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 350 — 21 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 mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
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 Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-04 21:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:24 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-05 02:21 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:32 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
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 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:14 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 02:37 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:33 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 16:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:32 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 20:04 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 13:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 15:05 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 13:20 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 19:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 18:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 04:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 00:14 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 09:18 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 10:50 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 20:13 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:50 -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> - 2016-03-04 18:12 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 20:58 -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 Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-04 18:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-05 20:53 +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 Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 23:31 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 23:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 13:54 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 09:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 15:21 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 18:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 11:37 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-06 10:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 16:42 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 12:11 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-07 11:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-07 18:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 07:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:21 -0500
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 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:17 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 20:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 23:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 22:17 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:35 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 01:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:12 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 18:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 15:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-05 13:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-05 15:05 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-05 20:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-05 16:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-06 17:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-06 15:15 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-05 21:55 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:37 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:32 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:44 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 02:19 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:36 -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 Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 16:15 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 21:03 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:13 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 22:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 01:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:54 -0700
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 "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 13:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 15:27 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 09:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 12:35 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 13:02 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 13:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 16:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 18:20 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 09:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice" <ted.smasher@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:23 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 18:31 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-08 23:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-09 22:38 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-06 19:02 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 19:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-06 15:15 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 00:11 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-07 18:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 12:03 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-07 19:32 +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 "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 08:32 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 12:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 14:05 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 15:28 +0000
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 Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:45 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 17:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 19:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:23 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:21 -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 Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:38 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 12:13 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:26 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:00 -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 Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 12:22 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 23:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 23:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:55 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 12:25 +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 13 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 18 Next page →
