🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 20, 10:10 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 9:36 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
> > wrote:
> >> On 19 jul, 20:56, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 19, 8:43 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 19, 8:13 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 17 jul, 05:29, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 16, 1:31 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 16 jul, 16:23, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 9:20 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 14 jul, 05:42, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 1:12 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 13 jul, 16:22, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 13, 12:10 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 7:29�am, Stan-O <bndsna...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:21:44 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists seem to have a lot of trouble with the meanings of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words. ?There was another atheist who seemed to believe that adult and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adulterer meant the same thing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...which is an old joke that you obviously didn't get.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a very foolish mistake. �Although the two words look and sound
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar, they mean very different things.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd explain the meaning of "a play on words", but it would be like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pouring water on a rock and expecting it to sink in...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With atheists, it is not a play on words.  They really believe that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adulterers are the most mature adults.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheists don't believe anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> More lies from the Prince of Lies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its amazing how much ore of an atheist I want to be, listening to you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, there you have it.  Atheists don't believe anything, they don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> do anything, and they don't think anything.  It does not sound very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> exciting to me, but maybe it does to an atheist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well. Atheist are not lying their butt off like you do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Most of them believe in natural explanations,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> most of them have a job,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and many of them are intelligent enough not to make as silly a claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>> as to say someone else doesn't think anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your statement would be truth though if it was made about dead people.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But if all dead people are atheists, what would that mean for heaven
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and hell?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Think about it!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure you have enough brains to understand,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I only doubt whether you will use them on this issue or perfer to keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>> making silly statements
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter van Velzen
> >>>>>>>>>>>> July 2008
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Amstelveen
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Netherlands
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's where you are wrong, Peter.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You think rbwinn got brain? OK, has a brain but without cells...
> >>>>>>>>>>> But you do not know he has mental problem, which the scientists have
> >>>>>>>>>>> not come up with any cure yet?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
> >>>>>>>>>>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
> >>>>>>>>>> I always assume that a person with whom I can have some kind of
> >>>>>>>>>> conversation, is more or less intelligent in the same way I am.
> >>>>>>>>>> Though rbwinn sometimes posts like a moron, that does not nescesarily
> >>>>>>>>>> mean he is one. He sort of acknowledged he was actually mocking
> >>>>>>>>>> atheism, by pursuing the line "an atheist has no believe". And if that
> >>>>>>>>>> would indeed be true, than logic requires that the atheist does not
> >>>>>>>>>> think. For what is there to think about unless you believe something?
> >>>>>>>>>> Anyway I always treat posters as if they can understand what I am
> >>>>>>>>>> saying,
> >>>>>>>>>> and I will keep doing do, however hard those posters are trying not
> >>>>>>>>>> to.
> >>>>>>>>>> Love,
> >>>>>>>>>> Peter van Velzen
> >>>>>>>>>> July 2008
> >>>>>>>>>> Amstelveen
> >>>>>>>>>> The Netherlands
> >>>>>>>>>> PS In order to make this post I had to believe:
> >>>>>>>>>> I exist
> >>>>>>>>>> You exist
> >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn exists
> >>>>>>>>>> My computer exists
> >>>>>>>>>> Google exists
> >>>>>>>>>> (my provider doesn't provide Newsgroup access)
> >>>>>>>>>> sci.physics,cam.mist,alt.sci.physics or alt.atheism exists
> >>>>>>>>>> English exists
> >>>>>>>>>> The english words mean what I think they mean
> >>>>>>>>>> Others can understand the English I produce.
> >>>>>>>>>> Someone who doesn't believe all of this (except maybe for Google and
> >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn)
> >>>>>>>>>> cannot sensibly reply to your post.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>> Europeans are very existential.
> >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
> >>>>>>>>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
> >>>>>>>> Somehow Robert, I do not think my philosophy is existentialism. I
> >>>>>>>> think it rather borders on pragmatism. Discussions become rather
> >>>>>>>> meaningsless, unless one accepts there is a ground for it. So in order
> >>>>>>>> to exchange thought with you, I have to suppose that to be possible.
