🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 29, 2:10 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 9:05 am, mizlee <miz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 8:49 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 27, 12:31 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 26, 1:09�pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >>>>>> W.A. Sawford wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 5:05� am, RobertL <robertml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 4:48� am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 7:27�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Well, if no one proved it, then it was not proven. � All you have done
> >>>>>>>> is to say it was proven without showing any proof or anyone who is
> >>>>>>>> suppsed to have done it. �Atheists have said they have proven all
> >>>>>>>> manner of things. �Almost always it turns out to be something some
> >>>>>>>> individual atheist put together that sounds good to other atheists.
> >>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>>> I wasn't going to get involved in all this (unless it's Friday, which it
> >>>>>>> isn't) but I can't stand it any longer (sigh).
> >>>>>>> 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.'
> >>>>>>> Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which atheists
> >>>>>>> have claimed it? �Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything,
> >>>>>>> because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first
> >>>>>>> place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god any
> >>>>>>> more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of Traal.
> >>>>>> Completely wrong. The concept of God is not a scientific hypotheis, nor
> >>>>>> a fact.
> >>>>>> So it can't be proven or disproven.
> >>>>>> Its simply a shorthand for 'all the wide and wonderful stuff we cant get
> >>>>>> a handle on; and feel scared by' more or less.
> >>>>>> Atheism isn't so much denying His existence, nor yet keeping and open
> >>>>>> mind on the subject (agnostic) its merely sidestepping the whole mess as
> >>>>>> something one can simply do without.
> >>>>>>> Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although actual
> >>>>>>> evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first place...
> >>>>>> That's the whole point. Belief is a state of mind that has utility. Its
> >>>>>> a little bit of Wise-ardry. Headology.
> >>>>>> Wise-ards understand that believing in something is an action, not a
> >>>>>> statement about its existence, or lack thereof.
> >>>>>>> Wendy- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> Well, what atheists do not like to discuss is Jesus Christ.
> >>>> Yu seem to know more about what Atheists do and don't do than Jesus.
> >>>>> Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
> >>> I know a lot about atheists, but not as much as Jesus Christ knows.
> >>> He was the one who created atheists.
> >>> Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> So, if Jesus Christ created atheists, and Jesus Christ was perfect, he
> >> could not create imperfection.  Hence, atheists are perfect.   Sounds
> >> OK to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, Jesus Christ would be the one to tell your idea.  He is the one
> > who is going to judge the earth.
> > Robert B. winn
>
> Science 'Dix points'
> The Church :'Null points'
> Jerr Springer: "How come you are aandinng the church Jesus.
> Jesus": "cos that's full of people who thought they knew all the
> snmawers. Scientists are the only ones who were humble enough to see
> what I laid before them, and draw their own conclusions. The church
> tauht that it had the Knowledge, I taught people how to take their own
> path to Knowledge. Only science followed me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That is quite a fable.
Robert B. Winn