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 12:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dk591gF9a2vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2070910 |
On 06/03/2016 20:15, Don Martin wrote: > On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:02:41 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > wrote: > >> On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:55:04 +0000, Alex W. wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> Oh, and I did once start to learn Elvish, but I'm not sure that counts. >> >> There can't be that many Elves about to speak it with. > > I am not sure that Elvish even _has_ a counting system. > They must do! Even dumb-as-rocks trolls have a counting system: "one, two, many lots".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbkkvh$ce4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2071149 |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:03:59 +0000, Alex W. wrote: > On 06/03/2016 20:15, Don Martin wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:02:41 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:55:04 +0000, Alex W. wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Oh, and I did once start to learn Elvish, but I'm not sure that >>>> counts. >>> >>> There can't be that many Elves about to speak it with. >> >> I am not sure that Elvish even _has_ a counting system. >> > They must do! > > Even dumb-as-rocks trolls have a counting system: > "one, two, many lots". It appears to be "One, two, allot". -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 02:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <977h6h.upq.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2069444 |
Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: > > On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: > >> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: > >>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > >>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, > >>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> A: I'm a monotheist. > > > > > > > >>>>> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit 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!" > > > > > > >>>> 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. So therefore, there's no way you could have > known what you were >>>> talking about. > > > > > >>> If you believe in the biblical god, you are effectively a > polytheist. >>> Because judging by your own scripture, your god is > either suffering from >>> Multiple Personality Disorder, or he is in > fact several gods. Even >>> disregarding the theological contortions > of trinitarianism, your Old >>> Testament god is a vengeful, > spiteful, violent deity who likes to smite >>> and strike down and > kill people on a global scale for any and all >>> infractions (when > he is not busy "testing" the faithful in inventive and >>> cruel > ways) ... and then he magically turns into the lovely-dovey god of > >>> infinite love, forgiveness and benevolence in the sequel. > There's >>> precious little "mono" about your theism, in other > words.... > > > > >> And I'll bet you wish you knew what you are talking about, don't > you? > > > > >> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and > >> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the > last two >> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms > the sovereignty >> of God, you lack understanding of the word > "omnipotent". > > > > Argumentum ad populum. > > Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it > > true, nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief > > itself. > > No, you're wrong. > > I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God > simply because most people are inclined to believe it, You believe it because it's one of your "tenants", right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 15:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <djtphbFbqebU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2069630 |
On 04/03/2016 02:24, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > Robert Duncan wrote: > >> >> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >> simply because most people are inclined to believe it, > > You believe it because it's one of your "tenants", right? > Is that proven?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice" <ted.smasher@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 10:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <118463c7-4ad5-409c-a623-5e1afac348e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2069809 |
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:56:31 PM UTC, Alex W. wrote: > On 04/03/2016 02:24, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > > Robert Duncan wrote: > > > > > >> > >> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God > >> simply because most people are inclined to believe it, > > > > You believe it because it's one of your "tenants", right? > > > > Is that proven? Lol. Sorry I'm so damn dumb, Alex. How long did it take me to figure this out? "Only" three hours? (I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 08:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <djvjthFps2nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2069864 |
On 04/03/2016 18:26, Ted&Alice wrote: > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:56:31 PM UTC, Alex W. wrote: >> On 04/03/2016 02:24, Ted&Alice Street wrote: >>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>> >> >> >>>> >>>> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of >>>> God simply because most people are inclined to believe it, >>> >>> You believe it because it's one of your "tenants", right? >>> >> >> Is that proven? > > Lol. Sorry I'm so damn dumb, Alex. How long did it take me to figure > this out? "Only" three hours? (I ain't the sharpest knife in the > drawer.) > Thanks! I like getting a delayed reaction -- waiting for the penny to drop is delightful anticipation...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 12:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <97ba21.nsl.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2070243 |
Alex W. wrote: > On 04/03/2016 18:26, Ted&Alice wrote: > > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:56:31 PM UTC, Alex W. wrote: > > > On 04/03/2016 02:24, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > > > > Robert Duncan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of > > > > > God simply because most people are inclined to believe it, > > > > > > > > You believe it because it's one of your "tenants", right? > > > > > > > > > > Is that proven? > > > > Lol. Sorry I'm so damn dumb, Alex. How long did it take me to figure > > this out? "Only" three hours? (I ain't the sharpest knife in the > > drawer.) > > > > Thanks! > I like getting a delayed reaction -- waiting for the penny to drop is > delightful anticipation... Nice of you to say. And I do like the subtleties, just ain't smart enough to get some of them right away. I'll need to be more tolerant of other people here, though, when they don't see things that to me seem evident.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dk07dfF87eU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2070301 |
