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 332 — 25 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. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-22 14:12 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:53 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-23 10:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 16:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-24 17:42 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-24 20:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-25 16:06 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-26 03:41 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-26 00:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-26 10:45 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-26 16:45 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-27 07:19 -0500
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. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 08:10 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-22 03:42 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 16:26 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-23 21:17 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 17:04 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-24 23:40 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-24 20:32 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-26 07:45 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-26 03:45 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-27 00:31 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-26 16:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-27 17:33 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-27 16:41 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-28 11:58 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-28 09:25 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-29 11:27 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 01:15 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-29 05:09 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-29 08:18 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 10:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-30 10:06 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 11:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-29 08:40 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-29 22:18 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-30 10:07 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-30 11:18 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-31 05:35 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-31 10:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-09-01 02:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-01 01:11 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-01 11:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-30 12:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-30 23:38 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-31 05:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-31 10:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-09-01 02:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-31 05:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-02 12:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 23:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-02 21:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-04 00:46 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-08 00:17 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 00:29 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-08 22:46 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 00:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-04 13:35 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-30 10:07 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-30 11:26 -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. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-21 13:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 17:29 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-22 00:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-22 03:39 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-22 12:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-23 15:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Mitchell Holman <noemail@att.net> - 2015-08-23 20:49 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-24 05:17 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-24 12:45 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-24 22:32 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 00:08 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-26 03:46 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-26 00:43 -0700
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. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 17:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 07:47 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-22 03:40 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 16:19 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-23 21:20 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 17:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-24 23:49 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-24 20:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-26 08:02 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-26 03:43 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-27 00:44 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-26 16:46 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-27 17:36 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-27 16:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-27 16:47 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-28 00:51 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-28 07:44 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-28 09:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-28 10:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-29 05:03 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-29 09:22 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-28 11:04 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-28 09:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-29 11:29 +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 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 17 Next page →
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 02:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ByfAx.57510$Hl3.7997@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #360968 |
On 08/16/2015 04:37 AM, bilgat@m.nu wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker
> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> bilgat@m.nu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:05:31 -0500, gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/15/2015 9:43 AM, talishi wrote:
>>>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote:
>>>>>>> niunian wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God
>>>>>>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of
>>>>>>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of
>>>>>>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the
>>>>>>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same
>>>>>>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the
>>>>>>>> place of the previous creation God.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up
>>>>>> your mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and
>>>>> even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as
>>>>> war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and
>>>>> went out trying to kill "Harkonnens".
>>>>
>>>> you don't "know" that.
>>>> Lots of people believe in "Dune" especially Atheists.
>>>
>>> well as an atheist I can tell you that it was a damn good book, but
>>> atheists dont believe in fairy tale books like theists do.
>>
>> That's not true...
>> 'the scientific community' who
>> the majority are atheist..
>> read fairy tales and science fiction.
>> (which are both fabricated fiction stories)
>>
>> How many times have the 'scientific community' used words
>>from "Goldilocks" fairy tales, or H.G. Wells tales?
>>
>> 'the scientific community' live and breathe fairy tales.
>>
>> They believe that life exist on other planets. Where did they get that idea from?
>>
>> "flying saucers"? just fairy tales.
>>
>> Life on Mars?? They won't quit until you shoot them!
>>
>>
>> The only reason the 'scientific community' believes in life in
>> other planets is because of those science fiction fairy tales they read...
>> there is no other logical reason to believe in life on other planets.
>>
>> "This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.
>>
>> So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.
>>
>> "This porridge is too cold," she said
>>
>> So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.
>>
>> "Ahhh, this porridge is just right,"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale.
>
>
> no response even needed.
While usually when starfaker is pretending to talk science but is
babbling on in his lib ignorance, no response is even needed, but in
this case it is instructive to respond and explain.
While this is not really necessary, it's easy to prove Starfaker a
moron. Simply take his statement "there are no Martians.... never was".
