Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #417248 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-23 12:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-07-24 04:25 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 214 — 23 participants |
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.
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. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-05 13:55 -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. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-05 13:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-05 12:56 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-06 19:27 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-06 17:44 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 05:23 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-07 16:46 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-06 05:04 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-07 16:49 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-08 04:12 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-08 13:17 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-09 04:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-09 09:41 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-10 05:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-11 12:51 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-11 14:10 -0600
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-12 03:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-05 04:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-05 13:59 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-06 05:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-07 16:51 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-07 19:52 -0600
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-07 20:17 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-08 04:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-08 13:19 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-09 04:54 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-09 09:46 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-10 05:15 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-11 12:53 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-12 03:15 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-06 01:10 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-06 06:41 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-06 20:42 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-06 22:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-06 23:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-06 23:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-06 23:45 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-07 09:18 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-07 05:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-07 12:39 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 13:47 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-07 16:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-07 20:11 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-07 22:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-07 22:26 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-08 09:46 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-08 04:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-08 08:32 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-08 08:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. David Johnston <David@block.net> - 2015-08-08 09:30 -0600
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-08 09:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Anthony Frost <Vulch@vulch.org> - 2015-08-09 10:48 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 11:32 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 12:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-08-08 14:03 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-08 16:49 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-09 14:58 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-08 19:36 -0600
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-08-09 01:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-10 01:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-08-10 07:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-08 18:12 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-08 13:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 16:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-08 13:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-08-08 14:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-08 14:58 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-09 04:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-07 00:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-07 05:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-07 12:22 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-08 04:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-08 09:42 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-09 04:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-09 07:56 -0600
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-09 13:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-09 12:59 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-10 05:21 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-11 12:54 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-07 16:53 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-08 04:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-08 13:20 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-09 05:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-09 09:47 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-10 05:22 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-11 12:55 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-12 03:17 -0400
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. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-05 04:46 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-05 14:00 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-06 05:07 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-07 16:53 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-08 04:35 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-08 13:20 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-09 05:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-09 09:48 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-10 05:23 -0400
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 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA4EF8C4A77290taustingmail@69.16.179.43> |
| In reply to | #419344 |
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:b6caedfb-a91d-4aaf-ad2d-4a47448672a3@googlegroups.com:
> On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:14:51 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker
> wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >
>> > The Starmaker wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Attila < wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 01:10:45 -0700, The Starmaker
>> > > > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> > > > <55C31685.54A6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >Attila < wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:02:34 -0500, duke
>> > > > >> <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> > > > >> <9g62sat66jooq00mg9ro6fktj8qmg7stdi@4ax.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 17:56:09 -0700, talishi
>> > > > >> ><talishi@example.net> wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >>On 08/03/2015 02:42 PM, duke wrote:
>> > > > >> >>> Prove the American War of Independence occurred.
>> > > > >> >>> Same difference. No eye witnesses to testify.
>> > > > >> >>> Just documents, accounts of others, paintings,
>> > > > >> >>> artifacts, etc.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>And third party verification (ie France), unlike
>> > > > >> >>your gospels.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >What 3rd party verification. I have the same types
>> > > > >> >of verification for Jesus Christ - documents,
>> > > > >> >accounts of others, paintings, artifacts, etc.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> What do you have that has absolutely no connection,
>> > > > >> directly or indirectly, with your bible? Direct
>> > > > >> verified accounts or 'paintings' by people who never
>> > > > >> heard of that bible or any person or organization
>> > > > >> connected to it?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> What 'artifacts' what are independent of such sources?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Do you understand what 'independent' or 'verified'
>> > > > >> means?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it
>> > > > >be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of
>> > > > >wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the
>> > > > >truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of
>> > > > >the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ;
>> > > > >and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men
>> > > > >amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that
>> > > > >loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he
>> > > > >appeared to them alive again the third day, as the
>> > > > >divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand
>> > > > >other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of
>> > > > >Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this
>> > > > >day." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
>> > > >
>> > > > It is the opinion of many scholars his writings were
>> > > > altered centuries ago to fit the necessary pattern.
>> > > > There is no independent verification from any other
>> > > > sources supporting him.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I'm shocked.
>> >
>> > http://alivecampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/shocked_face
>> > .jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> how about this guy?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ
>>
>>
>>
>> "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the
>> guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class
>> hated for their abominations, called Christians by the
>> populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered
>> the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands
>> of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most
>> mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again
>> broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but
>> even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every
>> part of the world find their centre and become popular.
>> Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded
>> guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was
>> convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of
>> hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to
>> their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn
>> by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed
>> to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination,
>> when daylight had expired."
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ
>
> GoTo the 1st para @
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus
>
> Born circa 56 CE Died 117 CE
>
> So, he was on the scene 23 years after the traditional death
> date for the Nazarene, 33 CE. He wasn't a contemporary of
> Jesus.