On 05/03/2016 12:47, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > Alex W. wrote: > >> On 04/03/2016 18:26, Ted&Alice wrote: >>> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:56:31 PM UTC, Alex W. wrote: >>>> On 04/03/2016 02:24, Ted&Alice Street wrote: >>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of >>>>>> God simply because most people are inclined to believe it, >>>>> >>>>> You believe it because it's one of your "tenants", right? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is that proven? >>> >>> Lol. Sorry I'm so damn dumb, Alex. How long did it take me to figure >>> this out? "Only" three hours? (I ain't the sharpest knife in the >>> drawer.) >>> >> >> Thanks! >> I like getting a delayed reaction -- waiting for the penny to drop is >> delightful anticipation... > > Nice of you to say. And I do like the subtleties, just ain't smart > enough to get some of them right away. > > I'll need to be more tolerant of other people here, though, when they > don't see things that to me seem evident. > That statement alone makes you not only smarter but also wiser than a large number of people haunting Usenet....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <97bjff.ise.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2070328 |
Alex W. wrote: > On 05/03/2016 12:47, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > > Alex W. wrote: > > > > > On 04/03/2016 18:26, Ted&Alice wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:56:31 PM UTC, Alex W. wrote: > > > > > On 04/03/2016 02:24, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > > > > > > Robert Duncan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the > > > > > > > Word of God simply because most people are inclined to > > > > > > > believe it, > > > > > > > > > > > > You believe it because it's one of your "tenants", right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that proven? > > > > > > > > Lol. Sorry I'm so damn dumb, Alex. How long did it take me to > > > > figure this out? "Only" three hours? (I ain't the sharpest > > > > knife in the drawer.) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > I like getting a delayed reaction -- waiting for the penny to > > > drop is delightful anticipation... > > > > Nice of you to say. And I do like the subtleties, just ain't smart > > enough to get some of them right away. > > > > I'll need to be more tolerant of other people here, though, when > > they don't see things that to me seem evident. > > > > That statement alone makes you not only smarter but also wiser than a > large number of people haunting Usenet.... Thanks Alex.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-3118E2.15254203032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2069411 |
In article <djrgp6Foe55U1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is > capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of > the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or > the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually > DID is quite another. What was recorded as having happened is not known to have actually have happened, nor to be "what He actually did" -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 17:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nbae14$tol$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2069492 |
On 3/3/2016 5:25 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <djrgp6Foe55U1@mid.individual.net>, > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is >> capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of >> the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or >> the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually >> DID is quite another. > > What was recorded as having happened is not known to have actually have > happened, nor to be "what He actually did" But there is no proof that it didn't happen. It's just your opinion that it didn't happen as it is recorded to have happened. Basic Law 101.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Apollo <nowhere@def.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nowhere-561CEF.22412303032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2069499 |
In article <nbae14$tol$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/3/2016 5:25 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <djrgp6Foe55U1@mid.individual.net>, > > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is > >> capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of > >> the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or > >> the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually > >> DID is quite another. > > > > What was recorded as having happened is not known to have actually have > > happened, nor to be "what He actually did" > > But there is no proof that it didn't happen. It's just your opinion > that it didn't > happen as it is recorded to have happened. There is equally no evidence (other than unreliable hearsay) that "it" did happen!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 07:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nbbvif$631$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2069680 |
On 3/4/2016 12:41 AM, Apollo wrote: > In article <nbae14$tol$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/3/2016 5:25 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> In article <djrgp6Foe55U1@mid.individual.net>, >>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is >>>> capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of >>>> the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or >>>> the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually >>>> DID is quite another. >>> >>> What was recorded as having happened is not known to have actually have >>> happened, nor to be "what He actually did" >> >> But there is no proof that it didn't happen. It's just your opinion >> that it didn't >> happen as it is recorded to have happened. > > There is equally no evidence (other than unreliable hearsay) that "it" > did happen! Well now we're getting somewhere. Regenerated (born-again) Christians have all the evidence needed to believe the Bible is the Word of God. "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." (John 16:13) Unregenerate reprobates do not have that same evidence. That is why you do not, and can not believe the Bible. And the chances are very good that you never will be given that "internal evidence" by God.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-172DCB.13471004032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2069760 |