> >>>>>>>> My main premise is that you are an intelligent human being, able to
> >>>>>>>> understand what I am saying and able to make me understand what you
> >>>>>>>> are thinking.
> >>>>>>>> Besides discussions becoming worthless if this were not the case, I
> >>>>>>>> think it's a mater of courtesy also.
> >>>>>>>> Some peopleon usenet are very quick to dismiss others as inferior. I
> >>>>>>>> admit some people have superior knowledge and/or superior
> >>>>>>>> understanding. But communication works best if we try and find a way
> >>>>>>>> to exchange ideas without making arrogant assumptions.
> >>>>>>>> Even if someone says something that seems utterly stupid, one should
> >>>>>>>> try an find out their reason for saying it. Many times we find out
> >>>>>>>> that there is less stupidity in the person than in his/her words.
> >>>>>>>> Love,
> >>>>>>> Well, I have never met an atheist who wanted to communicate.  What is
> >>>>>>> it that you want to communicate?
> >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
> >>>>>>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
> >>>>>> To my amazement, my previous reply dissappeared.
> >>>>>> So I will try to repost what I said then
> >>>>>> Generally I want to communicate to people, that I care about them.
> >>>>>> To you in particular I want to say that eveyone who calls himself an
> >>>>>> atheist, does at least want to communnicate that he is one.
> >>>>>> If you get the impression that atheists do not want to communicate,
> >>>>>> that might be because of the negative way you are approaching them. A
> >>>>>> liittle more open-mindedness might be sufficient for getting more
> >>>>>> friendly replies.
> >>>>>> As far as I can see, you are shouting out misconceptions about
> >>>>>> atheists, that lead many of them to claim you are stupid.
> >>>>>> I do not think you are stupid, but I do think you knowledge about
> >>>>>> atheism is very poor.
> >>>>>> That is what I want to say to you
> >>>>>> (apart from the general fact that I care)
> >>>>>> Peter van Velzen
> >>>>> Well, there may be an atheist somewhere who is actually trying to be a
> >>>>> good person just as there may be an honest lawyer somewhere, but these
> >>>>> people in this newsgroup are not examples of that.   These are people
> >>>>> who regard themselves as being more intelligent than others because
> >>>>> they have rejected religion.
> >>>> Nope, no one thinks that.  They're just more intelligent than you.
> >>> Well, the correct definition of intelligence is the capacity to obey
> >>> God.  That would seem to mean that you folks are a little bit lacking.
> >>> Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
> >>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
> >> Sorry Robert, but I have to tell you that this - what you have just
> >> said here - is exactly the reason why most atheists assume you are
> >> stupid. If you would try and imagine their point of view, you would
> >> understand.
>
> >> Imagine somebody would tell you that being intelligent would mean
> >> obeying the tooth-fairy. Wouldn't you laugh in their face?
>
> >> Of course saying that I should do the same thing, and imagine your
> >> point of view.
> >> What if an allmighty god would exist? Would it be wise to obey him?
> >> Of course that would mean knowing Gods wishes in sofar as my conduct
> >> is concerned.
> >> And that would pose a problem as such.
> >> Many faiths, churches and sects claim to know God's wishes, but I
> >> wouldn't know which one to believe. Would you.
>
> >> I would imagine the best try is to follow the advice of Jesus.
> >> He said that loving god with all your resources is equal to loving
> >> your fellow men as much as you love yourself.
> >> Now even if he was wrong, and even if there is no God, that would
> >> still be beneficial to our fellow men wouldn't it?
>
> >> That's why I would advice you and any Christian who converses with
> >> atheists, to restrain themselves to loving those atheists like you
> >> love yourselve, and show it!
>
> >> They might love you back, and might stop assuming you are stupid.
>
> > Atheists do not appear to me to have love for anything except money.
>
> Another lie.
>
> > I am fairly certain they would not love me even if I tried to conform
> > to their demands.
>
> I don't love you because you're an idiot.
>

So what would you like to see happen to idiots?
Robert B. Winn