Not a contemporary, perhaps, but well within living memory. That is
generally considered pretty credible. Especially when you have a
number of independent sources from the same period. Clearly, the
historical reality of a man named Jesus was accepted less than half
a century after his death, which is extremely unlikely given the
political controversy he was the center of.
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-
non-christian-sources has a summery of some non-bibilical sources
(I believe that's a very biased site, mind you, but their
references to historical documents are quite credible.)
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 16:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55C53D19.74FB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419344 |
Kevrob wrote: > > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:14:51 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Attila < wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 01:10:45 -0700, The Starmaker > > > > > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > > > > > <55C31685.54A6@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Attila < wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:02:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > > > > > >> alt.atheism with message-id > > > > > >> <9g62sat66jooq00mg9ro6fktj8qmg7stdi@4ax.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 17:56:09 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >>On 08/03/2015 02:42 PM, duke wrote: > > > > > >> >>> Prove the American War of Independence occurred. Same difference. No eye > > > > > >> >>> witnesses to testify. Just documents, accounts of others, paintings, artifacts, > > > > > >> >>> etc. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >>And third party verification (ie France), unlike your gospels. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >What 3rd party verification. I have the same types of verification for Jesus > > > > > >> >Christ - documents, accounts of others, paintings, artifacts, etc. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> What do you have that has absolutely no connection, directly or > > > > > >> indirectly, with your bible? Direct verified accounts or 'paintings' > > > > > >> by people who never heard of that bible or any person or organization > > > > > >> connected to it? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> What 'artifacts' what are independent of such sources? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Do you understand what 'independent' or 'verified' means? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to > > > > > >call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such > > > > > >men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of > > > > > >the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when > > > > > >Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned > > > > > >him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, > > > > > >for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine > > > > > >prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things > > > > > >concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not > > > > > >extinct at this day." > > > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus > > > > > > > > > > It is the opinion of many scholars his writings were altered centuries > > > > > ago to fit the necessary pattern. There is no independent > > > > > verification from any other sources supporting him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm shocked. > > > > > > http://alivecampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/shocked_face.jpg > > > > > > > > how about this guy? > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ > > > > > > > > "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and > > inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their > > abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the > > name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of > > Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a > > most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke > > out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, > > where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find > > their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made > > of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense > > multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as > > of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their > > deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and > > perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and > > burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ > > GoTo the 1st para @ > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus > > Born circa 56 CE Died 117 CE > > So, he was on the scene 23 years after the traditional death date for > the Nazarene, 33 CE. He wasn't a contemporary of Jesus. > > Thank you for playing. > > Kevin R 23 years??? The story of Jesus Christ...the new testament wasn't even writen until 50 years after Jesus Christ died.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 20:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95cb9cfe-3b3a-4bbf-afac-5c9d3a6d2382@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419359 |
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 7:19:45 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > Kevrob wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:14:51 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Attila < wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 01:10:45 -0700, The Starmaker > > > > > > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > > > > > > <55C31685.54A6@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >Attila < wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:02:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > > > > > > >> alt.atheism with message-id > > > > > > >> <9g62sat66jooq00mg9ro6fktj8qmg7stdi@4ax.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 17:56:09 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>On 08/03/2015 02:42 PM, duke wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> Prove the American War of Independence occurred. Same difference. No eye > > > > > > >> >>> witnesses to testify. Just documents, accounts of others, paintings, artifacts, > > > > > > >> >>> etc. > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >>And third party verification (ie France), unlike your gospels. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >What 3rd party verification. I have the same types of verification for Jesus > > > > > > >> >Christ - documents, accounts of others, paintings, artifacts, etc. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> What do you have that has absolutely no connection, directly or > > > > > > >> indirectly, with your bible? Direct verified accounts or 'paintings' > > > > > > >> by people who never heard of that bible or any person or organization > > > > > > >> connected to it? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> What 'artifacts' what are independent of such sources? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Do you understand what 'independent' or 'verified' means? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to > > > > > > >call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such > > > > > > >men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of > > > > > > >the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when > > > > > > >Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned > > > > > > >him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, > > > > > > >for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine > > > > > > >prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things > > > > > > >concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not > > > > > > >extinct at this day." > > > > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the opinion of many scholars his writings were altered centuries > > > > > > ago to fit the necessary pattern. There is no independent > > > > > > verification from any other sources supporting him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm shocked. > > > > > > > > http://alivecampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/shocked_face.jpg > > > > > > > > > > > > how about this guy? > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ > > > > > > > > > > > > "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and > > > inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their > > > abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the > > > name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of > > > Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a > > > most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke > > > out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, > > > where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find > > > their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made > > > of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense > > > multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as > > > of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their > > > deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and > > > perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and > > > burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ > > > > GoTo the 1st para @ > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus > > > > Born circa 56 CE Died 117 CE > > > > So, he was on the scene 23 years after the traditional death date for > > the Nazarene, 33 CE. He wasn't a contemporary of Jesus. > > > > Thank you for playing. > > > > Kevin R > > > 23 years??? > > The story of Jesus Christ...the new testament wasn't even writen until 50 years after Jesus Christ died. So what. We were talking about non-biblical verification that someone called "Jesus" or something close to it had lived and either founded a religion or had been the example for a religion founded by his followers. Tacitus wasn't alive when JC was, so he would only have heard about any Jewish Messiah after the fellow was said to have died. He isn't, as the historians say, a primary source. That's not to say he didn't encounter Christians in his lifetime. Kevin R
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 22:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55C591CD.41E8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419369 |
Kevrob wrote: > > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 7:19:45 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > Kevrob wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:14:51 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Attila < wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 01:10:45 -0700, The Starmaker > > > > > > > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > > > > > > > <55C31685.54A6@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Attila < wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:02:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > > > > > > > >> alt.atheism with message-id > > > > > > > >> <9g62sat66jooq00mg9ro6fktj8qmg7stdi@4ax.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 17:56:09 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >>On 08/03/2015 02:42 PM, duke wrote: > > > > > > > >> >>> Prove the American War of Independence occurred. Same difference. No eye > > > > > > > >> >>> witnesses to testify. Just documents, accounts of others, paintings, artifacts, > > > > > > > >> >>> etc. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >>And third party verification (ie France), unlike your gospels. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >What 3rd party verification. I have the same types of verification for Jesus > > > > > > > >> >Christ - documents, accounts of others, paintings, artifacts, etc. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> What do you have that has absolutely no connection, directly or > > > > > > > >> indirectly, with your bible? Direct verified accounts or 'paintings' > > > > > > > >> by people who never heard of that bible or any person or organization > > > > > > > >> connected to it? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> What 'artifacts' what are independent of such sources? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Do you understand what 'independent' or 'verified' means? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to > > > > > > > >call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such > > > > > > > >men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of > > > > > > > >the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when > > > > > > > >Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned > > > > > > > >him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, > > > > > > > >for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine > > > > > > > >prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things > > > > > > > >concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not > > > > > > > >extinct at this day." > > > > > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the opinion of many scholars his writings were altered centuries > > > > > > > ago to fit the necessary pattern. There is no independent > > > > > > > verification from any other sources supporting him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm shocked. > > > > > > > > > > http://alivecampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/shocked_face.jpg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how about this guy? > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and > > > > inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their > > > > abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the > > > > name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of > > > > Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a > > > > most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke > > > > out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, > > > > where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find > > > > their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made > > > > of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense > > > > multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as > > > > of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their > > > > deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and > > > > perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and > > > > burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ > > > > > > GoTo the 1st para @ > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus > > > > > > Born circa 56 CE Died 117 CE > > > > > > So, he was on the scene 23 years after the traditional death date for > > > the Nazarene, 33 CE. He wasn't a contemporary of Jesus. > > > > > > Thank you for playing. > > > > > > Kevin R > > > > > > 23 years??? > > > > The story of Jesus Christ...the new testament wasn't even writen until 50 years after Jesus Christ died. > > So what. We were talking about non-biblical verification that someone > called "Jesus" or something close to it had lived and either founded a > religion or had been the example for a religion founded by his followers. > Tacitus wasn't alive when JC was, so he would only have heard about any > Jewish Messiah after the fellow was said to have died. He isn't, as the > historians say, a primary source. That's not to say he didn't encounter > Christians in his lifetime. > > Kevin R Born circa 56 CE Died 117 CE Doesn't CE mean Before Christ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 22:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55C592EB.2D7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419383 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Kevrob wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 7:19:45 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Kevrob wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:14:51 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attila < wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 01:10:45 -0700, The Starmaker > > > > > > > > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > > > > > > > > <55C31685.54A6@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Attila < wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:02:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > > > > > > > > >> alt.atheism with message-id > > > > > > > > >> <9g62sat66jooq00mg9ro6fktj8qmg7stdi@4ax.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 17:56:09 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >>On 08/03/2015 02:42 PM, duke wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >>> Prove the American War of Independence occurred. Same difference. No eye > > > > > > > > >> >>> witnesses to testify. Just documents, accounts of others, paintings, artifacts, > > > > > > > > >> >>> etc. > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >>And third party verification (ie France), unlike your gospels. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >What 3rd party verification. I have the same types of verification for Jesus > > > > > > > > >> >Christ - documents, accounts of others, paintings, artifacts, etc. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> What do you have that has absolutely no connection, directly or > > > > > > > > >> indirectly, with your bible? Direct verified accounts or 'paintings' > > > > > > > > >> by people who never heard of that bible or any person or organization > > > > > > > > >> connected to it? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> What 'artifacts' what are independent of such sources? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Do you understand what 'independent' or 'verified' means? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to > > > > > > > > >call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such > > > > > > > > >men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of > > > > > > > > >the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when > > > > > > > > >Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned > > > > > > > > >him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, > > > > > > > > >for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine > > > > > > > > >prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things > > > > > > > > >concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not > > > > > > > > >extinct at this day." > > > > > > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the opinion of many scholars his writings were altered centuries > > > > > > > > ago to fit the necessary pattern. There is no independent > > > > > > > > verification from any other sources supporting him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm shocked. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://alivecampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/shocked_face.jpg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how about this guy? > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and > > > > > inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their > > > > > abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the > > > > > name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of > > > > > Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a > > > > > most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke > > > > > out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, > > > > > where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find > > > > > their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made > > > > > of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense > > > > > multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as > > > > > of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their > > > > > deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and > > > > > perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and > > > > > burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ > > > > > > > > GoTo the 1st para @ > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus > > > > > > > > Born circa 56 CE Died 117 CE > > > > > > > > So, he was on the scene 23 years after the traditional death date for > > > > the Nazarene, 33 CE. He wasn't a contemporary of Jesus. > > > > > > > > Thank you for playing. > > > > > > > > Kevin R > > > > > > > > > 23 years??? > > > > > > The story of Jesus Christ...the new testament wasn't even writen until 50 years after Jesus Christ died. > > > > So what. We were talking about non-biblical verification that someone > > called "Jesus" or something close to it had lived and either founded a > > religion or had been the example for a religion founded by his followers. > > Tacitus wasn't alive when JC was, so he would only have heard about any > > Jewish Messiah after the fellow was said to have died. He isn't, as the > > historians say, a primary source. That's not to say he didn't encounter > > Christians in his lifetime. > > > > Kevin R > > Born circa 56 CE Died 117 CE > > Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? You wrote: "Tacitus wasn't alive when JC was..." The Common Era, also known as the Christian Era,[1][2] is the name of the stretch of time from somewhere around the alleged birth of Jesus Christ. Now when was Jesus born? Maybe 86 CE???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55C63281.18AC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419384 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Kevrob wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 7:19:45 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Kevrob wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:14:51 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attila < wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 01:10:45 -0700, The Starmaker > > > > > > > > > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > > > > > > > > > <55C31685.54A6@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Attila < wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:02:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > > > > > > > > > >> alt.atheism with message-id > > > > > > > > > >> <9g62sat66jooq00mg9ro6fktj8qmg7stdi@4ax.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 17:56:09 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>On 08/03/2015 02:42 PM, duke wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> >>> Prove the American War of Independence occurred. Same difference. No eye > > > > > > > > > >> >>> witnesses to testify. Just documents, accounts of others, paintings, artifacts, > > > > > > > > > >> >>> etc. > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >>And third party verification (ie France), unlike your gospels. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >What 3rd party verification. I have the same types of verification for Jesus > > > > > > > > > >> >Christ - documents, accounts of others, paintings, artifacts, etc. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> What do you have that has absolutely no connection, directly or > > > > > > > > > >> indirectly, with your bible? Direct verified accounts or 'paintings' > > > > > > > > > >> by people who never heard of that bible or any person or organization > > > > > > > > > >> connected to it? > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> What 'artifacts' what are independent of such sources? > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Do you understand what 'independent' or 'verified' means? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to > > > > > > > > > >call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such > > > > > > > > > >men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of > > > > > > > > > >the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when > > > > > > > > > >Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned > > > > > > > > > >him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, > > > > > > > > > >for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine > > > > > > > > > >prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things > > > > > > > > > >concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not > > > > > > > > > >extinct at this day." > > > > > > > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the opinion of many scholars his writings were altered centuries > > > > > > > > > ago to fit the necessary pattern. There is no independent > > > > > > > > > verification from any other sources supporting him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm shocked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://alivecampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/shocked_face.jpg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how about this guy? > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and > > > > > > inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their > > > > > > abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the > > > > > > name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of > > > > > > Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a > > > > > > most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke > > > > > > out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, > > > > > > where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find > > > > > > their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made > > > > > > of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense > > > > > > multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as > > > > > > of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their > > > > > > deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and > > > > > > perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and > > > > > > burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ > > > > > > > > > > GoTo the 1st para @ > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus > > > > > > > > > > Born circa 56 CE Died 117 CE > > > > > > > > > > So, he was on the scene 23 years after the traditional death date for > > > > > the Nazarene, 33 CE. He wasn't a contemporary of Jesus. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for playing. > > > > > > > > > > Kevin R > > > > > > > > > > > > 23 years??? > > > > > > > > The story of Jesus Christ...the new testament wasn't even writen until 50 years after Jesus Christ died. > > > > > > So what. We were talking about non-biblical verification that someone > > > called "Jesus" or something close to it had lived and either founded a > > > religion or had been the example for a religion founded by his followers. > > > Tacitus wasn't alive when JC was, so he would only have heard about any > > > Jewish Messiah after the fellow was said to have died. He isn't, as the > > > historians say, a primary source. That's not to say he didn't encounter > > > Christians in his lifetime. > > > > > > Kevin R > > > > Born circa 56 CE Died 117 CE > > > > Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? > > You wrote: "Tacitus wasn't alive when JC was..." > > The Common Era, also known as the Christian Era,[1][2] is the name of > the stretch of time from somewhere around the alleged birth of Jesus > Christ. > > Now when was Jesus born? Maybe 86 CE??? Or maybe Jesus Christ was born 56 CE, in the same hospitol that Tacitus was born. It must be in the Times Roman newspaper...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | talishi <talishi@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 04:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mq4qtg0ecl@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #419383 |
On 08/07/2015 10:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? It translates to AD, and we use it because we can't quite bring ourselves to say "The Year of Our Lord". Particularly since he isn't our Lord. By the same token we use BCE, Before Common Era, rather than BC, Before Christ, since we're not entirely sure there was a Christ, and even if there was, we don't think his birth was such a watershed. If I had my druthers we'd use Ab Urbe Condita and add 753 years to every date.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 08:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p31csa5vhnssns2uvqmbj369sjtahp1thv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #419409 |
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:57:29 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> wrote: >On 08/07/2015 10:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? Idiot. >It translates to AD, and we use it because we can't quite bring >ourselves to say "The Year of Our Lord". Particularly since he isn't >our Lord. By the same token we use BCE, Before Common Era, rather than >BC, Before Christ, since we're not entirely sure there was a Christ, and >even if there was, we don't think his birth was such a watershed. If I >had my druthers we'd use Ab Urbe Condita and add 753 years to every date. It's actually the international standard term, because the rest of the world isn't as god-soaked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 08:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83518017-2da0-4489-8010-531a44d244fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419410 |
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 9:32:38 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:57:29 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> > wrote: > > >On 08/07/2015 10:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >> Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? > > Idiot. > > >It translates to AD, and we use it because we can't quite bring > >ourselves to say "The Year of Our Lord". Particularly since he isn't > >our Lord. By the same token we use BCE, Before Common Era, rather than > >BC, Before Christ, since we're not entirely sure there was a Christ, and > >even if there was, we don't think his birth was such a watershed. If I > >had my druthers we'd use Ab Urbe Condita and add 753 years to every date. The founding of Rome doesn't strike me as a better Year 1. They had their pantheon, slavery, and gave imperialism its name. > It's actually the international standard term, because the rest of the > world isn't as god-soaked. Or is soaking in a different flavor of god(s), more's the pity. Kevin R
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Johnston <David@block.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 09:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mq578f$5su$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #419413 |
On 8/8/2015 9:12 AM, Kevrob wrote: > On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 9:32:38 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:57:29 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On 08/07/2015 10:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? >> >> Idiot. >> >>> It translates to AD, and we use it because we can't quite bring >>> ourselves to say "The Year of Our Lord". Particularly since he isn't >>> our Lord. By the same token we use BCE, Before Common Era, rather than >>> BC, Before Christ, since we're not entirely sure there was a Christ, and >>> even if there was, we don't think his birth was such a watershed. If I >>> had my druthers we'd use Ab Urbe Condita and add 753 years to every date. > > The founding of Rome doesn't strike me as a better Year 1. They had > their pantheon, slavery, and gave imperialism its name. ...well and what's your point? He was picking dates based on what he considered to be importance. Isaac Asimov had stories in which history would be measured from the date of the detonation of the first atomic bomb and that wasn't because it was a good thing, but because it was a thing that changed everything for the entire world. It is a little odd that that non Christian cultures are expected to reckon their dates from the hypothetical (and almost certainly inaccurate) date of birth of the founder of Christianity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c9f589b-9694-444c-9e51-db2fac92f6b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419415 |
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote: > On 8/8/2015 9:12 AM, Kevrob wrote: > > On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 9:32:38 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > >> On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:57:29 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On 08/07/2015 10:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>> Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? > >> > >> Idiot. > >> > >>> It translates to AD, and we use it because we can't quite bring > >>> ourselves to say "The Year of Our Lord". Particularly since he isn't > >>> our Lord. By the same token we use BCE, Before Common Era, rather than > >>> BC, Before Christ, since we're not entirely sure there was a Christ, and > >>> even if there was, we don't think his birth was such a watershed. If I > >>> had my druthers we'd use Ab Urbe Condita and add 753 years to every date. > > > > The founding of Rome doesn't strike me as a better Year 1. They had > > their pantheon, slavery, and gave imperialism its name. > > ...well and what's your point? He was picking dates based on what he > considered to be importance. Isaac Asimov had stories in which history > would be measured from the date of the detonation of the first atomic > bomb and that wasn't because it was a good thing, but because it was a > thing that changed everything for the entire world. It is a little odd > that that non Christian cultures are expected to reckon their dates from > the hypothetical (and almost certainly inaccurate) date of birth of the > founder of Christianity. The only good reason to use BCE/CE aka BC/AD is that we've been using it for about 1400 years. The 753 BCE founding date for Rome is mythic, too. Bombs aside, the discovery of atomic power could well be a positive watershed. I'd say the same for the first successful satellite launch or manned obital flight, the Moon landing, and certainly any future first interstellar flight. So, I have no objection to that sort of standard. But dating the years are a convention, and conventions usually get set by the culturally dominant group. We could use the Holocene calendar, but if Y2K was a problem, how much trouble would an extra 10k be? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_calendar Kevin R
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anthony Frost <Vulch@vulch.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 10:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <21b162f054%Vulch@kerrier.vulch.org> |
| In reply to | #419419 |
In message <6c9f589b-9694-444c-9e51-db2fac92f6b5@googlegroups.com>
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Bombs aside, the discovery of atomic power could well be a positive watershed.