(And Starfaker you ignorant Lib an elipsis consists of three not four
periods and has a space at the beginning. Sheesh. I hope you never try
to make me a "star".)
So just HOW does he know this? Clearly, the only way he can know this
(which amazingly includes all other dimensions and things we haven't
even thought or discovered yet AS WELL AS the entire history of the
planet Mars) is to use his superpowers to "remote view" it all to give
us this assurance. Nuff said. He'd save bandwidth by simply using the
"short form" = "I'm a moron!"
So does the scientific community believe life exists on other planets?
Well being scientists and not media whores, They say something like:
What do you mean by "life" and what do you mean by planet? By "life" do
you mean humanoids like us, or some kind of low bacteria. When NASA
talks about finding "life on other planets" (Like Mars) They are ALWAYS
talking about bacteria. And often (but not always) talking about some
planet orbiting some other star than our own. In other words some
speculation about what is going on on the other side of the universe
which like all cosmology, without "remote viewing", we can never
directly observe.
But this is because Humanoid life other than our own is a political
topic now just as it was in the days when the Catholic Church ran
everything. In science it is a "forbidden topic". A paper about it no
matter how well documented will NEVER be published in a major journal
and your career will speedily head for termination or stagnation at
best. Everybody knows this.
What isn't so widely considered is WHY. And the reason is a huge
government cover-up on the subject of UFOs that has been going one since
WWII at least. Don't believe it? It's all documented HERE:
http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-National-Security-State-Chronology/dp/1571743170/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1439792858&sr=8-3&keywords=Richard+M%2F+Dolan
in yawn inducing gruesome detail. As usual proof that there is a
cover-up is FAR easier than proving what the cover-up is about. So we'll
leave the question of the UFO occupants for lack of proof. But The fact
that the cover-up has gone on for so long explains why the topic is
"forbidden".
And this leaves us with one final question: Should scientist believe in
the existence of humanoid life somewhere in the universe (Note planet
here includes those around ANY stars not just our own) The answer based
upon probability alone has to be YES. Why? Because of the vast NUMBER of
even galaxies let alone stars. No thinking scientist or even
self-respecting atheist can DENY the enormously high probability that
there are doubtless MANY other situations out there similar enough to or
own as to make such an event as formation of similar life virtually
beyond doubt! Only the ego of the Lib factions of humanity have the ego
to think they they are so special, physics quit and broke the mold after
they were formed. The probably of humanoid life on other planets, even
humanoid life far more advanced than our own, is FAR more likely than
the statistics supporting the idea that we "evolved" from lower animals,
apes in particular.
The bottom line is that other humanoid life in the universe is virtually
beyond doubt to anyone with even a modest knowledge of science and math.
It is clear that government and it's handmaiden the media, has been
spoon feeding (and sometimes force feeding) the "bacteria story" to
everyone as a cover-up of credible UFO phenomena being observed
everywhere over a great many years. It's all as simple as this.
