Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #1961776 > unrolled thread

Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-16 14:16 -0500
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-16 12:25 -0700
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-18 13:27 -0500
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 11:35 -0700
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-18 14:33 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-19 17:16 -0500
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-19 15:19 -0700
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-19 19:27 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-20 14:02 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-19 20:51 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-20 14:03 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-20 14:01 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 12:37 -0700
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-20 20:00 -0700
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 20:59 -0700
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-22 13:47 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-22 11:48 -0700
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-23 10:21 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-22 13:46 -0500
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 15:37 -0700
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-23 10:22 -0500
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 15:46 -0700
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-19 17:13 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 20:09 -0700
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-20 07:12 -0500
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-20 14:04 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 12:09 -0700
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-22 13:54 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 15:35 -0700
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-23 10:28 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 12:26 -0700
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 04:46 -0400
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-20 14:04 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 04:46 -0400
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-22 13:55 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-22 12:50 -0700
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-23 10:30 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-23 08:54 -0700
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-24 17:30 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 16:02 -0700
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-23 10:31 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 12:28 -0700
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-24 17:31 -0500
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:52 -0700
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 14:25 -0700
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:40 -0400
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-23 10:33 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 16:41 -0400
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-24 17:32 -0500
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-24 20:17 -0400
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-26 03:35 -0400
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Mike M <mike@xenocyte.com> - 2015-08-18 19:04 +0000
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-18 12:33 -0700
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-19 17:17 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 04:47 -0400
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 22:42 +0000
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-19 17:19 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2015-08-19 18:30 -0400
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-20 21:52 +0800
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 09:39 -0700
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 08:56 -0400
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-21 21:55 +0800
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 10:14 -0400
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-21 23:00 +0800
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 12:12 -0400
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 01:28 +0800
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 08:28 -0700
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 01:41 +0800
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Mitchell Holman <noemail@att.net> - 2015-08-21 17:34 -0500
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 07:21 +0800
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:43 -0700
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 11:04 +0800
                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 20:52 -0700
                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 18:12 +0800
                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 09:23 -0700
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-22 03:34 -0400
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 20:15 +0800
                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:43 -0400
                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-23 21:25 +0800
                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 16:42 -0400
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-25 01:01 +0800
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-24 20:18 -0400
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Planet Visitor II <nappy@nosuchserver.com> - 2015-08-21 22:11 -0400
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 20:39 -0700
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 20:18 +0800
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:37 -0700
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 10:38 +0800
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-20 14:07 -0500
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-16 15:02 -0500
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 05:38 -0400
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-18 13:28 -0500
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 16:48 -0400
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-19 17:20 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 04:49 -0400
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-20 14:09 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 04:49 -0400
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-21 09:39 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 17:26 -0400
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-22 13:57 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-22 15:08 -0700
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-23 10:34 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:45 -0400
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-23 10:36 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 16:39 -0400
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-24 17:33 -0500
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-24 20:16 -0400
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-25 15:57 -0500
                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-26 03:33 -0400
                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-26 10:33 -0500

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#1967715

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:46:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:04:50 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>> >alt.atheism with message-id
>> ><i59cta5i6aa052gonafj5g2kg4tsjj4gt8@4ax.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:46:12 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:13:55 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>> >>>alt.atheism with message-id
>> >>><0sv9tahas03pau0791kkcdihghmplj0anp@4ax.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>> >>>>>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>> >>>>>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
>> >>>>>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Why?  And be explicit:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Creation takes a creator.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
>> >>
>> >>Just as I tell everybody, you big dummy, no man will or can ever know the answer
>> >>to that one.
>> 
>
>.> >I see you avoided the question again.
> 
>.> "Nature bats last" thinks God is a person.
>
>Nope.  Never said so.   Another of your lies.

Your wording.

>
>
>Seth

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1967948

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 8:31:48 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:46:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:04:50 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
> >> >alt.atheism with message-id
> >> ><i59cta5i6aa052gonafj5g2kg4tsjj4gt8@4ax.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:46:12 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:13:55 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
> >> >>>alt.atheism with message-id
> >> >>><0sv9tahas03pau0791kkcdihghmplj0anp@4ax.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
> >> >>>>>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
> >> >>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
> >> >>>>>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
> >> >>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Why?  And be explicit:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Creation takes a creator.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
> >> >>
> >> >>Just as I tell everybody, you big dummy, no man will or can ever know the answer
> >> >>to that one.
> >> 
> >
> >.> >I see you avoided the question again.
> > 
.
.>>> "Nature bats last" thinks God is a person.

