Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2064903 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mur@. |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-23 21:40 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 205 — 19 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: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:40 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:12 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-27 19:15 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-27 22:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 16:03 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 01:15 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-02-28 12:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 19:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-28 22:31 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-29 23:39 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 19:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-02 00:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-28 11:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 19:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 13:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 15:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-02-28 16:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 18:58 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:22 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 01:35 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 21:58 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 04:40 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 08:23 -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 Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 06:15 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 15:33 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 16:06 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:20 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 05:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 17:34 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-02 01:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 14:20 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 14:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 15:32 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 16:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 19:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 12:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 08:23 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 13:53 -0500
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 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:04 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 18:18 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 18:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 18:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:48 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-04 13:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:51 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 14:41 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 16:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:40 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:27 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:52 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 14:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:18 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:18 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:17 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Irreverend Dave <reverend_dave@ministerpants.com> - 2016-03-04 13:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 09:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:24 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:02 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 20:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 13:02 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 08:47 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 13:48 -0500
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 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 14:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 23:12 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:01 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 19:14 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:16 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 18:14 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 18:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:40 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:03 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:38 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:50 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 05:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-03 23:17 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 12:45 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice" <ted.smasher@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 09:53 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:15 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 14:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:07 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:27 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-04 15:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice" <ted.smasher@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 08:11 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice" <ted.smasher@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 10:31 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice" <ted.smasher@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 10:28 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-04 19:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:10 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-04 15:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice" <ted.smasher@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 10:26 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 17:35 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:40 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:47 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 21:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:03 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:46 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 12:11 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 11:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 01:04 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:13 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-01 15:57 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:34 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 18:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-28 11:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 19:10 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 17:59 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 00:06 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:18 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 14:05 -0500
