Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2100092 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-03 23:04 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-05-15 16:14 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 71 — 15 participants |
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.
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-03 23:04 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 16:00 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-05 19:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-07 07:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 16:15 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jane <Jane@....> - 2016-05-08 06:51 +1000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-08 00:24 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 00:25 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-05-08 08:45 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 23:24 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-05-09 18:14 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-05-10 15:47 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-11 14:02 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-11 14:01 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-07 14:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-08 00:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-07 17:33 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-07 17:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-11 14:02 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 00:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-12 08:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 18:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-13 17:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-14 02:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-15 16:05 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-16 22:14 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-17 06:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Mitchell Holman <noemail@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 07:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-17 23:21 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-18 03:30 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 11:26 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 12:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:03 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 17:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 21:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:01 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 17:27 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 21:35 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-05-18 16:01 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 17:29 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-05-18 16:08 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 18:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-19 17:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 03:45 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:13 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:05 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 00:59 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 12:49 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:06 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 01:00 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-18 15:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:08 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-18 15:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 01:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-05-18 15:57 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-17 16:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-08 00:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-05-10 12:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-11 14:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 00:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-05-14 18:04 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-15 16:14 -0500
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 23:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? |
| Message-ID | <ngbaqp$1su2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
On Tue, 03 May 2016 12:48:06 -0500, duke wrote: > On Sun, 1 May 2016 16:01:48 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Sun, 01 May 2016 09:56:43 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 17:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:11:28 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:40:07 -0600, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <gm97ibhphdv41oupbgbvc153kgc1ljncbf@4ax.com>, >>>>>> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? I >>>>>>> >> >>>> think that logically it's impossible >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >An omniscient omnipotent god should be able to find way! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If he wanted to, he would. >>>>>> >>>>>>If "The" god were male there would be no humans. >>>>> >>>>> stupid comment. >>>> >>>>That's all we ever get from you. >>> >>> Well, it does take intelligence on your part to understand. So I can >>> accept what problems you are having. >> >>I perfectly well understand that you're an idiot, no problem. > > Idiots don't turn to God. Of course they do. Believing in an unevidenced supposed god character is the height of idiocy. > Idiots stick with satan. As I don't believe in Satan, unlike you, I cannot be an idiot, unlike you. > ***** > "The Satanic Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 16:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omokibtfbaccnpm9hioirkb8ao1gjqnq27@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2100092 |
On Tue, 3 May 2016 23:04:57 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Tue, 03 May 2016 12:48:06 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Sun, 1 May 2016 16:01:48 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 01 May 2016 09:56:43 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 17:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:11:28 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:40:07 -0600, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <gm97ibhphdv41oupbgbvc153kgc1ljncbf@4ax.com>, >>>>>>> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? I >>>>>>>> >> >>>> think that logically it's impossible >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >An omniscient omnipotent god should be able to find way! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If he wanted to, he would. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If "The" god were male there would be no humans. >>>>>> >>>>>> stupid comment. >>>>> >>>>>That's all we ever get from you. >>>> >>>> Well, it does take intelligence on your part to understand. So I can >>>> accept what problems you are having. >>> >>>I perfectly well understand that you're an idiot, no problem. >> >> Idiots don't turn to God. > >Of course they do. Believing in an unevidenced supposed god character is >the height of idiocy. A great definition for an atheist wannabe. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-05 19:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ngg861$1k3b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2100534 |