I now turn you back to all the strategic writers (part of the cover-up)
who will all scream "kook" and "insane" as if it were some kind of
scientific proof of something. Note that like Starfaker, they are all
"writers" and know nothing of science. Their main areas of expertise
being lies and fantasy.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 22:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D2C0DE.4CE8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #361061 |
benj wrote: > > On 08/16/2015 04:37 AM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> bilgat@m.nu wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:05:31 -0500, gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 8/15/2015 9:43 AM, talishi wrote: > >>>>> niunian wrote: > >>>>>> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote: > >>>>>>> niunian wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God > >>>>>>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of > >>>>>>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of > >>>>>>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the > >>>>>>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same > >>>>>>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the > >>>>>>>> place of the previous creation God. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up > >>>>>> your mind. > >>>>> > >>>>> We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and > >>>>> even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as > >>>>> war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and > >>>>> went out trying to kill "Harkonnens". > >>>> > >>>> you don't "know" that. > >>>> Lots of people believe in "Dune" especially Atheists. > >>> > >>> well as an atheist I can tell you that it was a damn good book, but > >>> atheists dont believe in fairy tale books like theists do. > >> > >> That's not true... > >> 'the scientific community' who > >> the majority are atheist.. > >> read fairy tales and science fiction. > >> (which are both fabricated fiction stories) > >> > >> How many times have the 'scientific community' used words > >>from "Goldilocks" fairy tales, or H.G. Wells tales? > >> > >> 'the scientific community' live and breathe fairy tales. > >> > >> They believe that life exist on other planets. Where did they get that idea from? > >> > >> "flying saucers"? just fairy tales. > >> > >> Life on Mars?? They won't quit until you shoot them! > >> > >> > >> The only reason the 'scientific community' believes in life in > >> other planets is because of those science fiction fairy tales they read... > >> there is no other logical reason to believe in life on other planets. > >> > >> "This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed. > >> > >> So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl. > >> > >> "This porridge is too cold," she said > >> > >> So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge. > >> > >> "Ahhh, this porridge is just right," > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > > > > > > no response even needed. > > While usually when starfaker is pretending to talk science but is > babbling on in his lib ignorance, no response is even needed, but in > this case it is instructive to respond and explain. > > While this is not really necessary, it's easy to prove Starfaker a > moron. Simply take his statement "there are no Martians.... never was". > > (And Starfaker you ignorant Lib an elipsis consists of three not four > periods and has a space at the beginning. Sheesh. I hope you never try > to make me a "star".) > > So just HOW does he know this? Clearly, the only way he can know this > (which amazingly includes all other dimensions and things we haven't > even thought or discovered yet AS WELL AS the entire history of the > planet Mars) is to use his superpowers to "remote view" it all to give > us this assurance. Nuff said. He'd save bandwidth by simply using the > "short form" = "I'm a moron!" > > So does the scientific community believe life exists on other planets? > Well being scientists and not media whores, They say something like: > What do you mean by "life" and what do you mean by planet? By "life" do > you mean humanoids like us, or some kind of low bacteria. When NASA > talks about finding "life on other planets" (Like Mars) They are ALWAYS > talking about bacteria. NASA would NEVER say, "We are not looking for life, we're looking for bacteria!" Because nobody would give them a penny. > And often (but not always) talking about some > planet orbiting some other star than our own. In other words some > speculation about what is going on on the other side of the universe > which like all cosmology, without "remote viewing", we can never > directly observe. What is all this talk about "remote viewing"? Is it Shirley Maclaine week???? > > But this is because Humanoid life other than our own is a political > topic now just as it was in the days when the Catholic Church ran > everything. In science it is a "forbidden topic". A paper about it no > matter how well documented will NEVER be published in a major journal > and your career will speedily head for termination or stagnation at > best. Everybody knows this. > > What isn't so widely considered is WHY. And the reason is a huge > government cover-up on the subject of UFOs that has been going one since > WWII at least. Don't believe it? It's all documented HERE: > > http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-National-Security-State-Chronology/dp/1571743170/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1439792858&sr=8-3&keywords=Richard+M%2F+Dolan Documented on Amazon??? a book store? 2 cents for the book, $5.00 for shipping? Why is there only one seeder? https://thepiratebay.la/torrent/7619400/UFOs_and_the_National_Security_State_-_Cover-Up_-_2_Volumes_MOBI Why would you point to a link to a book out of a billion seeders, there is only one seeder??? If it is not worth downloading for free, it's not worth buying. You need to remote view torrents before you remove view amazon. > > in yawn inducing gruesome detail. As usual proof that there is a > cover-up is FAR easier than proving what the cover-up is about. So we'll > leave the question of the UFO occupants for lack of proof. But The fact > that the cover-up has gone on for so long explains why the topic is > "forbidden". > > And this leaves us with one final question: Should scientist believe in > the existence of humanoid life somewhere in the universe (Note planet > here includes those around ANY stars not just our own) The answer based > upon probability alone has to be YES. Why? Because of the vast NUMBER of > even galaxies let alone stars. No thinking scientist or even > self-respecting atheist can DENY the enormously high probability that > there are doubtless MANY other situations out there similar enough to or > own as to make such an event as formation of similar life virtually > beyond doubt! Only the ego of the Lib factions of humanity have the ego > to think they they are so special, physics quit and broke the mold after > they were formed. The probably of humanoid life on other planets, even > humanoid life far more advanced than our own, is FAR more likely than > the statistics supporting the idea that we "evolved" from lower animals, > apes in particular. > > The bottom line is that other humanoid life in the universe is virtually > beyond doubt to anyone with even a modest knowledge of science and math. > It is clear that government and it's handmaiden the media, has been > spoon feeding (and sometimes force