Does God need to prove He exists?

On Jul 7, 8:08Â*pm, wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:28 pm, rbwinn wrote:





On Jul 6, 8:56 pm, wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:45 am, rbwinn wrote:

On Jul 5, 3:28 am, "Steve O" wrote:

"rbwinn" wrote in message

...

On Jul 4, 3:36 pm, BuddyThunder wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:07 am, "Steve O" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message

...

On Jul 3, 4:15�pm, Free Lunch wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 03:44:40 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn
wrote
in alt.atheism:
What would you pay for it? I could whip one up for you. I'd make it with
Judas' image, he gets such a bad rap for someone who was utterly vital
to the doctrine.- Hide quoted text -

Utterly vital? Â*How was Judas Iscariot utterly vital?
Robert B. Winn

Are you being deliberately dumb?
No Judas- no crucifixion, no crucifixion - no sacrifice-, no sacrifice- no
redemption from sin.
I don't subscribe to your silly belief system but at least I could work that
one out.

--
Steve O

Salvation is through Jesus Christ, not through Judas Iscariot. Â*Judas
is not going to do you any good.
Robert B. Winn

Salvation and ask for forgiveness in sin is only for the bigotry
beings.
We human follow the laws and impose decency upon ourselves.
That's the difference between you and us, please be informed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right. Â*Well that is exactly what Stalin and Hitler said they were
trying to do. Â*Neither Hitler nor Stalin wanted to be saved, and
neither asked for forgiveness.
Robert B. Winn

They were the historical politician second to none in their respective
country.
They had their vast numbers of followers to try to achieve an aim.
Whether or not their objective were harmful to others or not in
compliance with humanity is another story.
They would not have asked to be saved ! They, like us, were
responsible for their actions.
Unlike you when you and your peers always commit sins, then ask for
forgiveness.
There is a lot of difference between great personalities and
insignificant figures. You can't imagine.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, great personalities like Hitler and Stalin are going to have
trouble after this life because they did not repent of their sins. I
would rather be an insignificant figure who has repented of sins.
Robert B. Winn

On Jul 7, 8:08�pm, "Smiler" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message

...
On Jul 6, 8:59?pm, Free Lunch wrote:





On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 20:53:52 -0700 (PDT), "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jul 7, 9:25 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:46:07 +0100, "Steve O"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"rbwinn" wrote in message
...

I don't have to be familiar with Satan to know that a plot to betray
Jesus Christ came from him, not God.
Robert B. Winn

So are you saying that the crucifixion was the work of Satan, and that
Christ should never have been sacrificed?
Kind of creates a little problem with your theology, don't you think?

Remember that the theology of Christianity tells us that God is a
sociopath.

I always thought she was a frustrated paranoid scitzo megolomaniac
with a serious inferiority complex and tendencies towards manic-
depression.

Okay, but that leads to sociopathic behavior. Lucky for religionists,
God doesn't exist, since the stories about God tell us that God was
responsible for more deaths than Stalin, Hitler and Mao combined.

The hypothetic god thing isn't human, so there's no
reason it should see humans as "people", so the sociopath diagnosis is
no more valid than for a tiger that kills someone.

More like a person who collects kittens to drown them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, all you are doing is saying that God is guilty of murder every
time a natural death occurs.
----------------------------------------------
Yet you say your supposed god is responsible every time a baby is born.
You can't have it both ways.
What's that line from the funeral service?......Oh yeh! "God giveth and God
taketh away."
You like the first part but not the second? Are you a 'salad bar' christian?

Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, since you are going to be a prosecutor who is going to indict
God, you need to know that I am not a judge, so take your complaint
elsewhere.
Robert B. Winn

"Smiler" wrote in
:


"Enkidu" wrote in message
...
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote in
newsklck5-ofd.ln1@75-104- 203-5.cust.wildblue.net:

But no matter how big a fraction of c you're moving away from me,
any light you emit in my direction is traveling at c. Even we're
both
moving
away from each other at a healthy fraction of c, the light we emit
is going to be moving at c when we (or anybody else) measures it.