.> >Nope.  Never said so.   Another of your lies.
 
.> Your wording.

Not so, liar Duke.

Disagree, liar?

Then give us a link to the post where I wrote that
God is a person.

Right here, liar:







Seth

> 
> >
> >
> >Seth
> 
> the dukester, American-American
> 
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1969060

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:28:53 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 8:31:48 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:46:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:04:50 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>> >> >alt.atheism with message-id
>> >> ><i59cta5i6aa052gonafj5g2kg4tsjj4gt8@4ax.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:46:12 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:13:55 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>> >> >>>alt.atheism with message-id
>> >> >>><0sv9tahas03pau0791kkcdihghmplj0anp@4ax.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> 
>> >> >>>>>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>> >> >>>>>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>> >> >>>>>> >
>> >> >>>>>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
>> >> >>>>>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>> >> >>>>>> 
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Why?  And be explicit:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Creation takes a creator.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Just as I tell everybody, you big dummy, no man will or can ever know the answer
>> >> >>to that one.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >.> >I see you avoided the question again.
>> > 
>.
>.>>> "Nature bats last" thinks God is a person.
>
>.> >Nope.  Never said so.   Another of your lies.
> 
>.> Your wording.
>
>Not so, liar Duke.
>
>Disagree, liar?
>
>Then give us a link to the post where I wrote that
>God is a person.
>
>Right here, liar:

Check your posts.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1969322

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 3:31:28 PM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:28:53 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 8:31:48 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:46:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:04:50 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
> >> >> >alt.atheism with message-id
> >> >> ><i59cta5i6aa052gonafj5g2kg4tsjj4gt8@4ax.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:46:12 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:13:55 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
> >> >> >>>alt.atheism with message-id
> >> >> >>><0sv9tahas03pau0791kkcdihghmplj0anp@4ax.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>> 
> >> >> >>>>>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
> >> >> >>>>>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
> >> >> >>>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
> >> >> >>>>>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
> >> >> >>>>>> 
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>Why?  And be explicit:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>Creation takes a creator.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Just as I tell everybody, you big dummy, no man will or can ever know the answer
> >> >> >>to that one.
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> >.> >I see you avoided the question again.
> >> > 
> >

.
.> >.>>> "Nature bats last" thinks God is a person.
.> >
.> >.> >Nope.  Never said so.   Another of your lies.
 
.> >.> Your wording.

.> >Not so, liar Duke.

.> >Disagree, liar?

.> >Then give us a link to the post where I wrote that
..> >God is a person.

.> >Right here, liar:
 
.,> Check your posts.

I know exactly what I wrote, lying Duke.

I did not write that I believe that God is
a person.

And your abrupt wriggling here shows that
you know it too.

Second chance, lying Duke:







Seth


> 
> the dukester, American-American
> 
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1969890

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 1:55:47 PM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:52:06 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 3:31:28 PM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:28:53 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 8:31:48 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:46:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:04:50 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
> >> >> >> >alt.atheism with message-id
> >> >> >> ><i59cta5i6aa052gonafj5g2kg4tsjj4gt8@4ax.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:46:12 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:13:55 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
> >> >> >> >>>alt.atheism with message-id
> >> >> >> >>><0sv9tahas03pau0791kkcdihghmplj0anp@4ax.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>> 
> >> >> >> >>>>>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
> >> >> >> >>>>>> >
> >> >> >> >>>>>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
> >> >> >> >>>>>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
> >> >> >> >>>>>> 
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>Why?  And be explicit:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>Creation takes a creator.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>Just as I tell everybody, you big dummy, no man will or can ever know the answer
> >> >> >> >>to that one.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >
> >> >> >.> >I see you avoided the question again.
> >> >> > 
> >> >
> >
> >.
> >.> >.>>> "Nature bats last" thinks God is a person.
> >.> >
> >.> >.> >Nope.  Never said so.   Another of your lies.
> > 
> >.> >.> Your wording.
> >
> >.> >Not so, liar Duke.
> >
> >.> >Disagree, liar?
> >
> >.> >Then give us a link to the post where I wrote that
> >..> >God is a person.
> >
> >.> >Right here, liar:
> > 
> >.,> Check your posts.
> >
> >I know exactly what I wrote, lying Duke.
> >
> >I did not write that I believe that God is
> >a person.
> >
> >And your abrupt wriggling here shows that
> >you know it too.
> >
> >Second chance, lying Duke:
> 

.> You pushed this one.
 
