Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #360325 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-11 09:58 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-08-12 12:35 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 231 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-11 09:58 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-11 10:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 13:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-11 23:26 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 00:24 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-08-11 13:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 07:58 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 19:23 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:48 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 04:13 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 20:57 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 12:39 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 15:26 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 07:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 20:03 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-12 17:49 -0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-12 18:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-13 00:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 22:25 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "W.TS." <m14m@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-12 20:55 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-12 19:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 20:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-12 19:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:53 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 23:58 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 15:56 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:25 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-13 06:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-13 14:20 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:39 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 23:59 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 16:15 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:30 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 09:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 17:30 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-14 14:11 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-15 05:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 18:25 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-16 04:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 19:46 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-16 11:45 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 10:48 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-16 22:04 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 11:15 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-16 22:04 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 15:15 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-17 00:38 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 20:22 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-17 10:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 05:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 20:28 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 18:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:00 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:24 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 06:45 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-19 04:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 20:35 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-19 17:22 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-20 12:47 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 01:08 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-20 22:36 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-20 14:10 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 04:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-16 14:29 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-16 15:04 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 05:53 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 22:30 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 10:08 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-19 17:23 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 04:56 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-20 14:11 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 05:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-16 01:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 19:53 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-16 14:58 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 10:52 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 05:56 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 19:49 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 18:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:33 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 07:26 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-19 04:35 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 20:41 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 04:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-20 22:44 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 05:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 22:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 08:48 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-18 18:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-19 04:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-17 13:21 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 19:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-17 13:40 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-17 12:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 00:51 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-17 14:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 21:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 00:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 01:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 01:23 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 22:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 22:32 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 01:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 23:38 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 05:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 20:12 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 19:25 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:45 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 07:43 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-13 15:53 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 17:24 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-14 12:08 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-14 14:17 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-14 04:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-14 12:53 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-14 06:54 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-14 14:16 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 07:51 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Mike M <mike@xenocyte.com> - 2015-08-15 06:41 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 16:11 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-15 03:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 18:48 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-15 07:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-15 12:05 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-15 18:36 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-16 00:56 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-16 01:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-16 01:09 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-16 14:06 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 06:04 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 12:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-16 03:37 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-16 21:25 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 02:54 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 22:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-18 14:23 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 05:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 18:47 