> I'd say the same for the first successful satellite launch or manned
> obital flight, the Moon landing, and certainly any future first interstellar
> flight. So, I have no objection to that sort of standard. But dating the
> years are a convention, and conventions usually get set by the culturally
> dominant group.
There's a remark in "A Deepness In The Sky" about the Qeng Ho calendar
supposedly being based on the first moon landing, except they also know
there's a few months offset. They've moved on from 32 bit dates at
least...
Anthony
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 11:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA4F07F9373836melchizedek@216.166.97.131> |
| In reply to | #419415 |
David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in news:mq578f$5su$1@dont-email.me: > On 8/8/2015 9:12 AM, Kevrob wrote: >> On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 9:32:38 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee >> wrote: >>> On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:57:29 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/07/2015 10:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? >>> >>> Idiot. >>> >>>> It translates to AD, and we use it because we can't quite bring >>>> ourselves to say "The Year of Our Lord". Particularly since he >>>> isn't our Lord. By the same token we use BCE, Before Common Era, >>>> rather than BC, Before Christ, since we're not entirely sure there >>>> was a Christ, and even if there was, we don't think his birth was >>>> such a watershed. If I had my druthers we'd use Ab Urbe Condita >>>> and add 753 years to every date. >> >> The founding of Rome doesn't strike me as a better Year 1. They had >> their pantheon, slavery, and gave imperialism its name. > > ...well and what's your point? He was picking dates based on what he > considered to be importance. Isaac Asimov had stories in which > history would be measured from the date of the detonation of the first > atomic bomb and that wasn't because it was a good thing, but because > it was a thing that changed everything for the entire world. It is a > little odd that that non Christian cultures are expected to reckon > their dates from the hypothetical (and almost certainly inaccurate) > date of birth of the founder of Christianity. The logical thing would be to date everything from the Big Bang, but that would be a bit cumbersome :-). We want to have a smallish integer which remains positive for the period we're interested in. AD/BC does that, unless you're a historian, since it goes negative during the mid-Roman empire, and is further glitched by having no Year Zero. AUC would work somewhat better. Addingo 10,000 to all dates would cover all history, but would require another Y2K like rework of systems. The Moslem AH (AD 2015 =~ AH 1436) would be OK, putting classical history solidly in the negative numbers, but the Moslem calendar is lunar, which gets messy really quickly. In one of Vinge's Zones of Thought books, set in the distant future, there's a very brief conversation which in which someone cites claims that zero time for clocks is the time the primodial human ancestors landed a spacecraft on their planet's satellite, but says that this is wrong, since researchers established that this is off by about 10 megaseconds. This was a little Easter Egg for computer types, since that metches well with the Unix Epoch (midnight on 1/1/1970). pt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 12:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.302ffbed29cec3cb989a77@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #419413 |
In article <83518017-2da0-4489-8010-531a44d244fa@googlegroups.com>, kevrob@my-deja.com says... > > On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 9:32:38 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > > On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:57:29 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> > > wrote: > > > > >On 08/07/2015 10:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >> Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? > > > > Idiot. > > > > >It translates to AD, and we use it because we can't quite bring > > >ourselves to say "The Year of Our Lord". Particularly since he isn't > > >our Lord. By the same token we use BCE, Before Common Era, rather than > > >BC, Before Christ, since we're not entirely sure there was a Christ, and > > >even if there was, we don't think his birth was such a watershed. If I > > >had my druthers we'd use Ab Urbe Condita and add 753 years to every date. > > The founding of Rome doesn't strike me as a better Year 1. They had > their pantheon, slavery, and gave imperialism its name. What's wrong with a pantheon? And you say "imperialism" like it's automatically bad. It is said that in the Roman Empire a virgin could walk alone from Londinium to Alexandria carrying a purse of gold and would arrive in Alexandria with both virginity and gold intact. Is that true in our "civilized" era? > > > It's actually the international standard term, because the rest of the > > world isn't as god-soaked. > > Or is soaking in a different flavor of god(s), more's the pity. Personally I don't believe in Christianity but I learned it as "BC" and "AD" and somebody can't deal with that he's really more interested in an argument than in the sequence of events, so screw him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 14:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mkgcsa1tccphpo4tpq7lcnjvr3dpadmobp@reader80.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #419421 |