In article <nbbvif$631$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2016 12:41 AM, Apollo wrote: > > In article <nbae14$tol$1@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/3/2016 5:25 PM, Virgil wrote: > >>> In article <djrgp6Foe55U1@mid.individual.net>, > >>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is > >>>> capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of > >>>> the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or > >>>> the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually > >>>> DID is quite another. > >>> > >>> What was recorded as having happened is not known to have actually have > >>> happened, nor to be "what He actually did" > >> > >> But there is no proof that it didn't happen. It's just your opinion > >> that it didn't > >> happen as it is recorded to have happened. > > > > There is equally no evidence (other than unreliable hearsay) that "it" > > did happen! > > Well now we're getting somewhere. The only method of evaluating supposed evidence which is ultimately reliable is the scientific method, which says of all your claims "not proven". > > Regenerated (born-again) Christians have all the evidence needed to > believe the Bible is the Word of God. > > "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." > (John 16:13) What is your evidence that John is not himself a dupe or a con man? You have no such objective evidence > > Unregenerate reprobates do not have that same evidence. If there were any valid evidence, it would have to be equally available to everyone, unless your alleged god plays favorites. So your claim tha some have less access to it than others reveals a necessarily biased and unfair deity! Which even if existing would not deserve respect. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <979l95.a7k.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2069942 |
Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> wrote: > In article <nbbvif$631$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/4/2016 12:41 AM, Apollo wrote: >>> In article <nbae14$tol$1@dont-email.me>, >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/3/2016 5:25 PM, Virgil wrote: >>>>> In article <djrgp6Foe55U1@mid.individual.net>, >>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is >>>>>> capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of >>>>>> the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or >>>>>> the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually >>>>>> DID is quite another. >>>>> >>>>> What was recorded as having happened is not known to have actually have >>>>> happened, nor to be "what He actually did" >>>> >>>> But there is no proof that it didn't happen. It's just your opinion >>>> that it didn't >>>> happen as it is recorded to have happened. >>> >>> There is equally no evidence (other than unreliable hearsay) that "it" >>> did happen! >> >> Well now we're getting somewhere. > > The only method of evaluating supposed evidence which is ultimately > reliable is the scientific method, which says of all your claims > "not proven". >> >> Regenerated (born-again) Christians have all the evidence needed to >> believe the Bible is the Word of God. >> >> "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." >> (John 16:13) > > What is your evidence that John is not himself a dupe or a con man? > You have no such objective evidence Subject evidence of analysis of the writing shows the book,was written at least 90 years after it was claimed to be written and as much as 170 year after claim date. Subject evidence indicates it wasn't written by John at all. >> Unregenerate reprobates do not have that same evidence. > > If there were any valid evidence, it would have to be equally available > to everyone, unless your alleged god plays favorites. So your claim tha > some have less access to it than others reveals a necessarily biased and > unfair deity! Which even if existing would not deserve respect. And that is sound reasoning. -- 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 | 2016-03-04 17:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nbd0i9$clo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2069942 |
On 3/4/2016 3:47 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article <nbbvif$631$1@dont-email.me>,
> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/4/2016 12:41 AM, Apollo wrote:
>>> In article <nbae14$tol$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/2016 5:25 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>>>> In article <djrgp6Foe55U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is
>>>>>> capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of
>>>>>> the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or
>>>>>> the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually
>>>>>> DID is quite another.
>>>>>
>>>>> What was recorded as having happened is not known to have actually have
>>>>> happened, nor to be "what He actually did"
>>>>
>>>> But there is no proof that it didn't happen. It's just your opinion
>>>> that it didn't
>>>> happen as it is recorded to have happened.
>>>
>>> There is equally no evidence (other than unreliable hearsay) that "it"
>>> did happen!
>>
>> Well now we're getting somewhere.
>
> The only method of evaluating supposed evidence which is ultimately
> reliable [for the unregenerate], is the scientific method, which says of all your claims
> "not proven".
I corrected your statement for you.
You're welcome.
>> Regenerated (born-again) Christians have all the evidence needed to
>> believe the Bible is the Word of God.
>>
>> "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth."
>> (John 16:13)
>
> What is your evidence that John is not himself a dupe or a con man?
> You have no such objective evidence
"There is none so blind as he who cannot remember what he just read."
--Robert Duncan, 2016
>> Unregenerate reprobates do not have that same evidence.
>
> If there were any valid evidence, it would have to be equally available
> to everyone,
False.
> unless your alleged god plays favorites.
True.
> So your claim that some have less access to it than others reveals a
> necessarily biased and unfair deity!
False.
> Which even if existing would not deserve respect.
False.
1 out of 4 ain't bad for beginners.
"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised
you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be
proclaimed in all the earth.' So then he has mercy on whomever he wills,
and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does he
still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, O man,
to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have
you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make
out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for
dishonorable use?"