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:30 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-18 10:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 16:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-19 00:44 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-19 04:43 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-19 09:45 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 05:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-21 00:25 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 04:52 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-16 04:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:28 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-16 04:08 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 20:04 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 06:07 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 20:16 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 19:27 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:51 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 07:55 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-19 04:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 20:59 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 05:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-20 22:30 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 04:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-21 19:58 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 22:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-18 00:51 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 16:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-15 15:17 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:31 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-15 12:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:36 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-16 03:42 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 20:11 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-16 11:48 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 10:58 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-15 12:02 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 19:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:33 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:47 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:34 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 09:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-08-13 13:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 13:25 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 17:49 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-16 01:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 20:24 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-16 10:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 11:01 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2015-08-16 16:55 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 11:11 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-17 13:39 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 01:10 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:00 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 21:41 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:08 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 20:04 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 15:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 07:29 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 21:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-11 20:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 04:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:55 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 16:00 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:51 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:49 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 09:46 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:18 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-14 03:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:25 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-15 05:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-11 12:30 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-11 12:59 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 15:03 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 19:30 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 04:19 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 12:36 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "W.TS." <m14m@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-12 20:53 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> - 2015-08-11 21:20 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> - 2015-08-12 10:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> - 2015-08-11 21:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-11 20:22 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 21:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:53 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:51 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-08-12 12:35 +0800
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 20:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqgmun$30t$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #360431 |
In article <mqerbo$lbc$1@dont-email.me>, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: > I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just showing you something you > don't yet already know "that you'd agrree with if you were smart enough to know I'm right." -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 15:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqdivt$8vk$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #360343 |
In article <mqd7g4$4i0$1@dont-email.me>, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: > The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different > functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord and > center of a person's life. One can live his life without a > stamp. One can not live his life without the lord and center of > his life. If one does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to > believe the lord in somewhere else who functions as the center of > one's life. I do not believe that that statement is true. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 14:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kqkksap380usb33frk2b1vfih0md856lsm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360369 |
On 11 Aug 2015 15:38:37 -0400, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: >In article <mqd7g4$4i0$1@dont-email.me>, >niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: > >> The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different >> functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord and >> center of a person's life. One can live his life without a >> stamp. One can not live his life without the lord and center of >> his life. If one does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to >> believe the lord in somewhere else who functions as the center of >> one's life. > >I do not believe that that statement is true. its not in any shape or form.... later he will start talking about some guy name jesus who just also happens to be this mystical fairy beling that can do harry potter tricks
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 07:29 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqe0d3$c50$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #360369 |
On 2015-08-12 03:38 AM, William December Starr wrote: > In article <mqd7g4$4i0$1@dont-email.me>, > niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: > >> The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different >> functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord and >> center of a person's life. One can live his life without a >> stamp. One can not live his life without the lord and center of >> his life. If one does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to >> believe the lord in somewhere else who functions as the center of >> one's life. > > I do not believe that that statement is true. > > -- wds > That is expected. There is no surprise there, but why snip off the rest of my post? Is there something you don't want to see and can not really deal with in the rest of what I said? That is not very honest of you. Is ethics never part of consideration in an atheist life?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 21:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqe8dl$88v$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #360404 |