On Wed, 04 May 2016 16:00:57 -0500, duke wrote: > On Tue, 3 May 2016 23:04:57 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Tue, 03 May 2016 12:48:06 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 1 May 2016 16:01:48 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 01 May 2016 09:56:43 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 17:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:11:28 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:40:07 -0600, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <gm97ibhphdv41oupbgbvc153kgc1ljncbf@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> I think that logically it's impossible >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >An omniscient omnipotent god should be able to find way! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If he wanted to, he would. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If "The" god were male there would be no humans. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> stupid comment. >>>>>> >>>>>>That's all we ever get from you. >>>>> >>>>> Well, it does take intelligence on your part to understand. So I >>>>> can accept what problems you are having. >>>> >>>>I perfectly well understand that you're an idiot, no problem. >>> >>> Idiots don't turn to God. >> >>Of course they do. Believing in an unevidenced supposed god character is >>the height of idiocy. > > A great definition for an atheist wannabe. A stupid answer from Duke, the idiot Satanist. > ***** > "Paedophilia is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 07:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mporibdf8ve70ldscceuv1e310e49oma39@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2100969 |
On Thu, 5 May 2016 19:50:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Wed, 04 May 2016 16:00:57 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 May 2016 23:04:57 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 03 May 2016 12:48:06 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 1 May 2016 16:01:48 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 01 May 2016 09:56:43 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 17:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:11:28 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:40:07 -0600, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In article <gm97ibhphdv41oupbgbvc153kgc1ljncbf@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> I think that logically it's impossible >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >An omniscient omnipotent god should be able to find way! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If he wanted to, he would. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If "The" god were male there would be no humans. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> stupid comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That's all we ever get from you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, it does take intelligence on your part to understand. So I >>>>>> can accept what problems you are having. >>>>> >>>>>I perfectly well understand that you're an idiot, no problem. >>>> >>>> Idiots don't turn to God. >>> >>>Of course they do. Believing in an unevidenced supposed god character is >>>the height of idiocy. >> >> A great definition for an atheist wannabe. > >A stupid answer from Duke, the idiot Satanist. What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? A simple request for a simple answer..............if you have one. . the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 16:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2157315.7XmkX72Zt3@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #2101891 |
duke wrote: > What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof> <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm> pp. <http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof> And I can’t believe that you two are still "discussing" this. Will you, at least, *please* keep sci.ALL out of this? TIA. F'up2 alt.atheism PointedEars -- Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet? A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front I find myself very attracted to you. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 06:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nglkfh$1hqk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2101936 |
On 08/05/16 00:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > duke wrote: > >> What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? > > <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof> > <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm> pp. > <http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof> > > And I can’t believe that you two are still "discussing" this. > > Will you, at least, *please* keep sci.ALL out of this? TIA. I hope you have realized that this 'Duke' moron is none other than your good friend Gary Harnagel > F'up2 alt.atheism > > PointedEars >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 00:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ngm0v9$1pv$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2102193 |
On Sun, 08 May 2016 06:51:12 +1000, Jane wrote: > On 08/05/16 00:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> duke wrote: >> >>> What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? >> >> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof> >> <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/ CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm> >> pp. >> <http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof> >> >> And I can’t believe that you two are still "discussing" this. >> >> Will you, at least, *please* keep sci.ALL out of this? TIA. > > I hope you have realized that this 'Duke' moron is none other than your > good friend Gary Harnagel No he isn't. He's Earl Weber, the moron from Baton Rouge. We have evidence of that. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 00:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ngmetq$uvj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2102352 |
Le 2016-05-07 à 20:24, Smiler a écrit : > On Sun, 08 May 2016 06:51:12 +1000, Jane wrote: > >> On 08/05/16 00:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> duke wrote: >>> >>>> What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? >>> >>> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof> >>> <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/ > CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm> >>> pp. >>> <http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? > title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof> >>> >>> And I can’t believe that you two are still "discussing" this. >>> >>> Will you, at least, *please* keep sci.ALL out of this? TIA. >> >> I hope you have realized that this 'Duke' moron is none other than your >> good friend Gary Harnagel > > No he isn't. He's Earl Weber, the moron from Baton Rouge. > We have evidence of that. Maybe he is. I've been here since 1999, and I think the "duke" that posts today has nothing to do with the "duke" that posted then. For one thing, he was erratic, posted quite infrequently (at least not as much as today), he claimed to be nearing 70 years-old, etc. I suspect that there's a group of persons that co-opt old nyms for their own profit. -- Olrik aa #1981 EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 08:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qebuibpc3r4majbt7k1pbbc6hff21fnadb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2102472 |
On Sun, 8 May 2016 00:25:40 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote:
>Le 2016-05-07 à 20:24, Smiler a écrit :
>> On Sun, 08 May 2016 06:51:12 +1000, Jane wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/05/16 00:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty?
>>>>
>>>> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof>
>>>> <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/
>> CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm>
>>>> pp.
>>>> <http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?
>> title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof>
>>>>
>>>> And I can’t believe that you two are still "discussing" this.
>>>>
>>>> Will you, at least, *please* keep sci.ALL out of this? TIA.
>>>
>>> I hope you have realized that this 'Duke' moron is none other than your
>>> good friend Gary Harnagel
>>
>> No he isn't. He's Earl Weber, the moron from Baton Rouge.
>> We have evidence of that.
>
>
>Maybe he is. I've been here since 1999, and I think the "duke" that
>posts today has nothing to do with the "duke" that posted then. For one
>thing, he was erratic, posted quite infrequently (at least not as much
>as today), he claimed to be nearing 70 years-old, etc. I suspect that
>there's a group of persons that co-opt old nyms for their own profit.
