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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #417248 > unrolled thread

Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

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

Contents

  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-23 12:11 -0700
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-23 18:08 -0700
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-07-23 20:17 -0500
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 00:13 -0400
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-24 00:53 -0700
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 11:57 -0400
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-24 16:58 -0500
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 18:13 -0400
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-24 16:22 -0700
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-07-24 18:32 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-25 12:00 -0500
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-25 10:46 -0700
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-26 00:20 -0700
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-26 06:42 -0700
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-26 13:03 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 15:06 -0400
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-28 16:08 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-26 13:01 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-26 11:03 -0700
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-28 16:08 -0500
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-28 18:24 -0700
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-29 07:23 -0500
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-07-25 17:20 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-28 16:09 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-07-28 17:25 -0500
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-07-26 03:54 -0400
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-26 13:09 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-07-27 04:23 -0400
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-28 16:09 -0500
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-07-29 03:55 -0400
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-29 07:23 -0500
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-07-30 04:08 -0400
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-30 15:18 -0500
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-07-31 04:00 -0400
                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 07:08 -0400
                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-01 07:29 -0400
                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-07-31 10:17 -0600
                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-01 07:32 -0400
                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-31 16:38 -0500
                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-01 07:32 -0400
                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-02 09:56 -0500
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-02 10:39 -0500
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-02 11:51 -0400
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 12:04 -0400
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-02 12:18 -0500
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-02 16:18 -0500
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-02 10:15 -0600
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-02 16:19 -0500
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-03 03:11 -0500
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-03 09:04 -0400
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-03 16:42 -0500
                                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-03 15:51 -0600
                                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-03 20:30 -0400
                                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-03 18:39 -0500
                                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-04 15:01 -0500
                                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-04 15:36 -0500
                                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-03 17:56 -0700
                                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-04 15:02 -0500
                                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-04 18:54 -0700
                                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-04 19:35 -0700
                                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-04 05:16 -0400
                                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-04 15:03 -0500
                                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-08-04 13:08 -0700
                                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-04 14:48 -0600
                                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-08-04 13:59 -0700
                                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 14:14 -0700
                                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-04 15:35 -0600
                                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-04 15:39 -0600
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-07-29 11:15 -0600
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-07-29 13:56 -0500
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-29 18:59 -0700
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-07-30 06:43 -0500
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-07-30 04:11 -0400
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-07-30 11:38 -0400
                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-07-31 04:03 -0400
                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-07-31 04:14 -0400
                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-01 07:34 -0400
                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-07-31 10:19 -0600
                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-07-31 12:06 -0500
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-31 21:52 -0700
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-01 07:39 -0400
                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2015-07-31 21:34 -0700
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Paul Colquhoun <newsposter@andor.dropbear.id.au> - 2015-08-02 14:18 +1000
                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-01 07:38 -0400
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-07-30 04:10 -0400
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-25 11:59 -0500
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-24 16:27 -0700
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-25 10:32 +0100
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 09:07 -0400
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-25 12:03 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 15:15 -0400
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-26 10:09 +0100
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-26 13:11 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 15:08 -0400
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-28 16:11 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-25 06:36 -0700
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-25 12:04 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-07-25 11:31 -0600
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-26 13:13 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-25 10:45 -0700
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-26 13:14 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-07-25 17:23 -0500
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-25 12:02 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-25 10:46 -0700
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-26 13:19 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 15:13 -0400
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-26 13:20 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 15:10 -0400
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-07-26 15:19 -0400
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 15:29 -0400
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-28 16:14 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-28 16:13 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-07-26 22:45 -0400
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-28 16:13 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-07-26 23:03 -0600
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-27 18:43 -0700
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-24 00:39 -0700
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-07-24 04:25 -0400