.>  http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/
>.  The subtlety has therefore been transferred to the task of defining God.'' I
.>  will take it to mean some being who is not bound by the same patterns we
.>  perceive in the universe, who is by our standards extremely powerful (not
.>  necessarily omnipotent, although that would count), and in some way plays a
.>  crucial role in the universe (creating it, or keeping it going, etc.). By a
.>  ''being'' I mean to imply an entity which we would recognize as having
.>  consciousness -- a ''person'' some appropriately generalized sense (as opposed
.>  to a feature of reality, or some sort of feeling). 

Seriously?

I did not at any point say that I believe that 
"God is a person".  Now did I?

What I did do -- in response to your claim that 
"Astrophysics is convincing in creation", was
to point you to an article titled 
"Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists".

Written by an astrophysicist.  Thus refuting your claim.

And that's all.   

Clear on that now?

Good.

But let's talk a bit about the article anyhow.

Anyone actually reading it would for meaning
see that Carroll was setting up all the possibilities.
one at a time, and dealing with them, one at a time, 
to support his contention that an appreciation of
astrophysics is conducive to atheism.

It's bizarre that you could so misread it
that you thought a man writing an article
justifying his atheism claims that he
doesn't believe in God and at the same
time believes God is a person

Almost as bizarre as your lie that
I think god is a person, while knowing
full well that I do not believe your
god exists.  In any form.

Seth







> 
> 
> the dukester, American-American
> 
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1967455

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:55:45 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
alt.atheism with message-id
<ubhhtatk63i9q0nnqd4vticqjdv25mp6h1@4ax.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:46:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:04:50 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>alt.atheism with message-id
>><i59cta5i6aa052gonafj5g2kg4tsjj4gt8@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:46:12 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:13:55 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>><0sv9tahas03pau0791kkcdihghmplj0anp@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>>>>>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
>>>>>>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why?  And be explicit:
>>>>>
>>>>>Creation takes a creator.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
>>>
>>>Just as I tell everybody, you big dummy, no man will or can ever know the answer
>>>to that one.
>
>>I see you avoided the question again.
>
>"Nature bats last" thinks God is a person.
>

That wasn't the question.  I am still waiting for an answer.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1967717

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 03:40:48 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:55:45 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>alt.atheism with message-id
><ubhhtatk63i9q0nnqd4vticqjdv25mp6h1@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:46:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:04:50 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>><i59cta5i6aa052gonafj5g2kg4tsjj4gt8@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:46:12 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:13:55 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>><0sv9tahas03pau0791kkcdihghmplj0anp@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>>>>>>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
>>>>>>>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why?  And be explicit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Creation takes a creator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
>>>>
>>>>Just as I tell everybody, you big dummy, no man will or can ever know the answer
>>>>to that one.
>>
>>>I see you avoided the question again.
>>
>>"Nature bats last" thinks God is a person.
>>
>
>That wasn't the question.  I am still waiting for an answer.

Been a long time since you posted it.  

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1968016

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:33:22 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
alt.atheism with message-id
<1tpjta9611po0ruale5rkhloninb5b8ore@4ax.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 03:40:48 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:55:45 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>alt.atheism with message-id
>><ubhhtatk63i9q0nnqd4vticqjdv25mp6h1@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:46:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:04:50 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>><i59cta5i6aa052gonafj5g2kg4tsjj4gt8@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:46:12 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:13:55 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>><0sv9tahas03pau0791kkcdihghmplj0anp@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>>>>>>>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
>>>>>>>>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why?  And be explicit:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Creation takes a creator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
>>>>>
>>>>>Just as I tell everybody, you big dummy, no man will or can ever know the answer
>>>>>to that one.
>>>
>>>>I see you avoided the question again.
>>>
>>>"Nature bats last" thinks God is a person.
>>>
>>
>>That wasn't the question.  I am still waiting for an answer.
>
>Been a long time since you posted it.  
>

The question?  Not that long.