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 12:44:16 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <83518017-2da0-4489-8010-531a44d244fa@googlegroups.com>, >kevrob@my-deja.com says... >> >> On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 9:32:38 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> > On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:57:29 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >On 08/07/2015 10:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> > >> Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? >> > >> > Idiot. >> > >> > >It translates to AD, and we use it because we can't quite bring >> > >ourselves to say "The Year of Our Lord". Particularly since he isn't >> > >our Lord. By the same token we use BCE, Before Common Era, rather than >> > >BC, Before Christ, since we're not entirely sure there was a Christ, and >> > >even if there was, we don't think his birth was such a watershed. If I >> > >had my druthers we'd use Ab Urbe Condita and add 753 years to every date. >> >> The founding of Rome doesn't strike me as a better Year 1. They had >> their pantheon, slavery, and gave imperialism its name. > >What's wrong with a pantheon? And you say "imperialism" like it's >automatically bad. It is said that in the Roman Empire a virgin could >walk alone from Londinium to Alexandria carrying a purse of gold and >would arrive in Alexandria with both virginity and gold intact. Is that >true in our "civilized" era? a) Probably, assuming she's bright enough to not tell anyone what's in the purse. Might take some luck, and of course there's the issue of walking across the Channel, same as there was in Augustan Rome. (I note, not that it's relevant, that the only place I've ever actually had my pocket picked was Rome.) b) That was said of a lot of times, places, and cultures (such as Arthur's Britain), and usually wasn't true. During the reign of Vlad the Impaler, it was said that a jewel-encrusted golden cup was left on the side of a fountain in his capital city of Tirgoviste, for the use of thirsty travelers, and no one dared steal it. (It allegedly vanished forever as soon as news of his death arrived.) Outside Rumania this is not generally seen as an endorsement of Vlad's policies. Those points aside, I have no problem with well-run empires. >> > It's actually the international standard term, because the rest of the >> > world isn't as god-soaked. >> >> Or is soaking in a different flavor of god(s), more's the pity. > >Personally I don't believe in Christianity but I learned it as "BC" and >"AD" and somebody can't deal with that he's really more interested in an >argument than in the sequence of events, so screw him. One trivial issue with AD/BC is that "Anno Domini" is Latin and "Before Christ" is English; shouldn't they match? -- 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]
| From | Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 16:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c741eef7-4798-48ef-afd4-382ea4bb9d6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419433 |
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 2:03:32 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote: > On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 12:44:16 -0400, "J. Clarke" > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > >In article <83518017-2da0-4489-8010-531a44d244fa@googlegroups.com>, > >kevrob@my-deja.com says... > >> > >> On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 9:32:38 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > >> > On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:57:29 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > >On 08/07/2015 10:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >> > >> Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? > >> > > >> > Idiot. > >> > > >> > >It translates to AD, and we use it because we can't quite bring > >> > >ourselves to say "The Year of Our Lord". Particularly since he isn't > >> > >our Lord. By the same token we use BCE, Before Common Era, rather than > >> > >BC, Before Christ, since we're not entirely sure there was a Christ, and > >> > >even if there was, we don't think his birth was such a watershed. If I > >> > >had my druthers we'd use Ab Urbe Condita and add 753 years to every date. > >> > >> The founding of Rome doesn't strike me as a better Year 1. They had > >> their pantheon, slavery, and gave imperialism its name. > > > >What's wrong with a pantheon? And you say "imperialism" like it's > >automatically bad. It is said that in the Roman Empire a virgin could > >walk alone from Londinium to Alexandria carrying a purse of gold and > >would arrive in Alexandria with both virginity and gold intact. Is that > >true in our "civilized" era? > > a) Probably, assuming she's bright enough to not tell anyone what's > in the purse. Might take some luck, and of course there's the issue > of walking across the Channel, same as there was in Augustan Rome. > > (I note, not that it's relevant, that the only place I've ever > actually had my pocket picked was Rome.) > > b) That was said of a lot of times, places, and cultures (such as > Arthur's Britain), and usually wasn't true. > > During the reign of Vlad the Impaler, it was said that a > jewel-encrusted golden cup was left on the side of a fountain in his > capital city of Tirgoviste, for the use of thirsty travelers, and no > one dared steal it. (It allegedly vanished forever as soon as news of > his death arrived.) Outside Rumania this is not generally seen as an > endorsement of Vlad's policies. > > Those points aside, I have no problem with well-run empires. > > >> > It's actually the international standard term, because the rest of the > >> > world isn't as god-soaked. > >> > >> Or is soaking in a different flavor of god(s), more's the pity. > > > >Personally I don't believe in Christianity but I learned it as "BC" and > >"AD" and somebody can't deal with that he's really more interested in an > >argument than in the sequence of events, so screw him. > > One trivial issue with AD/BC is that "Anno Domini" is Latin and > "Before Christ" is English; shouldn't they match? Some have used A.C. or A.C.N. (ante Christum natum) for "before the birth of Christ." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Christum_Natum Kevin R Kevin R .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 14:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55C7CCFF.69BE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419456 |