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

#418972

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:42:51 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
alt.atheism with message-id
<2rnvral9oac39a445m9eejbogajcqahl3q@4ax.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:04:31 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:56:43 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>alt.atheism with message-id
>><vlbsrah3mesudq0pip7pc4l2jf178ekhav@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 07:32:50 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:38:19 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>><alqnrad16474iem2ht3610ard5kjcjhfrr@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:00:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:18:36 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>><8k1lrah60tmh9kmj4na39snnr6chnftc9l@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's the human animation given by God to his creation.  Thus it takes a desire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>for to perform evil, a desire to listen to satan to turn to hate over love,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrong over right, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I see opinion.  No evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I see hard pressed ignorance and no desire to learn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Still no evidence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Your funeral.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As I have told you several times I will not have one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't get a vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am the only one that does.
>>>>>
>>>>>You'll be dead - body wise.
>>>
>>>>Yep, so I really won't care will I?
>>>
>>>God made arrangement for you in a physical body via conception, and infused a
>>>soul.
>>
>>Prove a soul exists.
>
>Everybody has one.

Avoidance noted.  Again.

>
>>>  You physical body dies, but the soul is indestructible.
>>Prove that.
>
>Its what makes mankind to be mankind.

Meaningless.  What evidence supports it's existence.

>
>
>>>  Does/can/will
>>>God reanimate your soul to experience final love or final fires.  I can't answer
>>>that.
>>You seem to have an answer for everything else.  Why not lie about
>>that too?
>
>Never do I lie on the ng.

You lie in every post.  You constantly make assertions you cannot
support.

>
>>>However, in our example. Jesus did return in the flesh for 40 days after his
>>>cross. 
>>Prove such a person ever existed, then prove that event occurred.
>
>Prove the American War of Independence occurred.  Same difference.  No eye
>witnesses to testify.  Just documents, accounts of others, paintings, artifacts,
>etc. 

Not an answer.  Exactly what other sources support the events and
people outlined in your bible that are not derived from that document.

How many thousands of sources would you like to support the
Revolutionary War?  Direct, personal accounts actually written at the
time by people who were actually involved and whose involvement was
documented by other unrelated sources?  In both the US and in England
and France?

That is one hell of a difference.  The difference between fact and
myth.

But when have you ever cared about facts?


>
>>>I can't tell you how all this works and doesn't work.  I can only relate to the
>>>way it was presented to us.  And I accept what will come.
>
>>Prove anything was ever 'presented' to anyone, and I do not accept or
>>agree with anything you say.
>
>That's to be discussed between you and God at the moment you die.
>

Or not.  Your lack of proof is again noted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

#419050

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:16:42 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:42:51 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>alt.atheism with message-id
><2rnvral9oac39a445m9eejbogajcqahl3q@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:04:31 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:56:43 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>><vlbsrah3mesudq0pip7pc4l2jf178ekhav@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 07:32:50 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:38:19 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>><alqnrad16474iem2ht3610ard5kjcjhfrr@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:00:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:18:36 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>><8k1lrah60tmh9kmj4na39snnr6chnftc9l@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's the human animation given by God to his creation.  Thus it takes a desire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for to perform evil, a desire to listen to satan to turn to hate over love,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrong over right, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I see opinion.  No evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I see hard pressed ignorance and no desire to learn.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Still no evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Your funeral.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As I have told you several times I will not have one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You don't get a vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am the only one that does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You'll be dead - body wise.
>>>>
>>>>>Yep, so I really won't care will I?
>>>>
>>>>God made arrangement for you in a physical body via conception, and infused a
>>>>soul.
>>>
>>>Prove a soul exists.
>>
>>Everybody has one.
>
>Avoidance noted.  Again.
>
>>
>>>>  You physical body dies, but the soul is indestructible.
>>>Prove that.
>>
>>Its what makes mankind to be mankind.
>
>Meaningless.  What evidence supports it's existence.