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 Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-29 23:05 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:27 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 19:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 14:54 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 21:03 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-01 17:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-02 22:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-29 10:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 12:43 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:23 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:27 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 13:21 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 11:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 12:35 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:38 -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 mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:38 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:29 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:15 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:38 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-02 00:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 18:53 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 00:20 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 00:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 18:34 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:10 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 23:02 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 21:48 +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 "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:12 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 00:38 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice" <ted.smasher@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 09:59 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 17:57 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-03-03 18:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 00:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 18:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 01:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 21:56 +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 "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:32 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 01:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 08:51 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:45 -0700
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@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-D7D5B2.14280202032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2068931 |
In article <nb7e87$7nn$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > > In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/1/2016 6:04 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > >>> In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, > >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> How does it feel to be living proof? > >>>> > >>>> Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as irrelevant. > >>> > >>> As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually > >>> incompossible gods! > >> > >> Q: How do I know you don't know what you're talking about? > > > > You don't! > > Yes I do. Mere belief is not knowledge > > >> > >> A: I'm a monotheist. > > > > No, I am agnostic in the sense that I dp not beeive that there is any > > way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, > > though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the > > existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. > > Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I > asked you. Hello, anybody home? > > Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. > > You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" Not you personally and individually, but you theists collectively! > > Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? > > Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word > means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just > wrong. Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of any wrongness by me whatsoever. As far as I can see, the evidences for any of your (or anyone else's) claimed godly existences in no way exceeds the evidence for the actual existence of a Santa Claus, or a tooth fairy. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 15:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ftmedb5os87ob6e6krnp272633kl6mqfcj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2068970 |
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 14:28:02 -0700, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> wrote: >In article <nb7e87$7nn$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >> > In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >> > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On 3/1/2016 6:04 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >> >>> In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, >> >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> How does it feel to be living proof? >> >>>> >> >>>> Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as irrelevant. >> >>> >> >>> As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually >> >>> incompossible gods! >> >> >> >> Q: How do I know you don't know what you're talking about? >> > >> > You don't! >> >> Yes I do. > >Mere belief is not knowledge >> >> >> >> >> A: I'm a monotheist. >> > >> > No, I am agnostic in the sense that I dp not beeive that there is any >> > way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >> > though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >> > existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. >> >> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I >> asked you. Hello, anybody home? >> >> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. >> >> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" > >Not you personally and individually, but you theists collectively! >> >> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >> >> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word >> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just >> wrong. > >Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >any wrongness by me whatsoever. > >As far as I can see, the evidences for any of your (or anyone else's) >claimed godly existences in no way exceeds the evidence for the actual >existence of a Santa Claus, or a tooth fairy. So it remains merely a belief, albeit one held by many people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 16:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-1A64C2.16121702032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2068973 |
In article <ftmedb5os87ob6e6krnp272633kl6mqfcj@4ax.com>, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 14:28:02 -0700, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> wrote: > > >In article <nb7e87$7nn$1@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > >> > In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, > >> > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 3/1/2016 6:04 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > >> >>> In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, > >> >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> How does it feel to be living proof? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as > >> >>>> irrelevant. > >> >>> > >> >>> As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually > >> >>> incompossible gods! > >> >> > >> >> Q: How do I know you don't know what you're talking about? > >> > > >> > You don't! > >> > >> Yes I do. > > > >Mere belief is not knowledge > >> > >> >> > >> >> A: I'm a monotheist. > >> > > >> > No, I am agnostic in the sense that I dp not beeive that there is any > >> > way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, > >> > though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the > >> > existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. > >> > >> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I > >> asked you. Hello, anybody home? > >> > >> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have > >> left. > >> > >> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" > > > >Not you personally and individually, but you theists collectively! > >> > >> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? > >> > >> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word > >> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just > >> wrong. > > > >Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the > >existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of > >any wrongness by me whatsoever. > > > >As far as I can see, the evidences for any of your (or anyone else's) > >claimed godly existences in no way exceeds the evidence for the actual > >existence of a Santa Claus, or a tooth fairy. > > So it remains merely a belief, albeit one held by many people. Just so! -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 19:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nb81eg$nb6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2068970 |