And just how was that creator created?  By who?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1969061

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:41:14 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:33:22 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>alt.atheism with message-id
><1tpjta9611po0ruale5rkhloninb5b8ore@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 03:40:48 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:55:45 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>><ubhhtatk63i9q0nnqd4vticqjdv25mp6h1@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:46:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:04:50 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>><i59cta5i6aa052gonafj5g2kg4tsjj4gt8@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:46:12 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:13:55 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>><0sv9tahas03pau0791kkcdihghmplj0anp@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>>>>>>>>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
>>>>>>>>>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Why?  And be explicit:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Creation takes a creator.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just as I tell everybody, you big dummy, no man will or can ever know the answer
>>>>>>to that one.
>>>>
>>>>>I see you avoided the question again.
>>>>
>>>>"Nature bats last" thinks God is a person.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That wasn't the question.  I am still waiting for an answer.
>>
>>Been a long time since you posted it.  
>>
>
>The question?  Not that long.
>And just how was that creator created?  By who?

Same answer.  I don't know.  NO man will ever know.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1969196

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:32:05 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
alt.atheism with message-id
<eq6ntad7k6s63ebljme4m3krsc0gvom6v7@4ax.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:41:14 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:33:22 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>alt.atheism with message-id
>><1tpjta9611po0ruale5rkhloninb5b8ore@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 03:40:48 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:55:45 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>><ubhhtatk63i9q0nnqd4vticqjdv25mp6h1@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:46:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:04:50 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>><i59cta5i6aa052gonafj5g2kg4tsjj4gt8@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:46:12 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:13:55 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>><0sv9tahas03pau0791kkcdihghmplj0anp@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:35:30 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> >On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>>>>>>>>>> >> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
>>>>>>>>>>> >there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>.> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Why?  And be explicit:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Creation takes a creator.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just as I tell everybody, you big dummy, no man will or can ever know the answer
>>>>>>>to that one.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I see you avoided the question again.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Nature bats last" thinks God is a person.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That wasn't the question.  I am still waiting for an answer.
>>>
>>>Been a long time since you posted it.  
>>>
>>
>>The question?  Not that long.
>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
>
>Same answer.  I don't know.  NO man will ever know.
>

If no one knows why consider the entire subject valid?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1970262

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:56:56 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
alt.atheism with message-id
<2jlpta1t99a4brb0jn28jmlkrt36ermp2h@4ax.com> wrote:

>>>>>>That wasn't the question.  I am still waiting for an answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Been a long time since you posted it.  
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The question?  Not that long.
>>>>And just how was that creator created?  By who?
>>>Same answer.  I don't know.  NO man will ever know.
>
>>If no one knows why consider the entire subject valid?
>
>You brought it up, not me.

Are you denying any such creator was ever involved in anything?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1963500

duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>>> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>> 
>> If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
>> there's no need to replace God as that creator.
> 
> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
> 

So who was the creator of your God? 

-- 
So much universe, and so little time. - Sir Terry Pratchett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1963520

Mike M wrote:
> 
> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
> >>> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
> >>> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
> >>
> >> If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then
> >> there's no need to replace God as that creator.
> >
> > Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
> >
> 
> So who was the creator of your God?


God's mother!


http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Image/mary.holy.mother.of.god.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1964373

On 18 Aug 2015 19:04:47 GMT, Mike M <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

>duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>>>> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>>> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>>> 
>>> If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
>>> there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>> 
>> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>> 
>
>So who was the creator of your God? 

No man can ever know.  Unless God reveals it, of course.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1964708

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:17:22 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
alt.atheism with message-id
<k20atalumfprfdmd10pu5v85fprse2sjob@4ax.com> wrote:

>On 18 Aug 2015 19:04:47 GMT, Mike M <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:25:51 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 08/16/2015 12:16 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> And it's a guarantee that you don't have a shred of evidence or education that
>>>>> replaces God as supreme creator of all things.
>>>> 
>>>> If reality doesn't need a supreme creator in the first place, then 
>>>> there's no need to replace God as that creator.
>>> 
>>> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>>> 
>>
>>So who was the creator of your God? 
>
>No man can ever know.  Unless God reveals it, of course.
>

Another evasive and useless answer.  You do that a lot.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1963658

duke wrote:
>
> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.

Until the invention of the microscope and the phrasing of the germ
theory, the fermentation of wine was the proof of divine intervention. 
Wine has one miracle.

Until the invention of X-ray crystalography and the phrasing of the
lock and key theory of enzyme action, the malting of starch into sugar
was proof of divone intervention.  Ale has two miracles.  We all have to
believe in something.  I believe I'll have an ale.