(Romans 9:17-21)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 16:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-241EA0.16262004032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2069966 |
In article <nbd0i9$clo$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2016 3:47 PM, Virgil wrote: > > The only method of evaluating supposed evidence which is ultimately > > reliable [for the unregenerate], is the scientific method, which says of > > all your claims > > "not proven". > > I corrected your statement for you. Except that your correction made it false. The only method of evaluating supposed evidence which is ultimately reliable [for everyone], is the scientific method, which says of all your claims "not proven". > > >> "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." > >> (John 16:13) > > > > What is your evidence that John is not himself a dupe or a con man? > > You have no such objective evidence > > "There is none so blind as he who cannot remember what he just read." > --Robert Duncan, 2016 Blind men mostly don't read, but those who believe anything they read it have a more crippling form of blindness. > > > >> Unregenerate reprobates do not have that same evidence. > > > > If there were any valid evidence, it would have to be equally available > > to everyone, > > False. You beleive in a god that cheats? > > > unless your alleged god plays favorites. > > True. > So your claim that some have less access to such "truth" than others reveals a necessarily biased and unfair deity! > > False. What is fair about an unfair game? > > Which even if existing would not deserve respect. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 18:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nbd6gl$5mj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2070016 |
On 3/4/2016 6:26 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <nbd0i9$clo$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/4/2016 3:47 PM, Virgil wrote: > >>> The only method of evaluating supposed evidence which is ultimately >>> reliable [for the unregenerate], is the scientific method, which says of >>> all your claims >>> "not proven". >> >> I corrected your statement for you. > > Except that your correction made it false. You don't know that. That's just a wild guess. I know it corrected your statement. > The only method of evaluating supposed evidence which is ultimately > reliable [for everyone], is the scientific method, which says of > all your claims "not proven". That made your statement false. But you have to go by what you've been given, or rather not given. And what you have not been given is internal intrinsic knowledge of spiritual evidence. So all you can do is keep on guessing. >>>> "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." >>>> (John 16:13) >>> >>> What is your evidence that John is not himself a dupe or a con man? >>> You have no such objective evidence. Yes, I do. I have internal intrinsic knowledge of spiritual evidence, just as all regenerated Christians have. >> "There is none so blind as he who cannot remember what he just read." >> --Robert Duncan, 2016 > > Blind men mostly don't read, but those who believe anything they read it > have a more crippling form of blindness. Now you're speaking from pure ignorance. Look up the word "braille". >>>> Unregenerate reprobates do not have that same evidence. >>> >>> If there were any valid evidence, it would have to be equally available >>> to everyone, >> >> False. > > You beleive in a god that cheats? No. You are trying to judge God by human standards. >> >>> unless your alleged god plays favorites. >> >> True. >> > So your claim that some have less access to such "truth" than others > reveals a necessarily biased and unfair deity! >> >> False. > > What is fair about an unfair game? "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:20-21) >>> Which even if existing would not deserve respect. But you don't get to make that choice. God made it for you, before you were born. See how that works?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 17:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-D57214.17330504032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2070037 |
In article <nbd6gl$5mj$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2016 6:26 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <nbd0i9$clo$1@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/4/2016 3:47 PM, Virgil wrote: > > > >>> The only method of evaluating supposed evidence which is ultimately > >>> reliable [for the unregenerate], is the scientific method, which says of > >>> all your claims > >>> "not proven". > >> > >> I corrected your statement for you. > > > > Except that your correction made it false. > > You don't know that. That's just a wild guess. > > I know it corrected your statement. > > > The only method of evaluating supposed evidence which is ultimately > > reliable [for everyone], is the scientific method, which says of > > all your claims "not proven". > > That made your statement false. > > But you have to go by what you've been given, or rather not given. > And what you have not been given is internal intrinsic knowledge of > spiritual evidence. > > So all you can do is keep on guessing. > > >>>> "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." > >>>> (John 16:13) > >>> > >>> What is your evidence that John is not himself a dupe or a con man? > >>> You have no such objective evidence. > > Yes, I