In article <mqe0d3$c50$1@dont-email.me>, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: > On 2015-08-12 03:38 AM, William December Starr wrote: >> niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: >> >>> The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different >>> functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord >>> and center of a person's life. One can live his life without a >>> stamp. One can not live his life without the lord and center of >>> his life. If one does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to >>> believe the lord in somewhere else who functions as the center >>> of one's life. >> >> I do not believe that that statement is true. > > That is expected. There is no surprise there, but why snip off the > rest of my post? Why not? Once I've established that I don't accept your basic premise, what's the point of going any further into your reasoning? > Is there something you don't want to see and can not really deal > with in the rest of what I said? That is not very honest of > you. Is ethics never part of consideration in an atheist life? Wow, passive-aggressive asshole much? -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 20:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-A6BA8F.20233611082015@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #360416 |
In article <mqe8dl$88v$1@panix2.panix.com>, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: > In article <mqe0d3$c50$1@dont-email.me>, > niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: > > > On 2015-08-12 03:38 AM, William December Starr wrote: > >> niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: > >> > >>> The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different > >>> functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord > >>> and center of a person's life. One can live his life without a > >>> stamp. One can not live his life without the lord and center of > >>> his life. If one does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to > >>> believe the lord in somewhere else who functions as the center > >>> of one's life. > >> > >> I do not believe that that statement is true. > > > > That is expected. There is no surprise there, but why snip off the > > rest of my post? > > Why not? Once I've established that I don't accept your basic > premise, what's the point of going any further into your reasoning? > > > Is there something you don't want to see and can not really deal > > with in the rest of what I said? That is not very honest of > > you. Is ethics never part of consideration in an atheist life? > > Wow, passive-aggressive asshole much? Yep, you've nailed niunian perfectly. He's invented his own religion based on the parts of the bible he likes and refuses to acknowledge anything else in any religion or in reality. And uses passive aggression when challenged. -- JD Išve officially given up trying to find the bottom of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom Rosario, Addicting Info
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 04:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ai3msatpldlebfrkvomnla92q8j6quno1v@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360422 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:23:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >In article <mqe8dl$88v$1@panix2.panix.com>, > wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: > >> In article <mqe0d3$c50$1@dont-email.me>, >> niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: >> >> > On 2015-08-12 03:38 AM, William December Starr wrote: >> >> niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: >> >> >> >>> The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different >> >>> functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord >> >>> and center of a person's life. One can live his life without a >> >>> stamp. One can not live his life without the lord and center of >> >>> his life. If one does not believe the Lord in heaven, one has to >> >>> believe the lord in somewhere else who functions as the center >> >>> of one's life. >> >> >> >> I do not believe that that statement is true. >> > >> > That is expected. There is no surprise there, but why snip off the >> > rest of my post? >> >> Why not? Once I've established that I don't accept your basic >> premise, what's the point of going any further into your reasoning? >> >> > Is there something you don't want to see and can not really deal >> > with in the rest of what I said? That is not very honest of >> > you. Is ethics never part of consideration in an atheist life? >> >> Wow, passive-aggressive asshole much? > > >Yep, you've nailed niunian perfectly. He's invented his own religion >based on the parts of the bible he likes and refuses to acknowledge >anything else in any religion or in reality. And uses passive aggression >when challenged. sounds like catholic 2.0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 14:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lmkksadtfn025dvq6lf41henh8c6aptdtt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360343 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:24:03 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> wrote: >On 2015-08-11 11:43 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>> >>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>> >>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>> science. >>>> >>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>> belief in a god.) >>>> >>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>> >>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out >>> of an awkward position. >> >> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. > >I don't blame people who go out of their way to avoid denying God. I >think it's a very good sign. > > >> >> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >> religion" bullshit. >> > >The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different >functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord and that doesnt exist >center of a person's life. One can live his life without a stamp. One >can not live his life without the lord and center of his life. If one wanna bet I live without fantises every day <snip gobbley gook>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 16:00 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqhjkb$3v8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #360375 |
On 2015-08-12 03:55 AM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:24:03 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> wrote: > >> On 2015-08-11 11:43 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>> science. >>>>> >>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>> >>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>> >>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out >>>> of an awkward position. >>> >>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >> >> I don't blame people who go out of their way to avoid denying God. I >> think it's a very good sign. >> >> >>> >>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>> religion" bullshit. >>> >> >> The difference between a stamp and a god is in their different >> functions. A stamp is just a piece of paper. A god is the lord and > that doesnt exist > >> center of a person's life. One can live his life without a stamp. One >> can not live his life without the lord and center of his life. If one > > wanna bet I live without fantises every day > > <snip gobbley gook> > Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose and reason like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the benefit doubt. Until then, you are just like any religious people having a personal god of your own without even consciously being aware of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 07:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqi0cg$gtc$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #360566 |
In article <mqhjkb$3v8$2@dont-email.me>, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: [ addressing bilgat@m.nu ] > Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose and > reason like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the > benefit doubt. Until then, you are just like any religious people > having a personal god of your own without even consciously being > aware of it. Wait. Where did anything to do with reasoning come into your claim before now? Where did anything about 'the opposite of living every day with a purpose is being a zombie' come into your claim before now? And again, the claimed semantic equivalence of "purpose" and "personal god" seems most dubious to me. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 20:49 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqi4cm$v8l$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #360576 |