Think about it in a different way, say throwing mables off a train at
pedestrians. If the train has a velicity of 10 m/s, and you can throw
the .01 kg marbles at 5 m/s, the marbles would hit pedestrians ahead
of the train with a kinetic energy of 1.125 kgm^2/s^2. Marbles thrown
at pedestrians behind the train would have a kinetic energy of
0.125 kgm^2/s^2.

I'm not certain of this, but if you throw the marble forwards (wrt the
direction of the train) it's initial velocity (wrt the ground) will be
+10 + 5 m/s =15 m/s forwards. If you throw the marble backwards (wrt
the direction of the train) it's initial velocity (wrt the ground)
will be +10 - 5 m/s =5 m/s forwards. Therefore no marble could ever
hit a pedestrian who was *behind* the train at the moment you threw it
(ignoring ricochet, etc.), given those parameters. To hit a pedestrian
behind the train wouldn't you have to throw the marble (backwards)
with a velocity greater than the train's forward speed.

Sure you can. The marble hits him from behind! You are correct, I shoud
have picked other numbers. But you get the idea, right?

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA


I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to
let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a
Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to
conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
--Randall Terry, August 16, 1993

On Jul 7, 8:24�pm, wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:06 pm, (Richard Meredith) wrote:





In article ,

(Free Lunch) wrote:
*From:* Free Lunch
*Date:* Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:24:39 -0500

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:25 +0100 (BST), (Richard
Meredith) wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,
(Free Lunch) wrote:

Atheists, theists - what's the difference? They're both equally
dogmatic
that what they happen to believe is the one and only version of
the truth,
despite a complete inability to prove it - or even put up a
decent set of
repeatable and verifiable evidence that supports their position.

What rubbish. Atheists say they don't believe in gods. The lack of
evidence for gods is sufficient not to believe in them. It is not
necessary for atheists to prove that gods do not exist to not
believe in
them. Do you believe in Thor because you cannot prove he does not
exist?

I don't believe in Thor but that doesn't give me any authority to
insist
on his nonexistence to someone who does: if someone does, or claims
to,
that's their business and none of mine. The atheists who have the
marked
similarity to theists are not those who happen not to share the
beliefs
of the theists, but are content to let them believe whatever they
want to,
but those who get in longwinded, dogmatic and frequently ill-tempered
arguments about who is right, despite neither side having any real
evidence either that they are right or that their opponent is wrong.

Once again, you erroneously equate the lack of evidence that the
theists
have with the lack of evidence that those who reject the doctrine of
the
theists. They are not equivalent. In all analysis of whether A exists,
it is appropriate and necessary to start with the assumption that A
does
not exist and find evidence to disprove it. You defend silly claims,
the
flakier the better, because there is no evidence that the silly claim
is
false.

If a claim is silly then evidence will exist that it is silly. If no such
evidence exists there is no justification for describing it as silly.
Your argument, therefore, is one of defending prejudice, since you are
assuming that the position you are attacking is silly, without evidence
that it is anything of the sort.

There is an equal lack of evidence that the doctrines of theists and
strong atheists are correct; in the lack of such evidence there is no
justification for assuming that there is any fundamental difference in
the status of a viewpoint supported by faith.

You are banking on a philosophical context, or approach.
When we talk about evidence, we are then sure of things or event or
happening. Anything solid in this world would have the possibility of
a definition.
But a god...can you provide a definition and his existence?
You very well know that a heaven and hell thing are the invention of
human imagination and yet you believe we should not doubt them?
And the god is showering this world with diseases, right? Why is that?
A decent human can have a brain that is full of sense, in search of
logic but a clouded mind will never be cleared of dogma.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, yes. We have Jesus Christ, notwithstanding all of the efforts
of atheists to pretend he never existed. He plainly said who he was
and what he was going to do.
Robert B. Winn

On Jul 7, 8:44�pm, "Smiler" wrote:
"Ben Dolan" wrote in message

. ..

rbwinn wrote:

Where do you get that Jesus Christ was not saved. �He was resurrected
after three days.in the tomb.
Robert B. Winn

Yeah, that's the great thing about fictional superheros isn't it? You
can make up all sorts of fun stories about them!