feeding) the "bacteria story" to > everyone as a cover-up of credible UFO phenomena being observed > everywhere over a great many years. It's all as simple as this. > > I now turn you back to all the strategic writers (part of the cover-up) > who will all scream "kook" and "insane" as if it were some kind of > scientific proof of something. Note that like Starfaker, they are all > "writers" and know nothing of science. Their main areas of expertise > being lies and fantasy. Point to one lie you believe I made? I mean just ...one. And just in case yous don't know the meaning of...one, it's half of two. > > -- > ___ ___ ___ ___ > /\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \ > /::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \ > /:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\ > /::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/ > /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ / > \:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ / > \:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/ > \:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ / > \_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ / > \/__/ \/__/ and there is nothing to...cover-up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 14:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <af17ta1c71hovpu98uv5t5180um9d7io6a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361159 |
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:21:34 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >benj wrote: >> >> On 08/16/2015 04:37 AM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker >> > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > >> >> bilgat@m.nu wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:05:31 -0500, gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On 8/15/2015 9:43 AM, talishi wrote: >> >>>>> niunian wrote: >> >>>>>> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote: >> >>>>>>> niunian wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God >> >>>>>>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of >> >>>>>>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of >> >>>>>>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the >> >>>>>>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same >> >>>>>>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the >> >>>>>>>> place of the previous creation God. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up >> >>>>>> your mind. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and >> >>>>> even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as >> >>>>> war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and >> >>>>> went out trying to kill "Harkonnens". >> >>>> >> >>>> you don't "know" that. >> >>>> Lots of people believe in "Dune" especially Atheists. >> >>> >> >>> well as an atheist I can tell you that it was a damn good book, but >> >>> atheists dont believe in fairy tale books like theists do. >> >> >> >> That's not true... >> >> 'the scientific community' who >> >> the majority are atheist.. >> >> read fairy tales and science fiction. >> >> (which are both fabricated fiction stories) >> >> >> >> How many times have the 'scientific community' used words >> >>from "Goldilocks" fairy tales, or H.G. Wells tales? >> >> >> >> 'the scientific community' live and breathe fairy tales. >> >> >> >> They believe that life exist on other planets. Where did they get that idea from? >> >> >> >> "flying saucers"? just fairy tales. >> >> >> >> Life on Mars?? They won't quit until you shoot them! >> >> >> >> >> >> The only reason the 'scientific community' believes in life in >> >> other planets is because of those science fiction fairy tales they read... >> >> there is no other logical reason to believe in life on other planets. >> >> >> >> "This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed. >> >> >> >> So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl. >> >> >> >> "This porridge is too cold," she said >> >> >> >> So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge. >> >> >> >> "Ahhh, this porridge is just right," >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. >> > >> > >> > no response even needed. >> >> While usually when starfaker is pretending to talk science but is >> babbling on in his lib ignorance, no response is even needed, but in >> this case it is instructive to respond and explain. >> >> While this is not really necessary, it's easy to prove Starfaker a >> moron. Simply take his statement "there are no Martians.... never was". >> >> (And Starfaker you ignorant Lib an elipsis consists of three not four >> periods and has a space at the beginning. Sheesh. I hope you never try >> to make me a "star".) >> >> So just HOW does he know this? Clearly, the only way he can know this >> (which amazingly includes all other dimensions and things we haven't >> even thought or discovered yet AS WELL AS the entire history of the >> planet Mars) is to use his superpowers to "remote view" it all to give >> us this assurance. Nuff said. He'd save bandwidth by simply using the >> "short form" = "I'm a moron!" >> >> So does the scientific community believe life exists on other planets? >> Well being scientists and not media whores, They say something like: >> What do you mean by "life" and what do you mean by planet? By "life" do >> you mean humanoids like us, or some kind of low bacteria. When NASA >> talks about finding "life on other planets" (Like Mars) They are ALWAYS >> talking about bacteria. > >NASA would NEVER say, "We are not looking for life, we're looking for bacteria!" > > >Because nobody would give them a penny. Actually nasa says it everyday. Every freakin day they run a test on curiousioty to test for life on mars, You fucking moron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 05:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10c3tatjr307eiqqf3gmei6v68bdjbhjve@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360957 |
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot of planets out there. -- 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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #361077 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > > You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot > of planets out there. There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 03:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5mn5tap5rscac95v6bkpfhoebdihfeh7bt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361149 |
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot >> of planets out there. > > >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? -- 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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #361173 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > >> > >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot > >> of planets out there. > > > > > >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. > > Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. > > Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' Here is what the earth looks like: https://simpleprocesses.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/img_1499.jpg Isn't there just one Atilla the Hun?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 16:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <di67ta5rpjgiqotsp8a1blc5lhhl167rvi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361205 |