On 2015-08-13 07:51 PM, William December Starr wrote: > In article <mqhjkb$3v8$2@dont-email.me>, > niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: > > [ addressing bilgat@m.nu ] > >> Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose and >> reason like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the >> benefit doubt. Until then, you are just like any religious people >> having a personal god of your own without even consciously being >> aware of it. > > Wait. Where did anything to do with reasoning come into your claim > before now? Where did anything about 'the opposite of living every > day with a purpose is being a zombie' come into your claim before > now? It's rather simple logic. What exactly can't you understand? > > And again, the claimed semantic equivalence of "purpose" and > "personal god" seems most dubious to me. Yea, right. It never occurs to you that God has always been with you who actually rules your life by giving you a purpose in life, does it? Well, that is what God does and that is what the word "God" means on the personal level. > > -- wds >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 09:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqi73f$r1s$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #360584 |
In article <mqi4cm$v8l$4@dont-email.me>, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: >>> Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose >>> and reason like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the >>> benefit doubt. Until then, you are just like any religious >>> people having a personal god of your own without even >>> consciously being aware of it. >> >> Wait. Where did anything to do with reasoning come into your claim >> before now? Where did anything about 'the opposite of living every >> day with a purpose is being a zombie' come into your claim before >> now? > > It's rather simple logic. What exactly can't you understand? The part where you make the leap from "living your life every day without purpose" to "being a walking dead zombie." >> And again, the claimed semantic equivalence of "purpose" and >> "personal god" seems most dubious to me. > > Yea, right. It never occurs to you that God has always been with > you who actually rules your life by giving you a purpose in life, > does it? It probably was suggested to me long before it could occur to me on its own, but either way I've filed it under "stuff that some people believe, but I'm not aware of any reason for me to believe it." > Well, that is what God does and that is what the word "God" means > on the personal level. Does the word "God" mean the same thing in both of its appearances in that sentence? The first usage looks likes a reference to a self-aware, self-directed entity (e.g., the "God" or "The Lord" character in the Christian Bible), while the second, though still capitalized, looks like it's just the "anthropomorphizing" of a concept, as in "The only god he believed in was money," which does not imply that money is a thinking, acting being. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 18:18 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqkf73$3bb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #360602 |
On 2015-08-13 09:46 PM, William December Starr wrote: > In article <mqi4cm$v8l$4@dont-email.me>, > niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: > >>>> Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose >>>> and reason like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the >>>> benefit doubt. Until then, you are just like any religious >>>> people having a personal god of your own without even >>>> consciously being aware of it. >>> >>> Wait. Where did anything to do with reasoning come into your claim >>> before now? Where did anything about 'the opposite of living every >>> day with a purpose is being a zombie' come into your claim before >>> now? >> >> It's rather simple logic. What exactly can't you understand? > > The part where you make the leap from "living your life every day > without purpose" to "being a walking dead zombie." Well, to me, they are the same thing. To me, only a zombie can live life without any purpose. Intelligent people would never be able to do that. The nature of human intelligence forbids that. > >>> And again, the claimed semantic equivalence of "purpose" and >>> "personal god" seems most dubious to me. >> >> Yea, right. It never occurs to you that God has always been with >> you who actually rules your life by giving you a purpose in life, >> does it? > > It probably was suggested to me long before it could occur to me on > its own, but either way I've filed it under "stuff that some people > believe, but I'm not aware of any reason for me to believe it." It's never my intention for you to believe what I said. I expect you to verify what I said with your own experience in life. > >> Well, that is what God does and that is what the word "God" means >> on the personal level. > > Does the word "God" mean the same thing in both of its appearances > in that sentence? The first usage looks likes a reference to a > self-aware, self-directed entity (e.g., the "God" or "The Lord" > character in the Christian Bible), while the second, though still > capitalized, looks like it's just the "anthropomorphizing" of a > concept, as in "The only god he believed in was money," which does > not imply that money is a thinking, acting being. > > -- wds > Well, there are all kinds of different gods for all kinds of different people to believe and follow. Some are more real than others, but there is only one true God.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 03:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gh5rsapdc66uosbhan7jb0tja6c0pdkr0a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360566 |
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:00:32 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mqhjkb$3v8$2@dont-email.me> wrote: >Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose and reason >like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the benefit doubt. >Until then, you are just like any religious people having a personal god >of your own without even consciously being aware of it. You appear to be so brainwashed by religion you are unable to conceive of being able to live without one. That certainly does nothing to validate your position. -- 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]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 18:25 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqkfk3$4mq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #360676 |
On 2015-08-14 03:19 PM, Attila < wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:00:32 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > alt.atheism with message-id <mqhjkb$3v8$2@dont-email.me> wrote: > >> Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose and reason >> like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the benefit doubt. >> Until then, you are just like any religious people having a personal god >> of your own without even consciously being aware of it. > > You appear to be so brainwashed by religion you are unable to conceive > of being able to live without one. That certainly does nothing to > validate your position. > Your mistake. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about life and its philosophical/spiritual meanings for everybody. It has nothing to do with what you believe or disbelieve. It's only about how everybody lives their life from a philosophical/spiritual point of view.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 05:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6s1usapj3h5s1bbls63enq21fi5hn7f7gg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360688 |