do. I have internal intrinsic knowledge of spiritual evidence, > just as > all regenerated Christians have. > > >> "There is none so blind as he who cannot remember what he just read." > >> --Robert Duncan, 2016 > > > > Blind men mostly don't read, but those who believe anything they read it > > have a more crippling form of blindness. > > Now you're speaking from pure ignorance. > > Look up the word "braille". > > > >>>> Unregenerate reprobates do not have that same evidence. > >>> > >>> If there were any valid evidence, it would have to be equally available > >>> to everyone, > >> > >> False. > > > > You beleive in a god that cheats? > > No. You are trying to judge God by human standards. > > >> > >>> unless your alleged god plays favorites. > >> > >> True. > >> > > So your claim that some have less access to such "truth" than others > > reveals a necessarily biased and unfair deity! > >> > >> False. > > > > What is fair about an unfair game? > > "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to > its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right > over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use > and another for dishonorable use?" > (Romans 9:20-21) > > >>> Which even if existing would not deserve respect. > > But you don't get to make that choice. > > God made it for you, before you were born. Which of the many claimed but mutually incompatible gods would that one be? I have yet to see anything you claim for your alleged god that is not claimed by many other also alleged but incompatible gods. So as far as I can see there is nothing unique about your claimed god, except the set of people who claim it as their god. Different sets of people calim different gods, but to those not yet enslaved by any of them they all look exactly alike, nonexistent! -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 19:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nbdaem$gvg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2070080 |
On 3/4/2016 7:33 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <nbd6gl$5mj$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/4/2016 6:26 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> In article <nbd0i9$clo$1@dont-email.me>, >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/4/2016 3:47 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> >>>>> The only method of evaluating supposed evidence which is ultimately >>>>> reliable [for the unregenerate], is the scientific method, which says of >>>>> all your claims >>>>> "not proven". >>>> >>>> I corrected your statement for you. >>> >>> Except that your correction made it false. >> >> You don't know that. That's just a wild guess. >> >> I know it corrected your statement. >> >>> The only method of evaluating supposed evidence which is ultimately >>> reliable [for everyone], is the scientific method, which says of >>> all your claims "not proven". >> >> That made your statement false. >> >> But you have to go by what you've been given, or rather not given. >> And what you have not been given is internal intrinsic knowledge of >> spiritual evidence. >> >> So all you can do is keep on guessing. >> >>>>>> "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." >>>>>> (John 16:13) >>>>> >>>>> What is your evidence that John is not himself a dupe or a con man? >>>>> You have no such objective evidence. >> >> Yes, I do. I have internal intrinsic knowledge of spiritual evidence, >> just as >> all regenerated Christians have. >> >>>> "There is none so blind as he who cannot remember what he just read." >>>> --Robert Duncan, 2016 >>> >>> Blind men mostly don't read, but those who believe anything they read it >>> have a more crippling form of blindness. >> >> Now you're speaking from pure ignorance. >> >> Look up the word "braille". >> >> >>>>>> Unregenerate reprobates do not have that same evidence. >>>>> >>>>> If there were any valid evidence, it would have to be equally available >>>>> to everyone, >>>> >>>> False. >>> >>> You beleive in a god that cheats? >> >> No. You are trying to judge God by human standards. >> >>>> >>>>> unless your alleged god plays favorites. >>>> >>>> True. >>>> >>> So your claim that some have less access to such "truth" than others >>> reveals a necessarily biased and unfair deity! >>>> >>>> False. >>> >>> What is fair about an unfair game? >> >> "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to >> its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right >> over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use >> and another for dishonorable use?" >> (Romans 9:20-21) >> >>>>> Which even if existing would not deserve respect. >> >> But you don't get to make that choice. >> >> God made it for you, before you were born. > > Which of the many claimed but mutually incompatible gods would that one > be? > > I have yet to see anything you claim for your alleged god that is not > claimed by many other also alleged but incompatible gods. > > So as far as I can see there is nothing unique about your claimed god, > except the set of people who claim it as their god. > > Different sets of people calim different gods, but to those not yet > enslaved by any of them they all look exactly alike, nonexistent! And that's exactly what God predestined for you to say, and think, and believe, before you were born. "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." (Romans 9:18)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web