Kevrob wrote: > > On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 2:03:32 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 12:44:16 -0400, "J. Clarke" > > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >In article <83518017-2da0-4489-8010-531a44d244fa@googlegroups.com>, > > >kevrob@my-deja.com says... > > >> > > >> On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 9:32:38 AM UTC-4, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > > >> > On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:57:29 -0700, talishi <talishi@example.net> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > >On 08/07/2015 10:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >> > >> Doesn't CE mean Before Christ? > > >> > > > >> > Idiot. > > >> > > > >> > >It translates to AD, and we use it because we can't quite bring > > >> > >ourselves to say "The Year of Our Lord". Particularly since he isn't > > >> > >our Lord. By the same token we use BCE, Before Common Era, rather than > > >> > >BC, Before Christ, since we're not entirely sure there was a Christ, and > > >> > >even if there was, we don't think his birth was such a watershed. If I > > >> > >had my druthers we'd use Ab Urbe Condita and add 753 years to every date. > > >> > > >> The founding of Rome doesn't strike me as a better Year 1. They had > > >> their pantheon, slavery, and gave imperialism its name. > > > > > >What's wrong with a pantheon? And you say "imperialism" like it's > > >automatically bad. It is said that in the Roman Empire a virgin could > > >walk alone from Londinium to Alexandria carrying a purse of gold and > > >would arrive in Alexandria with both virginity and gold intact. Is that > > >true in our "civilized" era? > > > > a) Probably, assuming she's bright enough to not tell anyone what's > > in the purse. Might take some luck, and of course there's the issue > > of walking across the Channel, same as there was in Augustan Rome. > > > > (I note, not that it's relevant, that the only place I've ever > > actually had my pocket picked was Rome.) > > > > b) That was said of a lot of times, places, and cultures (such as > > Arthur's Britain), and usually wasn't true. > > > > During the reign of Vlad the Impaler, it was said that a > > jewel-encrusted golden cup was left on the side of a fountain in his > > capital city of Tirgoviste, for the use of thirsty travelers, and no > > one dared steal it. (It allegedly vanished forever as soon as news of > > his death arrived.) Outside Rumania this is not generally seen as an > > endorsement of Vlad's policies. > > > > Those points aside, I have no problem with well-run empires. > > > > >> > It's actually the international standard term, because the rest of the > > >> > world isn't as god-soaked. > > >> > > >> Or is soaking in a different flavor of god(s), more's the pity. > > > > > >Personally I don't believe in Christianity but I learned it as "BC" and > > >"AD" and somebody can't deal with that he's really more interested in an > > >argument than in the sequence of events, so screw him. > > > > One trivial issue with AD/BC is that "Anno Domini" is Latin and > > "Before Christ" is English; shouldn't they match? > > Some have used A.C. or A.C.N. (ante Christum natum) for > "before the birth of Christ." > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Christum_Natum > > Kevin R > > Kevin R > . Well, I was born in the 1900's, but I don't know if it is A.D., A.C., A.C.N., B.E., G.E., or M.C.W....or L.S.D.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 19:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d2np53F90lvU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #419433 |
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote: >One trivial issue with AD/BC is that "Anno Domini" is Latin and >"Before Christ" is English; shouldn't they match? Do you watch television? English is a bastard language, and worrying about consistency by where we stole something from was a lost cause from the beginning. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 01:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ocqdsahdq7mgeaooemeplic9lk77foejko@reader80.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #419462 |
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 19:36:34 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote: > >>One trivial issue with AD/BC is that "Anno Domini" is Latin and >>"Before Christ" is English; shouldn't they match? > >Do you watch television? > >English is a bastard language, and worrying about consistency by where >we stole something from was a lost cause from the beginning. I am well aware that English is fraught with Greco-Roman monstrosities, even before you get into deliberate portmanteaus, but they're usually single words, rather than standard abbreviations of matched phrases. -- 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]
| From | David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 01:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bf-dnUgoyJv-1lXInZ2dnUU7-UOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #419487 |
On 2015-08-09, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote: > On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 19:36:34 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote: >>>One trivial issue with AD/BC is that "Anno Domini" is Latin and >>>"Before Christ" is English; shouldn't they match? >> >>Do you watch television? >> >>English is a bastard language, and worrying about consistency by where >>we stole something from was a lost cause from the beginning. > > I am well aware that English is fraught with Greco-Roman > monstrosities, even before you get into deliberate portmanteaus, but > they're usually single words, rather than standard abbreviations of > matched phrases. Cue the standard James Nicoll quote... Dave, sometimes the swag in the wordbag gets squooshed Germanically -- \/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written
csiph-web