Aristole thought life emerged spontaneously from non-living material. 
It has since been discovered that every example he knew of was from
eggs, seeds and spores.

In the Volspa Odin and  a pair of brothers condensed the solar nebula
to form the world, and the world is a living being.  Anyone who has dug
in a garden has seen first had that the soil is a living thing.  This
shows that stories lose meaning when viewed literally but do have value
when viewed allegorically.

In the Volspa Odin and a pair of brothers engineered humanity from
existing materials.  This is both the source of the intelligent designer
idea and another demonstration that stories lose meaning when viewed
literally but do have value when viewed allegorically.

I am okay with science not yet being able to explain something from
nothing without reference to a creator.  Maybe not ever explained by
science.  Your not being secure with that suggests you lack serenity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1964374

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:42:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>duke wrote:
>>
>> Something from nothing does take a creator, and that is reality.
>
>Until the invention of the microscope and the phrasing of the germ
>theory, the fermentation of wine was the proof of divine intervention. 
>Wine has one miracle.
>
>Until the invention of X-ray crystalography and the phrasing of the
>lock and key theory of enzyme action, the malting of starch into sugar
>was proof of divone intervention.  Ale has two miracles.  We all have to
>believe in something.  I believe I'll have an ale.

>Aristole thought life emerged spontaneously from non-living material. 
>It has since been discovered that every example he knew of was from
>eggs, seeds and spores.
>
>In the Volspa Odin and  a pair of brothers condensed the solar nebula
>to form the world, and the world is a living being.  Anyone who has dug
>in a garden has seen first had that the soil is a living thing.  This
>shows that stories lose meaning when viewed literally but do have value
>when viewed allegorically.
>
>In the Volspa Odin and a pair of brothers engineered humanity from
>existing materials.  This is both the source of the intelligent designer
>idea and another demonstration that stories lose meaning when viewed
>literally but do have value when viewed allegorically.

>I am okay with science not yet being able to explain something from
>nothing without reference to a creator.  Maybe not ever explained by
>science.  Your not being secure with that suggests you lack serenity.

Well, when you can provide a better, or even an equal, explanation for the
existence of all things material and energy, something form nothing appearing in
nothingness, then you have no where to go.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1964390

On 8/19/15 6:19 PM, duke wrote:

> Well, when you can provide a better, or even an equal, explanation for the
> existence


	It just is. There, just as good as "God Just is", which is yours. Both 
of them run into the First Cause problem. God doesn't explain anything 
better than science does, and adds an infinitely complex something (God) 
onto the universe for no purpose, other than to push the "First Cause" 
problem back one more step.


-- 
                      Sea Wasp
                        /^\
                        ;;;	
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com  Blog: 
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1964833

On 2015-08-20 06:30 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 8/19/15 6:19 PM, duke wrote:
>
>> Well, when you can provide a better, or even an equal, explanation for
>> the
>> existence
>
>
>      It just is. There, just as good as "God Just is", which is yours.
> Both of them run into the First Cause problem. God doesn't explain
> anything better than science does, and adds an infinitely complex
> something (God) onto the universe for no purpose, other than to push the
> "First Cause" problem back one more step.

Pure misunderstanding. God, as the Truth, is the foundation of all 
things that exist. Science, as the empirical truth, can only work under 
certain conditions. As soon as the situation is changed, the theory has 
to be modified. The truth of God never changes. The truth in science is 
always changing.


>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1964999

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 6:53:23 AM UTC-7, niunian wrote:
> On 2015-08-20 06:30 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> > On 8/19/15 6:19 PM, duke wrote:
> >
> >> Well, when you can provide a better, or even an equal, explanation for
> >> the
> >> existence
> >
> >
> >      It just is. There, just as good as "God Just is", which is yours.
> > Both of them run into the First Cause problem. God doesn't explain
> > anything better than science does, and adds an infinitely complex
> > something (God) onto the universe for no purpose, other than to push the
> > "First Cause" problem back one more step.
> 

> Pure misunderstanding. 
.>God, as the Truth, is the foundation of all 
.> things that exist. 

"Here you made a claim without giving sufficient 
evidence to prove that claim. Why is that?"

                --- niunian, August 19, 2015



Seth


> Science, as the empirical truth, can only work under 
> certain conditions. As soon as the situation is changed, the theory has 
> to be modified. The truth of God never changes. The truth in science is 
> always changing.
> 
> 
> >
> >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web