The same stuff I gave yo before.  You refuse to accept it, and I can see it's
totally over your head.

the dukester, American-American

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

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

#419051

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 4:03:30 PM UTC-4, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:16:42 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:42:51 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
> >alt.atheism with message-id
> ><2rnvral9oac39a445m9eejbogajcqahl3q@4ax.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:04:31 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:56:43 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
> >>>alt.atheism with message-id
> >>><vlbsrah3mesudq0pip7pc4l2jf178ekhav@4ax.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 07:32:50 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:38:19 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
> >>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
> >>>>><alqnrad16474iem2ht3610ard5kjcjhfrr@4ax.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:00:35 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:18:36 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
> >>>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id
> >>>>>>><8k1lrah60tmh9kmj4na39snnr6chnftc9l@4ax.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's the human animation given by God to his creation.  Thus it takes a desire
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>for to perform evil, a desire to listen to satan to turn to hate over love,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrong over right, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I see opinion.  No evidence.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>I see hard pressed ignorance and no desire to learn.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Still no evidence.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Your funeral.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>As I have told you several times I will not have one.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You don't get a vote.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I am the only one that does.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You'll be dead - body wise.
> >>>>
> >>>>>Yep, so I really won't care will I?
> >>>>
> >>>>God made arrangement for you in a physical body via conception, and infused a
> >>>>soul.
> >>>
> >>>Prove a soul exists.
> >>
> >>Everybody has one.
> >
> >Avoidance noted.  Again.
> >
> >>
> >>>>  You physical body dies, but the soul is indestructible.
> >>>Prove that.
> >>
> >>Its what makes mankind to be mankind.
> >
> >Meaningless.  What evidence supports it's existence.
> 
> The same stuff I gave yo before.  You refuse to accept it, and I can see it's
> totally over your head.

The arguments you are giving are convincing only to those who *already*
believe. If your goal is to convert non-believers, you're doing it wrong,
and should try other arguments.

pt

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

#419057

petertrei@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:16:42 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:

>> >Meaningless.  What evidence supports [its] existence[?]
>> 
>> The same stuff I gave yo before.  You refuse to accept it, and I can see it's
>> totally over your head.
>
>The arguments you are giving are convincing only to those who *already*
>believe. If your goal is to convert non-believers, you're doing it wrong,
>and should try other arguments.

I believe that the opening chapters of Luke (which leads into Acts)
are phrased as a letter from a neutral party to a believer who wanted
stuff investigated.

If your material converts neutral people into believers, then any
material created by a neutral party becomes insider documents.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

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

#419062

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 4:48:31 PM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> petertrei@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:16:42 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> 
> >> >Meaningless.  What evidence supports [its] existence[?]
> >> 
> >> The same stuff I gave yo before.  You refuse to accept it, and I can see it's
> >> totally over your head.
> >
> >The arguments you are giving are convincing only to those who *already*
> >believe. If your goal is to convert non-believers, you're doing it wrong,
> >and should try other arguments.
> 
> I believe that the opening chapters of Luke (which leads into Acts)
> are phrased as a letter from a neutral party to a believer who wanted
> stuff investigated.
> 
> If your material converts neutral people into believers, then any
> material created by a neutral party becomes insider documents.

Huh?

pt

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

#419065

petertrei@gmail.com wrote in
news:f01bc968-5124-41ce-8b7f-c6c9ff685909@googlegroups.com: 

> On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 4:48:31 PM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
>> petertrei@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:16:42 -0400, Attila
>> >> <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: 
>> 
>> >> >Meaningless.  What evidence supports [its] existence[?]
>> >> 
>> >> The same stuff I gave yo before.  You refuse to accept it,
>> >> and I can see it's totally over your head.
>> >
>> >The arguments you are giving are convincing only to those who
>> >*already* believe. If your goal is to convert non-believers,
>> >you're doing it wrong, and should try other arguments.
>> 
>> I believe that the opening chapters of Luke (which leads into
>> Acts) are phrased as a letter from a neutral party to a
>> believer who wanted stuff investigated.
>> 
>> If your material converts neutral people into believers, then
>> any material created by a neutral party becomes insider
>> documents. 
> 
> Huh?
> 
I think Greggie's been hitting the vodka a little early today.

-- 
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

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

#419070

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>petertrei@gmail.com wrote in
>> On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 4:48:31 PM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:

>>> I believe that the opening chapters of Luke (which leads into
>>> Acts) are phrased as a letter from a neutral party to a
>>> believer who wanted stuff investigated.

>I think Greggie's been hitting the vodka a little early today.


"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have
been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those
who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.  With
this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything
from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you,
most excellent Theophilus,  so that you may know the certainty of the
things you have been taught."

