🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 19, 8:49 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 8:15 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >>> On Jul 18, 11:53 pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 18, 8:22 pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> BuddyThunder wrote:
> >>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 3:58 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 6:49 pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 5:45 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 5:27 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 16, 7:39 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 5:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 7:49 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 16, 12:10 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 1:00 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 4:03 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 8:43�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 1:40 am, ben_dolan_...@reet.com (Ben Dolan)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 2:54 pm, ben_dolan_...@reet.com (Ben
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dolan) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your analysis, Peter. �I was merely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expanding on a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement from an atheist to show where it was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leading: �Atheists do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not believe anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not true, we believe you're a fuckin'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moron... We even have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm going to take that as an article of faith. �The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence isn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compelling. �We do have evidence that he's a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> �So he could be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting incredibly stupid, or more likely be stupid,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's impossible to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell. �But the evidence for lies is overwhelming.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, we believe he's as stupid as dog shit. �But we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have evidence, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus no need of faith, that he's a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand your point, but I believe we have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming evidence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both. Bobby is a classic newsgroup troll who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desparately craves
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention. Lying is an excellent way to get attention,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally means suffering considerable ridicule and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insult in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I also believe he's rather unintelligent (as most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup trolls
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tend to be). He has shown a remarkable inability to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorb and integrate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new information presented to him. There's no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indication he reads
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything outside of the few newsgroups he spends
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countless hours posting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in. And he has shown a breathtaking lack of self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> awareness and maturity,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether about his ridiculous physics kookiness or his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> puerile religious
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense. Taken together these point to someone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering from mental
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illness combined with a serious cognitive impairment,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or as I prefer to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think of it, he's a fuckin' moron...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I'll agree it's a good summary.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al.  You are agreeing with someone who has a weak mind.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree or disagree with propositions.  Not people.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your statements are wrong.  Profanity can be used by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak minds to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to make a strong statement.  Just because someone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses profane
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language, does not mean they have a "weak mind".  And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what do you mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by "weak mind"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A weak mind is one that cannot deal with reality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EG: Christians.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some Christians do use profanity, but the biggest promoters of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> profanity are atheists.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet the minds that demonstrably don't deal with reality are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> christians.  Please do keep up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheists are the people who are trying to make the Bible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep.  You've just demonstrated that you aren't dealing with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheists are not trying to make the Bible disappear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I think thy are.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your thoughts have no bearing on reality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>  That is one reason why they are so intrigued
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Harry Potter books.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Um, no.  You still aren't getting it, are you?  Harry Potter is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> just a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient fiction story that is set on modern day Earth.  We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> could've
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> just as easily used ANY OTHER fiction story that is set on modern
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> day Earth.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ******************************************************
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *          DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226            *
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that is not going to happen when Harry Potter books were the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> books that outsold the Bible for a short time.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Um, no.  That's not the reason.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I could've easily used Fantastic Voyage, which was set in
> >>>>>>>>>>> Washington DC.
> >>>>>>>>>>>   It even mentioned some buildings there.  Therefore,
> >>>>>>>>>>> miniaturization is
> >>>>>>>>>>> real.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Right?
> >>>>>>>>>> Why don't you just take some time and decide for yourself?
> >>>>>>>>> Why don't you address the point rather than simply issuing glib
> >>>>>>>>> responses like the one above?- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> There is no point that I can see.  He is claiming that these four
> >>>>>>>> books prove the Bible wrong in some way.
> >>>>>>> No, he's not saying that they prove it false, he's saying your example
> >>>>>>> of the tunnel offers no support for it. That's his point.
> >>>>>> I think Winn knows this.  I think he's purposefully being evasive in
> >>>>>> order to not address the serious issues with his claims.
> >>>>>> I could be wrong, though.  He could really be that stupid.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>> Well, make up your minds.  The tunnel either exists or it does not
> >>>>> exist.  
> >>>> It exists.
> >>>>> If it exists, it is exactly where three books of the Old
> >>>>> Testament said it was.
> >>>> So?
> >>>>> If it does not exist, then Jerusalem tour
> >>>>> guides are taking tourists on tours through solid rock.  So decide for
> >>>>> yourselves whether it exists.   I said from the beginning that the
> >>>>> tunnel does exist.
> >>>> As have atheists.  Try READING what we type.
> >>>> --
> >>> I do read what you type.  If you are going to say the tunnel exists in
> >>> one post, then you need to leave it that way instead of pretending it
> >>> does not exist the next time you post.  I can keep explaining to you
> >>> that it does exist as long as you want me to.
> >> Who is saying that it does not exist?  Please provide the exact quote
> >> that led you to believe that we're saying that.
>
> >> --
> > Any time you atheist make a statement that implies that Hezekiah's
> > tunnel does not prove certain verses of the Old Testament correct, I
> > am going to say that the tunnel does exist.  That way we can stay on
> > topic for a longer time than atheists are used to staying on topic.
>
> I see. So, you're lying when you say that atheists are saying that it
> doesn't exist.
>
> Isn't there a commandment that you're breaking here?
>
> And which atheist is saying that those verses that reference the tunnel
> itself in the Old Testament are incorrect?  Please provide the exact quote.
>
> (...not holding my breath.)
>
> --
What atheists keep saying is that the books of the Old Testament which
make reference to Hezekiah's tunnel are fictional stories about a
tunnel which was known to exist.
Robert B. Winn