On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: > Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the > existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of > any wrongness by me whatsoever. I wasn't talking to you. You like being the center of attention, don't you? And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 12:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <djqqndFilj7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2069067 |
On 03/03/2016 00:49, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: > >> Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >> existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >> any wrongness by me whatsoever. > > I wasn't talking to you. > > You like being the center of attention, don't you? > > And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. > > Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up? > Have you still not noticed that this is a public forum? If you want a private conversation, this is not the place. So stop whinging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 08:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nb9dn8$vjh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2069280 |
On 3/3/2016 7:58 AM, Alex W. wrote: > On 03/03/2016 00:49, Robert Duncan wrote: >> On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: >> >>> Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >>> existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >>> any wrongness by me whatsoever. >> >> I wasn't talking to you. >> >> You like being the center of attention, don't you? >> >> And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. >> >> Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up? >> > > Have you still not noticed that this is a public forum? If you want a > private conversation, this is not the place. Virgil wrote, "...you have no evidence of any wrongness by me whatsoever." I wasn't seeking a "private conversation" with anyone. All I am seeking for is somebody with a little honesty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 17:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <976j1v.948.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2069280 |
Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 03/03/2016 00:49, Robert Duncan wrote: >> On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: >> >>> Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >>> existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >>> any wrongness by me whatsoever. >> >> I wasn't talking to you. >> >> You like being the center of attention, don't you? >> >> And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. >> >> Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up? >> > > Have you still not noticed that this is a public forum? If you want a > private conversation, this is not the place. > > So stop whinging. > This is what happens when smart people show the ridiculous claims are dismissed because the burden of proof is the claimants. Until the evidence shows up ignore the claims. Proving there is a god is the job of the claimant. We have examined the claims and statements made in their various books of myths and dismissed the anecdotal testimony as being false. The ball is in their court. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 13:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nba11c$asb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2069382 |
On 3/3/2016 12:50 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On 03/03/2016 00:49, Robert Duncan wrote: >>> On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> >>>> Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >>>> existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >>>> any wrongness by me whatsoever. >>> >>> I wasn't talking to you. >>> >>> You like being the center of attention, don't you? >>> >>> And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. >>> >>> Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up? >>> >> >> Have you still not noticed that this is a public forum? If you want a >> private conversation, this is not the place. >> >> So stop whinging. >> > > This is what happens when smart people show the ridiculous claims are > dismissed because the burden of proof is the claimants. The only thing I am claiming is that I believe God exists. I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to adopt the same belief. I'm not expecting you to believe the Bible is the Word of God, nor have I asked you to believe the Bible is the Word of God. But keep asserting that the Bible is a "book of myths". The burden is on you to prove your assertion is true, otherwise you are a liar. The ball is now in your court.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <976p8l.e36.17.4@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2069403 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/3/2016 12:50 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 03/03/2016 00:49, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: >>>> >>>>> Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >>>>> existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >>>>> any wrongness by me whatsoever. >>>> >>>> I wasn't talking to you. >>>> >>>> You like being the center of attention, don't you? >>>> >>>> And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. >>>> >>>> Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up? >>>> >>> >>> Have you still not noticed that this is a public forum? If you want a >>> private conversation, this is not the place. >>> >>> So stop whinging. >>> >> >> This is what happens when smart people show the ridiculous claims are >> dismissed because the burden of proof is the claimants. > > The only thing I am claiming is that I believe God exists. And how no proof of a the claim. > > I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to adopt the same belief. Then what are you doing ? > I'm not expecting you to believe the Bible is the Word of God, > nor have I asked you to believe the Bible is the Word of God. You have used it to support claims. > But keep asserting that the Bible is a "book of myths". > > The burden is on you to prove your assertion is true, otherwise > you are a liar. > > The ball is now in your court. No it is,still in your court. The bible is your only support. If that support is nothing more than folk tales you have no authority. You assumption of a false priori is nothing more than faulty logic. Set game and match, sir. Please leave the count -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 15:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nba576$s06$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2069425 |
