Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2068141
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Date | 2016-03-01 19:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djl37nF3uloU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <8djvcbdov8u7bidrqqbhc7m6fu6gs9vs5o@4ax.com> <96l939.tbb.19.1@news.alt.net> <rau4db5jbfo8mmr82fpfodn96j3pkt880u@4ax.com> <djfi6rFlcp5U1@mid.individual.net> <96s1m2.99c.19.1@news.alt.net> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 29-February-2016 4:52 AM, Bob Officer wrote: > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> On 28-February-2016 3:37 PM, mur@. wrote: >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 04:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> <mur@.> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor >>>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >>>>>>>> Doesn't. >>>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to >>>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go >>>>>>> away". >>>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian >>>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they >>>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of >>>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch >>>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a >>>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when >>>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking >>>>>> skills and reject their personal gods? >>>>>> >>>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, >>>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? >>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all >>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what >>>>> they call him or what they think about him. >>>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. >>> There is ONLY evidence to support what I pointed out. >>> >>>> Matter of fact most >>>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the >>>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their >>>> one and only deity. >>> So what? >>> >>>>> That's one basic starting line strong atheists can't get as "far" as. Putting >>>>> faith in the possibility that no beings from outside this star system ever had >>>> Faith? That is something dogmatic in nature taken as being true without >>>> evidence or even in the face of contradictory evidence. >>> Faith is the amount of confidence you have that a belief is correct. >>> >> or rather more correctly.. faith refers to the amount of confidence one >> has that a belief is correct. so there can be a little faith in some >> beliefs or a lot >> > A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or > even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in > dogmatic beliefs. > > An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in > gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no > gods exist. so he doesn't believe in gods. why complicate something that's really quite simple? why are atheists so unwilling to admit that? or as mur says "ashamed" to admit it. > There is no need to make up something which has not supporting > evidence. > there's lots of evidence for God, but that's another matter. -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con> - 2016-02-23 20:58 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-24 11:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-24 22:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-25 09:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-26 04:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:26 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-28 19:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 03:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 04:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-29 21:57 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 00:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 06:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 00:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 01:54 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:02 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 20:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 14:50 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:44 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-02 23:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 22:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:50 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:29 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 15:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:34 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Leonard Leonard <l.a.radio@kfi.con> - 2016-03-01 06:56 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:48 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 18:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-03 12:55 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:43 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:54 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-03 12:56 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:37 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 13:39 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:46 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 03:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-29 10:53 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-29 12:19 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:21 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:28 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 14:16 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 19:16 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:06 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 14:34 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 20:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 21:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 16:47 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:14 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:45 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 20:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-29 13:34 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 01:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:58 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:46 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:44 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 01:37 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 06:13 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 18:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:25 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 12:44 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 10:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 22:37 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-02 18:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-02 12:19 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 12:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:43 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 10:56 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:15 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
csiph-web