If so, we are dealing with like-minded (or like-demented, if you will)
idiots. The increase in output could be explained by his retirement
and (very likely) mobility problems.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 23:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ngovm8$bft$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2102626 |
Le 2016-05-08 à 08:45, Don Martin a écrit : > On Sun, 8 May 2016 00:25:40 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Le 2016-05-07 à 20:24, Smiler a écrit : >>> On Sun, 08 May 2016 06:51:12 +1000, Jane wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/05/16 00:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? >>>>> >>>>> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof> >>>>> <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/ >>> CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm> >>>>> pp. >>>>> <http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? >>> title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof> >>>>> >>>>> And I can’t believe that you two are still "discussing" this. >>>>> >>>>> Will you, at least, *please* keep sci.ALL out of this? TIA. >>>> >>>> I hope you have realized that this 'Duke' moron is none other than your >>>> good friend Gary Harnagel >>> >>> No he isn't. He's Earl Weber, the moron from Baton Rouge. >>> We have evidence of that. >> >> >> Maybe he is. I've been here since 1999, and I think the "duke" that >> posts today has nothing to do with the "duke" that posted then. For one >> thing, he was erratic, posted quite infrequently (at least not as much >> as today), he claimed to be nearing 70 years-old, etc. I suspect that >> there's a group of persons that co-opt old nyms for their own profit. > > If so, we are dealing with like-minded (or like-demented, if you will) > idiots. The increase in output could be explained by his retirement > and (very likely) mobility problems. > Maybe. But there's a lot of idiots co-opting old nyms. Vivapedro, Gunner Ash, some others are not the originals. -- Olrik aa #1981 EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 18:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n522jbpr7cgalfslsh8e5cd37u0dt650qp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2103140 |
On Sun, 8 May 2016 23:24:02 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> No he isn't. He's Earl Weber, the moron from Baton Rouge.
>>>> We have evidence of that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe he is. I've been here since 1999, and I think the "duke" that
>>> posts today has nothing to do with the "duke" that posted then. For one
>>> thing, he was erratic, posted quite infrequently (at least not as much
>>> as today), he claimed to be nearing 70 years-old, etc. I suspect that
>>> there's a group of persons that co-opt old nyms for their own profit.
>>
>> If so, we are dealing with like-minded (or like-demented, if you will)
>> idiots. The increase in output could be explained by his retirement
>> and (very likely) mobility problems.
>
>Maybe. But there's a lot of idiots co-opting old nyms. Vivapedro, Gunner
>Ash, some others are not the originals.
And they bring that same lack of originality to their posts!
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 15:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <920a16ce-bdf0-4302-a391-26b73c2cec86@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2103605 |
On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 6:14:03 PM UTC-4, Don Martin wrote: > On Sun, 8 May 2016 23:24:02 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> No he isn't. He's Earl Weber, the moron from Baton Rouge. > >>>> We have evidence of that. > >>> > >>> > >>> Maybe he is. I've been here since 1999, and I think the "duke" that > >>> posts today has nothing to do with the "duke" that posted then. For one > >>> thing, he was erratic, posted quite infrequently (at least not as much > >>> as today), he claimed to be nearing 70 years-old, etc. I suspect that > >>> there's a group of persons that co-opt old nyms for their own profit. > >> > >> If so, we are dealing with like-minded (or like-demented, if you will) > >> idiots. The increase in output could be explained by his retirement > >> and (very likely) mobility problems. > > > >Maybe. But there's a lot of idiots co-opting old nyms. Vivapedro, Gunner > >Ash, some others are not the originals. > > And they bring that same lack of originality to their posts! The Treaty of Ghent preserved Staus Quo Ante Bellum. Enlightened United Statesers consider that one a tie. :) Canadians think that Canada, which wouldn't exist as even a semi-sovereign country until 52-55 years later, think they "beat the US." We USAians can be thankful the British cabinet was sick of war and just wanted an end to it. No telling what would have happened after Boney was shut up on St Helena if the UK wanted to keep fighting. Kevin R
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 14:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tc07jbhaanl9pn3ui8oholgsqumc89mdh8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2102352 |
On Sun, 8 May 2016 00:24:09 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Sun, 08 May 2016 06:51:12 +1000, Jane wrote: > >> On 08/05/16 00:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> duke wrote: >>> >>>> What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? >>> >>> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof> >>> <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/ >CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm> >>> pp. >>> <http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? >title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof> >>> >>> And I can’t believe that you two are still "discussing" this. >>> >>> Will you, at least, *please* keep sci.ALL out of this? TIA. >> >> I hope you have realized that this 'Duke' moron is none other than your >> good friend Gary Harnagel > >No he isn't. He's Earl Weber, the moron from Baton Rouge. >We have evidence of that. Haahaahaa. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 14:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bc07jb9sgku124hk8i55mu63l39i9em1ru@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2102193 |
On Sun, 8 May 2016 06:51:12 +1000, Jane <Jane@....> wrote: >On 08/05/16 00:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> duke wrote: >> >>> What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? >> >> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof> >> <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm> pp. >> <http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof> >> >> And I can’t believe that you two are still "discussing" this. >> >> Will you, at least, *please* keep sci.ALL out of this? TIA. > >I hope you have realized that this 'Duke' moron is none other than your >good friend Gary Harnagel Who? the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 14:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <572E6094.62D2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #2101936 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > duke wrote: > > > What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? > > <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof> > <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm> pp. > <http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof> > > And I can’t believe that you two are still "discussing" this. > > Will you, at least, *please* keep sci.ALL out of this? TIA. "Science without religion is lame..." - Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 00:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ngm11u$1pv$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2102225 |