Well there was some moron in another thread that claimed that Superman was
prophesied in the OT.....

Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279

There were some atheists who said Harry Potter went on the train from
London to wizard's school.
Robert B. Winn

On Jul 7, 9:11�pm, "Smiler" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message

...
On Jul 6, 8:23 pm, wrote:





On Jul 5, 8:36 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On Jul 4, 8:25?pm, wrote:

On Jul 4, 8:33 pm, Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 04:29:48 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn
wrote
in alt.atheism:

On Jul 3, 10:59 pm, wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:44 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On Jul 3, 5:32?pm, "Alex W." wrote:

"rbwinn" wrote in message

...
On Jul 3, 6:05?am, "Alex W." wrote:

"rbwinn" wrote in message

...

Well, the scriptures say that the wicked would be more
miserable in
the presence of God than with the devils in hell.

===========

In other words, since we are all sinful by definition, the
smart choice is
to aim for hell in the first place. ?Nice morality ....

No, the smart choice is to repent of sins. ?However, atheists
claim
that nothing they do is sin, so they are not going to repent.

On Jul 7, 8:31 pm, rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:59�pm, Free Lunch wrote:



On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 20:53:52 -0700 (PDT), "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jul 7, 9:25 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:46:07 +0100, "Steve O"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"rbwinn" wrote in message
...

I don't have to be familiar with Satan to know that a plot to betray
Jesus Christ came from him, not God.
Robert B. Winn

So are you saying that the crucifixion was the work of Satan, and that
Christ should never have been sacrificed?
Kind of creates a little problem with your theology, don't you think?

Remember that the theology of Christianity tells us that God is a
sociopath.

I always thought she was a frustrated paranoid scitzo megolomaniac
with a serious inferiority complex and tendencies towards manic-
depression.

Okay, but that leads to sociopathic behavior. Lucky for religionists,
God doesn't exist, since the stories about God tell us that God was
responsible for more deaths than Stalin, Hitler and Mao combined.

The hypothetic god thing isn't human, so there's no
reason it should see humans as "people", so the sociopath diagnosis is
no more valid than for a tiger that kills someone.

More like a person who collects kittens to drown them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, all you are doing is saying that God is guilty of murder every
time a natural death occurs. I do not think you will get far with
that idea.
Robert B. Winn

Why not when you always say that god is every way all the time?

On Jul 8, 12:05 am, "Steve O" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message

...

On Jul 6, 8:35 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
wrote:

After we've taken over the world, god will be weakened by the lack of
prayers and the huge following satan will have, you see. Then we can
change tacks and take god down.
Well, you can try. Satan tried the same thing in heaven, and it did
not work out too well for him.
Robert B. Winn

How can you say that?
Satan hates God, heaven and all it represents, doesn't he?
So he'd be as happy as a pig in **** down there in hell, surely?
What makes you think it didn't work out well for him?

--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence

Steve,
rbwinn's reply indicated that Satan lives in heaven with the god.
I always thought the loons are saying that Satan is the enemy of god;
their message seem incoherent all the time and this rbwinn never think
or did not take medicine before reply.

On Jul 8, 5:44 am, Linda Fox wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:52:04 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn
wrote:



Well, I would not want to be relying on athiests if I ever got a
heatstrroke.

You'd be relying on doctors. Many of whom are atheists.

Linda ff

Tell us that when you are sick that you don't go to clinic or
hospital; and that you 100% rely upon your god.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:01:26 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn
wrote:

It looks to me like you might be in a few killfiles.

Maybe. However, the fact remains that the equations I have show light
to be traveling at 186,000 miles per second in two different frames of
reference without the distance contraction that causes anything that
reaches the speed of light to have a length of 0 in the Lorentz
equations. Scientists definitely do not want to discuss those
equations.
Robert B. Winn

You'd better not let that sense of superiority go to head.