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:25:14 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mqkfk3$4mq$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >On 2015-08-14 03:19 PM, Attila < wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:00:32 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >> alt.atheism with message-id <mqhjkb$3v8$2@dont-email.me> wrote: >> >>> Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose and reason >>> like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the benefit doubt. >>> Until then, you are just like any religious people having a personal god >>> of your own without even consciously being aware of it. >> >> You appear to be so brainwashed by religion you are unable to conceive >> of being able to live without one. That certainly does nothing to >> validate your position. >> > >Your mistake. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about life and >its philosophical/spiritual meanings for everybody. It has nothing to do >with what you believe or disbelieve. It's only about how everybody lives >their life from a philosophical/spiritual point of view. That would be a small minority. Most people simply live. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 12:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mqdbc5$jtf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #360333 |
On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: > On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>> >>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>> >>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>> science. >>> >>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>> belief in a god.) >>> >>> Stop spewing nonsense. >> >> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out >> of an awkward position. > > Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" > atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking > a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at > least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. > > I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly > consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who > repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting > stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat > the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based > religion" bullshit. > What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and a thought- and conversation-starter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 12:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mqdd2q$rgc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #360349 |
On 8/11/2015 12:48 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: > On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese >>>>>> LaBourgeois >>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>> science. >>>>> >>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>> >>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>> >>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get >>>> out >>>> of an awkward position. >>> >>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>> >>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>> religion" bullshit. >>> >> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? > > Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a > "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid. > For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively > believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure > faith. > > For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, > as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking > about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those > things in which you positively believe; we can talk about beliefs that > are in your set of (positive) beliefs, and those that aren't. > > The reason the shopworn "not collecting stamps" snark is so shitty is > that it doesn't mean you don't have *any* hobby. So fucking what? >> Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and > > It's pure snark, and the analogy collapses in failure. Nope. It's right on. You, however, are a write-off. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 15:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hukksah4mamsunlpk6qcnj0v8v14bepuac@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360349 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>> science. >>>>> >>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>> >>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>> >>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out >>>> of an awkward position. >>> >>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>> >>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>> religion" bullshit. >>> >> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? > >Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a huh? >"strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid. > For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively >believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure >faith. since positively believing in something would mean they do believe in something then that statement is totally wrong, also that sounds a bit more like agnostic, sorry > >For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, >as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking >about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those I think you need help with the english language, no belief means there is no belief at all, quit spewing crap >things in which you positively believe; we can talk about beliefs that >are in your set of (positive) beliefs, and those that aren't. U just are not making much sense > >The reason the shopworn "not collecting stamps" snark is so shitty is >that it doesn't mean you don't have *any* hobby. no it means the person would rather do nothing than listen to you or you kind talking > > >> Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and > >It's pure snark, and the analogy collapses in failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 19:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ri4lsatj0ddqfbrum3chggalf2sebccvu2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360378 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:08:33 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >On 8/11/2015 1:03 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >> >>> On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>>>> science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>>>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >>>>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >>>>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out >>>>>> of an awkward position. >>>>> >>>>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>>>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >>>>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>>>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>>>> >>>>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >>>>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >>>>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>>>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>>>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>>>> religion" bullshit. >>>>> >>>> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >>>> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? >>> >>> Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a >> >> huh? >> >> >>> "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid. >>> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively >>> believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure >>> faith. >> >> >> since positively believing in something would mean they do believe in >> something then that statement is totally wrong, > >It's not wrong. They positively believe that something does not, >cannot, exist. They positively believe in the non-existence of >something. That's not so hard to understand - well, maybe it is for you. well as an atheist I more closely relate to what YOU would call a strong atheist... but you see the thing is I am a strong ATHEIST not strong agnostic.... I am an A-theist <without belief in a god or gods> I am firmly opposed to the belief in any gods I am more stongly opposed to the fucking idiots that call themselves christians, because they are the fucking dumbest most destructive of them all > >>> >>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, >>> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking >>> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those >> >> I think you need help with the english language, > >No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on >the other hand...not so good. as a theist you are always going to believe in faries and goblins and ghosts and gouls and vampires and tinkerbell, so there is nothing I could ever say that would make any sense to someone that can even explain why they believe in those things
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web