"Theophilus" translates as "Lover of God" or in modern terms
"believer".

My brother, with a theology degree once told me that the "among us" is
believe to have been added in later, and that the document was written
TO a believer, but not necessarily BY a believer.

Luke and Acts were originally one book, but split for convenience.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

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

#419072

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>I think Greggie's been hitting the vodka a little early today.

Today at noon was the "performance review" of last season's work at
the tax office towards next year's assignment.

I thought sincerely of hitting the ethanol afterwards - I hate
performance reviews.  But didn't.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

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

#417978

Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:

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

I've never understood how the "poverty line" is set for a particular
country or region.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

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

#417997

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:15:04 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:

>Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>
>>Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
>>guaranteed above average income for every person.
>
>I've never understood how the "poverty line" is set for a particular
>country or region.

Remember how Dan Quayle lamented the fact that half the population
were below average intelligence?

A Quayle in the hand is worth two in the Bush.

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

#418087

On 07/29/2015 11:56 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> Remember how Dan Quayle lamented the fact that half the population
> were below average intelligence?

Quayle was Pappy Bush's impeachment insurance.  McCain tried the same 
gambit with Palin, but it was moot since Mr. Obama won the election

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

#418112

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:59:35 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net>
wrote:

>On 07/29/2015 11:56 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> Remember how Dan Quayle lamented the fact that half the population
>> were below average intelligence?
>
>Quayle was Pappy Bush's impeachment insurance.  McCain tried the same 
>gambit with Palin, but it was moot since Mr. Obama won the election

Bush should have been impeached, for his role in Iran/Contra even
before Reagan was elected, for conspiring with the Ayatollahs to keep
the hostages until the inauguration.

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

#418107

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:56:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<c.lee@fairpoint.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
<6b8irap373cue0oe9p15hv2egjqlr5m8kc@4ax.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:15:04 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
>>>guaranteed above average income for every person.
>>
>>I've never understood how the "poverty line" is set for a particular
>>country or region.
>
>Remember how Dan Quayle lamented the fact that half the population
>were below average intelligence?
>
>A Quayle in the hand is worth two in the Bush.

FINALLY some actually got it.  Good for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

#418157

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:11:42 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:56:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
><c.lee@fairpoint.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
><6b8irap373cue0oe9p15hv2egjqlr5m8kc@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:15:04 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
>>>>guaranteed above average income for every person.
>>>
>>>I've never understood how the "poverty line" is set for a particular
>>>country or region.
>>
>>Remember how Dan Quayle lamented the fact that half the population
>>were below average intelligence?
>>
>>A Quayle in the hand is worth two in the Bush.
>
>FINALLY some actually got it.  Good for you.

Some of us got it all along but saw no need to comment on a lame joke
lifted from Garrison Keillor.




-- 
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#418321

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:38:22 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<m5hkrad05obk83vjbft734m7dn4a3dusdv@reader80.eternal-september.org>
wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:11:42 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:56:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
>><c.lee@fairpoint.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
>><6b8irap373cue0oe9p15hv2egjqlr5m8kc@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:15:04 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
>>>>>guaranteed above average income for every person.
>>>>
>>>>I've never understood how the "poverty line" is set for a particular
>>>>country or region.
>>>
>>>Remember how Dan Quayle lamented the fact that half the population
>>>were below average intelligence?
>>>
>>>A Quayle in the hand is worth two in the Bush.
>>
>>FINALLY some actually got it.  Good for you.
>
>Some of us got it all along but saw no need to comment on a lame joke
>lifted from Garrison Keillor.

Since I have vaguely heard the name but have never heard/read/seen him
I could hardly 'lift' anything from him could I?

