🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> 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.

Humans are good at fables. You've got the biggest book of them right there.


> Robert B. Winn