🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
Robert B. Winn