I am simply betting on the stupidity of the liberal left loons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

#418323

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:03:05 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:38:22 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net>
>in alt.atheism with message-id
><m5hkrad05obk83vjbft734m7dn4a3dusdv@reader80.eternal-september.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:11:42 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:56:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
>>><c.lee@fairpoint.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>><6b8irap373cue0oe9p15hv2egjqlr5m8kc@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:15:04 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
>>>>>>guaranteed above average income for every person.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've never understood how the "poverty line" is set for a particular
>>>>>country or region.
>>>>
>>>>Remember how Dan Quayle lamented the fact that half the population
>>>>were below average intelligence?
>>>>
>>>>A Quayle in the hand is worth two in the Bush.
>>>
>>>FINALLY some actually got it.  Good for you.
>>
>>Some of us got it all along but saw no need to comment on a lame joke
>>lifted from Garrison Keillor.
>
>Since I have vaguely heard the name but have never heard/read/seen him
>I could hardly 'lift' anything from him could I?

Maybe not directly, but the introduction to every episode of his radio
show, "A Prairie Home Companion," described the imaginary town of Lake
Woebegon as a place where "all the children are above average."

So you may have come up with it independently, but it's still a gag
most of us heard a long time ago.







-- 
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#418425

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:14:52 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<oebmrap7oqlokmb8to7on6vfp1310i6d78@reader80.eternal-september.org>
wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:03:05 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:38:22 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net>
>>in alt.atheism with message-id
>><m5hkrad05obk83vjbft734m7dn4a3dusdv@reader80.eternal-september.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:11:42 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:56:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
>>>><c.lee@fairpoint.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>><6b8irap373cue0oe9p15hv2egjqlr5m8kc@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:15:04 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
>>>>>>>guaranteed above average income for every person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've never understood how the "poverty line" is set for a particular
>>>>>>country or region.
>>>>>
>>>>>Remember how Dan Quayle lamented the fact that half the population
>>>>>were below average intelligence?
>>>>>
>>>>>A Quayle in the hand is worth two in the Bush.
>>>>
>>>>FINALLY some actually got it.  Good for you.
>>>
>>>Some of us got it all along but saw no need to comment on a lame joke
>>>lifted from Garrison Keillor.
>>
>>Since I have vaguely heard the name but have never heard/read/seen him
>>I could hardly 'lift' anything from him could I?
>
>Maybe not directly, but the introduction to every episode of his radio
>show, "A Prairie Home Companion," described the imaginary town of Lake
>Woebegon as a place where "all the children are above average."
>
>So you may have come up with it independently, but it's still a gag
>most of us heard a long time ago.

Thus proving there is nothing new under the sun.

I don't consider it a gag - I consider it an accurate representation
of the Loony Left.

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

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

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

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

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

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

#418366

Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:

>>>>>Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
>>>>>>guaranteed above average income for every person.

>>Some of us got it all along but saw no need to comment on a lame joke
>>lifted from Garrison Keillor.
>
>Since I have vaguely heard the name but have never heard/read/seen him
>I could hardly 'lift' anything from him could I?

Garrison Keillor had a radio show, and one of his ongoing schticks was
describing events in a town where "all the children were above
average".  The joke has traveled a lot further than the rest of his
fame, and gets paraphrased by many people who don't know him.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

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

#418373

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:19:44 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:

>Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>
>>>>>>Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
>>>>>>>guaranteed above average income for every person.
>
>>>Some of us got it all along but saw no need to comment on a lame joke
>>>lifted from Garrison Keillor.
>>
>>Since I have vaguely heard the name but have never heard/read/seen him
>>I could hardly 'lift' anything from him could I?
>
>Garrison Keillor had a radio show, and one of his ongoing schticks was
>describing events in a town where "all the children were above
>average".  The joke has traveled a lot further than the rest of his
>fame, and gets paraphrased by many people who don't know him.

Dan Quayle wasn't joking. He was a complete idiot - on another
occasion he said he wished he'd learned Latin so he could speak the
local language in Latin America.

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

#418418

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 10:06:15 AM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> 
> > Dan Quayle wasn't joking. He was a complete idiot - on another
> > occasion he said he wished he'd learned Latin so he could speak the
> > local language in Latin America.
> 
> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dan_quayle.html



I don't understand the problem...Dan Quayle like...latinas. Latin girls. Spanish girls.


But yous always have a problem with...definitions.


Lat·in
'latn/
noun

2.
a native or inhabitant of a country whose language developed from Latin, especially a Latin American.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web