On 3/3/2016 2:36 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 3/3/2016 12:50 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>> Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 03/03/2016 00:49, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >>>>>> existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >>>>>> any wrongness by me whatsoever. >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't talking to you. >>>>> >>>>> You like being the center of attention, don't you? >>>>> >>>>> And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. >>>>> >>>>> Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Have you still not noticed that this is a public forum? If you want a >>>> private conversation, this is not the place. >>>> >>>> So stop whinging. >>>> >>> >>> This is what happens when smart people show the ridiculous claims are >>> dismissed because the burden of proof is the claimants. >> >> The only thing I am claiming is that I believe God exists. > > And how no proof of a the claim. I'm not trying to get you to believe God exists. Therefore I don't have to prove anything. Got it? > >> >> I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to adopt the same belief. > > Then what are you doing ? Telling you why I believe it. >> I'm not expecting you to believe the Bible is the Word of God, >> nor have I asked you to believe the Bible is the Word of God. > > You have used it to support claims. The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I don't really care what you believe, or don't believe. > >> But keep asserting that the Bible is a "book of myths". >> >> The burden is on you to prove your assertion is true, otherwise >> you are a liar. >> >> The ball is now in your court. > > No it is,still in your court. > The bible is your only support. If that support is nothing more than folk > tales you have no authority. I'm not trying to get you to believe anything. That requires no authority, or proof. > You assumption of a false priori is nothing more than faulty logic. You continuously failing to understand that I'm not trying to get you to believe anything is proof of your below average intelligence. The ball is still in your court. Where's your proof that the Bible is a "book of myths"? (That was only a rhetorical question because I already know you have no proof.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 18:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uahhdb9na1u8vku6qpu822fc5vsnn74roc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2069441 |
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:04:44 -0500, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: snip >I'm not trying to get you to believe God exists. >Therefore I don't have to prove anything. >Got it? > >> >>> >>> I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to adopt the same belief. >> >> Then what are you doing ? > >Telling you why I believe it. And why do you think anyone at alt.atheism has an interest in that? >>> I'm not expecting you to believe the Bible is the Word of God, >>> nor have I asked you to believe the Bible is the Word of God. >> >> You have used it to support claims. > >The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I >believe the Bible is the Word of God. > >I don't really care what you believe, or don't believe. > >> >>> But keep asserting that the Bible is a "book of myths". >>> >>> The burden is on you to prove your assertion is true, otherwise >>> you are a liar. >>> >>> The ball is now in your court. >> >> No it is,still in your court. >> The bible is your only support. If that support is nothing more than folk >> tales you have no authority. > >I'm not trying to get you to believe anything. >That requires no authority, or proof. > >> You assumption of a false priori is nothing more than faulty logic. > >You continuously failing to understand that I'm not trying to get you to >believe anything is proof of your below average intelligence. > >The ball is still in your court. >Where's your proof that the Bible is a "book of myths"? There are miracle stories in it; miracles are a part of mythology, not history. >(That was only a rhetorical question because I already know you have no >proof.) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 18:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nbaiij$gs1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2069513 |
On 3/3/2016 6:18 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote: > On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:04:44 -0500, Robert Duncan > <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > snip > >> I'm not trying to get you to believe God exists. >> Therefore I don't have to prove anything. >> Got it? >> >>> >>>> >>>> I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to adopt the same belief. >>> >>> Then what are you doing ? >> >> Telling you why I believe it. > > And why do you think anyone at alt.atheism has an interest in that? Do you think you can speak for everyone in alt.atheism? >>>> I'm not expecting you to believe the Bible is the Word of God, >>>> nor have I asked you to believe the Bible is the Word of God. >>> >>> You have used it to support claims. >> >> The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I >> believe the Bible is the Word of God. >> >> I don't really care what you believe, or don't believe. >> >>> >>>> But keep asserting that the Bible is a "book of myths". >>>> >>>> The burden is on you to prove your assertion is true, otherwise >>>> you are a liar. >>>> >>>> The ball is now in your court. >>> >>> No it is,still in your court. >>> The bible is your only support. If that support is nothing more than folk >>> tales you have no authority. >> >> I'm not trying to get you to believe anything. >> That requires no authority, or proof. >> >>> You assumption of a false priori is nothing more than faulty logic. >> >> You continuously failing to understand that I'm not trying to get you to >> believe anything is proof of your below average intelligence. >> >> The ball is still in your court. >> Where's your proof that the Bible is a "book of myths"? > > There are miracle stories in it; miracles are a part of mythology, not > history. That's just your unsupported opinion. Where's your proof? (That was only a rhetorical question because I already know you have no proof.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Apollo <nowhere@def.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 18:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nowhere-A3C357.18415003032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2069513 |
>The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I >believe the Bible is the Word of God. Your believing something does not prove that what you believe in is true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 21:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nbaqjm$9ea$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2069599 |
On 3/3/2016 8:41 PM, Apollo wrote: >> The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I >> believe the Bible is the Word of God. > > Your believing something does not prove that what you believe in is true. I never said it did. But I can still believe it's true. See how that works?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Apollo <nowhere@def.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nowhere-4048E1.22480403032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2069621 |
In article <nbaqjm$9ea$2@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/3/2016 8:41 PM, Apollo wrote: > >> The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I > >> believe the Bible is the Word of God. > > > > Your believing something does not prove that what you believe in is true. > > I never said it did. > > But I can still believe it's true. > > See how that works? Yeah, it is a loser's ploy!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 07:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nbc00v$7pq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2069683 |
