🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 27, 11:28 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
> On 27 jun, 14:56, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 1:10�am, Virgil <Vir...@gmale.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <1214552129.152...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
> > > �The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 26, 3:56?pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> > > > > <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > >> On Jun 27, 6:09 am, 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
> > > > >> Your "god" is yours. ?Different people have more or less
> > > > >> anthropomorphic ideas of gods. ?And the claim wasn't so much that your
> > > > >> god of gaps was disproven (that would be a misnomer, as you're
> > > > >> suggesting god is the stuff we don't know), but the literal biblical
> > > > >> god is provably false. ?The most obviously wrong points would be the
> > > > >> age of the universe, origin of species/types, and a world-wide flood.
> > > > >> There are lots of other smaller details that are contradictory to
> > > > >> reality as well, but could more easily be argued as lack of knowledge
> > > > >> by transcribers.
>
> > > > >> Al- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > So scientists can be proven wrong by
>
> > > > Correct.
>
> > > > Religious beliefs cannot be proven wrong, because they are �not a
> > > > scientific theory: Since religion �predicts nothing that can be tested,
> > > > its is never open to challenge on a scientific basis.
>
> > > And while that sort of religious belief cannot be proved wrong by
> > > science, it also cannot be proved right.
>
> > > On matters of religion, as on many non-religious matters, science says
> > > nothing.
>
> > > However when the religious say that science is wrong, they usually have
> > > no idea what they are talking about.
>
> > > E.g., creationists and intelligent design freaks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, the fact is that scientists of today say that absolute time does
> > not exist.  Except when they are talking about the length of time the
> > earth has existed.  Then there is no relativity of time whatsoever.
> > The Bible talks about relativity of time all the way through.  The sun
> > stood still in the days of Joshua,  the sundial went backward in the
> > days of Hezekiah, a day to God is a thousand years to man, etc.  I
> > would have to lean toward relativity of time.  Everything I have
> > encountered in life indicates that relativity of time exists.
> > Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
>
> I have noticed those bible places also,
> I suppose the text as we see it now, is possible corrupted or is
> perhaps trying to tell something else than it litterally says.
> The effect of the sun "standing" still would be all of us speeding up
> or breaking down 1500 km/h. As the passage about Joshua doesn't
> mention any tidal effects, the sun couldn't really have stood "still".
> A sundial going backwards would indicate a heavy earthquake or
> something similar.
> No way the earth's rotations is going to be backwards without all
> humanity dying.
>
> Time is relative but nont that relative:-)
>
> Best to you,
> and may tou sundial never go backwards!
>
> Peter van Velzen
> June 2008
> Amstelveen
> The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thank you for your input, Peter.  Always happy to hear from our
atheist friends in Europe.  I think time is a lot more relative than
any scientist believes.
Robert B. Winn