On Sat, 07 May 2016 14:39:32 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >> duke wrote: >> >> > What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? >> >> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof> >> <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/ CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm> >> pp. >> <http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof> >> >> And I canât believe that you two are still "discussing" this. >> >> Will you, at least, *please* keep sci.ALL out of this? TIA. > > > "Science without religion is lame..." - Albert Einstein A brilliant mathematician, but a lousy philosopher. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 17:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <572E894E.2001@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #2102354 |
Smiler wrote: > > On Sat, 07 May 2016 14:39:32 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> > >> duke wrote: > >> > >> > What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? > >> > >> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof> > >> <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/ > CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm> > >> pp. > >> <http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? > title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof> > >> > >> And I can’t believe that you two are still "discussing" this. > >> > >> Will you, at least, *please* keep sci.ALL out of this? TIA. > > > > > > "Science without religion is lame..." - Albert Einstein > > A brilliant mathematician, but a lousy philosopher. > > -- > Smiler, The godless one. > aa #2279 > Gods are all tailored to order. They are made > to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer. he was terrible in math...and the last book he read was about ...philosophy. https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/the-day-einstein-died-02.jpg?quality=75&strip=color&w=534
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 17:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ngl73m$t3l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2101891 |
On Sat, 07 May 2016 07:45:26 -0500, duke wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2016 19:50:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Wed, 04 May 2016 16:00:57 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 3 May 2016 23:04:57 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 03 May 2016 12:48:06 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 1 May 2016 16:01:48 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 01 May 2016 09:56:43 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 17:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:11:28 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:40:07 -0600, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <gm97ibhphdv41oupbgbvc153kgc1ljncbf@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> you? >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> I think that logically it's impossible >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >An omniscient omnipotent god should be able to find way! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If he wanted to, he would. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If "The" god were male there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> stupid comment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That's all we ever get from you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, it does take intelligence on your part to understand. So I >>>>>>> can accept what problems you are having. >>>>>> >>>>>>I perfectly well understand that you're an idiot, no problem. >>>>> >>>>> Idiots don't turn to God. >>>> >>>>Of course they do. Believing in an unevidenced supposed god character >>>>is the height of idiocy. >>> >>> A great definition for an atheist wannabe. >> >>A stupid answer from Duke, the idiot Satanist. > > What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? A simple request > for a simple answer..............if you have one. I don't need evidence to not believe _your_ unevidenced claim. > ***** > "Masturbation is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 14:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7e07jbpgcloq3j4d3hi3jtopgbro3vvmjj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2102029 |
On Sat, 7 May 2016 17:02:46 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Sat, 07 May 2016 07:45:26 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 May 2016 19:50:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 04 May 2016 16:00:57 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 3 May 2016 23:04:57 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 03 May 2016 12:48:06 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 1 May 2016 16:01:48 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sun, 01 May 2016 09:56:43 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 17:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:11:28 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:40:07 -0600, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <gm97ibhphdv41oupbgbvc153kgc1ljncbf@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> you? >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> I think that logically it's impossible >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >An omniscient omnipotent god should be able to find way! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If he wanted to, he would. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>If "The" god were male there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> stupid comment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That's all we ever get from you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, it does take intelligence on your part to understand. So I >>>>>>>> can accept what problems you are having. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I perfectly well understand that you're an idiot, no problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Idiots don't turn to God. >>>>> >>>>>Of course they do. Believing in an unevidenced supposed god character >>>>>is the height of idiocy. >>>> >>>> A great definition for an atheist wannabe. >>> >>>A stupid answer from Duke, the idiot Satanist. >> >> What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? A simple request >> for a simple answer..............if you have one. > >I don't need evidence to not believe _your_ unevidenced claim. Then you are declaring there is no God by faith. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 00:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nh0ist$1nk8$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2104621 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:02:54 -0500, duke wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2016 17:02:46 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Sat, 07 May 2016 07:45:26 -0500, duke wrote: <snip> >>> What is your evidence that there is NO God almighty? A simple >>> request for a simple answer..............if you have one. >> >>I don't need evidence to not believe _your_ unevidenced claim. > > Then you are declaring there is no God by faith. Where have I done that, liar Earl? There may or may not be a god. Either way, I don't believe in it. > ***** > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web