On 3/4/2016 12:48 AM, Apollo wrote: > In article <nbaqjm$9ea$2@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/3/2016 8:41 PM, Apollo wrote: >>>> The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I >>>> believe the Bible is the Word of God. >>> >>> Your believing something does not prove that what you believe in is true. >> >> I never said it did. >> >> But I can still believe it's true. >> >> See how that works? > > Yeah, it is a loser's ploy! Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, you're right, it would be a waste of time. But that's where regenerated (born-again) Christians have something that unregenerate reprobate miscreants do not have. We have been given (internal) evidence that God does indeed exists, and that the Bible is in fact the inspired Word of that same God. "Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." (John 8:47) You're welcome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Apollo <nowhere@def.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 13:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nowhere-39FB63.13354404032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2069766 |
In article <nbc00v$7pq$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2016 12:48 AM, Apollo wrote: > > In article <nbaqjm$9ea$2@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/3/2016 8:41 PM, Apollo wrote: > >>>> The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I > >>>> believe the Bible is the Word of God. > >>> > >>> Your believing something does not prove that what you believe in > >>> is true. > >> > >> I never said it did. > >> > >> But I can still believe it's true. > >> > >> See how that works? > > > > Yeah, it is a loser's ploy! > > Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, you're right, it would be a waste > of time. The scientific method is a much more reliable method of rejecting falsehoods > > But that's where regenerated (born-again) Christians have something > that unregenerate reprobate miscreants do not have. But your supposed "regenerated (born-again) Christians" do not have the power to decide who will really be the "unregenerate reprobate miscreants". Only your alleged god, if it really existed, would have that right, but there are far too many incompatible gods alleged to exist, for anyone to be sure of picking the right one if there even were right one. > We have been given (internal) evidence that God does indeed exists We take Tums for that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 16:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nbcvs2$9so$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2069939 |
On 3/4/2016 3:35 PM, Apollo wrote: > In article <nbc00v$7pq$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/4/2016 12:48 AM, Apollo wrote: >>> In article <nbaqjm$9ea$2@dont-email.me>, >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/3/2016 8:41 PM, Apollo wrote: >>>>>> The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I >>>>>> believe the Bible is the Word of God. >>>>> >>>>> Your believing something does not prove that what you believe in >>>>> is true. >>>> >>>> I never said it did. >>>> >>>> But I can still believe it's true. >>>> >>>> See how that works? >>> >>> Yeah, it is a loser's ploy! >> >> Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, you're right, it would be a waste >> of time. > > The scientific method is a much more reliable method of rejecting > falsehoods >> >> But that's where regenerated (born-again) Christians have something >> that unregenerate reprobate miscreants do not have. > > But your supposed "regenerated (born-again) Christians" do not have the > power to decide who will really be the "unregenerate reprobate > miscreants". I believe we do. But not "who will be" later. We know who is an unregenerate right now. "You will recognize them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:16) "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." (1 Corinthians 2:14) "We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error." (1 John 4:6) > Only your alleged god, if it really existed, would have > that right, but there are far too many incompatible gods alleged to > exist, for anyone to be sure of picking the right one if there even were > right one. Can you now see how I would know you are an unregenerate, even if this were our first contact? >> We have been given (internal) evidence that God does indeed exist, and >> that the Bible is in fact the inspired Word of that same God. > > We take Tums for that! Alright! I have to admit, that was funny. Maybe just a little bit atypical, but it was still funny. It made me laugh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 14:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k38hdblj2g5f4h3dr4n135guce2c3n16vt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2069425 |
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:36:19 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 3/3/2016 12:50 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>> Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 03/03/2016 00:49, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >>>>>> existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >>>>>> any wrongness by me whatsoever. >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't talking to you. >>>>> >>>>> You like being the center of attention, don't you? >>>>> >>>>> And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. >>>>> >>>>> Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Have you still not noticed that this is a public forum? If you want a >>>> private conversation, this is not the place. >>>> >>>> So stop whinging. >>>> >>> >>> This is what happens when smart people show the ridiculous claims are >>> dismissed because the burden of proof is the claimants. >> >> The only thing I am claiming is that I believe God exists. > >And how no proof of a the claim. It was also a lie, because he is forever talking _at_ us as if it were real. >> I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to adopt the same belief. > >Then what are you doing ? Being a total jerk because to him, religious harassment is a psychopathic game. >> I'm not expecting you to believe the Bible is the Word of God, >> nor have I asked you to believe the Bible is the Word of God. > >You have used it to support claims. > >> But keep asserting that the Bible is a "book of myths". Of course it is - until show otherwise, it's not substantively different from the Greek, Celtic, Norse etc myths. >> The burden is on you to prove your assertion is true, otherwise >> you are a liar. >> >> The ball is now in your court. > >No it is,still in your court. >The bible is your only support. If that support is nothing more than folk >tales you have no authority. Obviously - and he knows non-Christians of any stripe, not just atheists, don't believe it. So what it says is irrelevant, and when he doesn't respect this then he is being both rude and stupid. >You assumption of a false priori is nothing more than faulty logic. > >Set game and match, sir. >Please leave the count
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 16:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nba9ie$dsk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2069452 |
On 3/3/2016 3:41 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > It was also a lie, because he is forever talking _at_ us as if it were > real. But that wouldn't make it a lie. Quite the opposite. That would confirm that it's merely a personal belief of mine. But it's okay if you don't get it. We all know how much you love to tell lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web