 2:31 pm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_f...@yahoo.com>

>> > wrote:

>> > > On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

>>

>> > > > On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>

>> > > > > The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is

>> > > > > the actual

>> > > > > existence of millions of atheists.

>>

>> > > > > If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply

>> > > > > kill the

>> > > > > atheists and send them to his Hell.

>>

>> > > > > If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly

>> > > > > communicate

>> > > > > his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince

>> > > > > them of its

>> > > > > existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden

>> > > > > causing the

>> > > > > atheists to spend eternity in his Hell.

>>

>> > > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins

>> > > > of

>> > > > atheists?

>> > > > Robert B. Winn

>>

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

>> > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins

>> > > of> atheists?

>> > > > Robert B. Winn

>>

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

>> > > Christan Knut: "We have a living God."

>>

>> > > Objctive person: "You just said 'He died for our sins'.

>> > > You can't have it both ways."

>>

>> > > Former Christian: "You got a good point there."

>>

>> > Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life.

>>

>> Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of that claim.

>

> You and I are both alive right now. How does that happen without

> Jesus Christ?

 

What a silly question .. Jesus is not required for people to be alive. If

you're a Christian then you may believe that Jesus will help you get to

heaven and be resurrected.