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot >> >> of planets out there. >> > >> > >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? > > >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. > >Here is what the earth looks like: >https://simpleprocesses.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/img_1499.jpg > > > >Isn't there just one Atilla the Hun? I have no idea. -- 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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 00:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #361224 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > >> >> > >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot > >> >> of planets out there. > >> > > >> > > >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. > >> > >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. > >> > >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? > > > > > >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' > > Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? What does "unrelated source" mean, like an atheist??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 04:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n5g8talar3q0vv24bj8682bcdo68n4mspi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361272 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot >> >> >> of planets out there. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. >> >> >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. >> >> >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? >> > >> > >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' >> >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. > > >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. Plus not open to any other interpretation, of course. Unambiguous. >What does "unrelated source" mean, like an atheist?? The same thing it means to everyone else. -- 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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #361278 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot > >> >> >> of planets out there. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. > >> >> > >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. > >> >> > >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? > >> > > >> > > >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' > >> > >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. > > > > > >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? > > By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or > derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more > unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? Can you give an example of an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 05:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <im5btaprkf2mid05cd9l9mu8st3bosu7bv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361299 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:45:55 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot >> >> >> >> of planets out there. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. >> >> >> >> >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' >> >> >> >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. >> > >> > >> >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? >> >> By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or >> derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more >> unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. > > >So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? I am saying I have seen no evidence any god ever existed, much less any relatives. > Can you give an example of >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that agenda. Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is highly improbable. -- 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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 00:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D6D24D.612A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #361359 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:45:55 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot > >> >> >> >> of planets out there. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' > >> >> > >> >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. > >> > > >> > > >> >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? > >> > >> By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or > >> derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more > >> unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. > > > > > >So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? > > I am saying I have seen no evidence any god ever existed, much less > any relatives. > > > Can you give an example of > >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. > > Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with > your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source > that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that > agenda. > > Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's > friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence > unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. > > What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more > unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What > would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about > the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is > highly improbable. How about The Laws of Physics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 04:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ckpdtapp9icukko0360debsvrmjq1dhead@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361426 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:25:01 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D6D24D.612A@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:45:55 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot >> >> >> >> >> of planets out there. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' >> >> >> >> >> >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? >> >> >> >> By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or >> >> derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more >> >> unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. >> > >> > >> >So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? >> >> I am saying I have seen no evidence any god ever existed, much less >> any relatives. >> >> > Can you give an example of >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that >> agenda. >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is >> highly improbable. > > >How about The Laws of Physics? How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified where necessary. -- 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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #361430 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:25:01 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D6D24D.612A@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:45:55 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot > >> >> >> >> >> of planets out there. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? > >> >> > >> >> By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or > >> >> derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more > >> >> unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. > >> > > >> > > >> >So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? > >> > >> I am saying I have seen no evidence any god ever existed, much less > >> any relatives. > >> > >> > Can you give an example of > >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. > >> > >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with > >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source > >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that > >> agenda. > >> > >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's > >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence > >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. > >> > >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more > >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What > >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about > >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is > >> highly improbable. > > > > > >How about The Laws of Physics? > > How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified > where necessary. The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 17:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <306ftapvt9g002njpcq1fs8u1vf9r9o65u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361474 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:19:37 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> > Can you give an example of >> >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. >> >> >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with >> >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source >> >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that >> >> agenda. >> >> >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's >> >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence >> >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. >> >> >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more >> >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What >> >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about >> >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is >> >> highly improbable. >> > >> > >> >How about The Laws of Physics? >> >> How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified >> where necessary. > > >The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD.. OK You just made two assertions. Now provide evidence to support them. -- 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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 00:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D82240.7A8A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #361484 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:19:37 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >> >> > Can you give an example of > >> >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. > >> >> > >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with > >> >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source > >> >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that > >> >> agenda. > >> >> > >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's > >> >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence > >> >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. > >> >> > >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more > >> >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What > >> >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about > >> >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is > >> >> highly improbable. > >> > > >> > > >> >How about The Laws of Physics? > >> > >> How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified > >> where necessary. > > > > > >The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD.. > > OK You just made two assertions. Now provide evidence to support > them. Are you saying The Laws of Physics are constantly tested, verified, and modified where necessary, and nobody know where The Laws of Physics come from???? If not from God, then who? You sound like you believe in The Laws of Physics, but not sure where they come from... are you an agnostic? You sound like one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 03:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0l9gtat941ch38v10qhb60cmmhc6kao719@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361508 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 00:18:24 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D82240.7A8A@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:19:37 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Can you give an example of >> >> >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. >> >> >> >> >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with >> >> >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source >> >> >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that >> >> >> agenda. >> >> >> >> >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's >> >> >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence >> >> >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. >> >> >> >> >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more >> >> >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What >> >> >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about >> >> >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is >> >> >> highly improbable. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >How about The Laws of Physics? >> >> >> >> How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified >> >> where necessary. >> > >> > >> >The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD.. >> >> OK You just made two assertions. Now provide evidence to support >> them. > > >Are you saying The Laws of Physics are constantly tested, verified, and modified >where necessary, and nobody know where The Laws of Physics come from???? The don't come from anywhere. They describe the activity of the reality in which we live. > >If not from God, then who? Why anyone? Or anything? > > >You sound like you believe in The Laws of Physics, but not sure where they come from... > >are you an agnostic? You sound like one. I really am not concerned with how someone else describes me as long as they don't lie. -- 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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D8CC1D.533F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #361509 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 00:18:24 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D82240.7A8A@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:19:37 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> >> > Can you give an example of > >> >> >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with > >> >> >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source > >> >> >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that > >> >> >> agenda. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's > >> >> >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence > >> >> >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more > >> >> >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What > >> >> >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about > >> >> >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is > >> >> >> highly improbable. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >How about The Laws of Physics? > >> >> > >> >> How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified > >> >> where necessary. > >> > > >> > > >> >The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD.. > >> > >> OK You just made two assertions. Now provide evidence to support > >> them. > > > > > >Are you saying The Laws of Physics are constantly tested, verified, and modified > >where necessary, and nobody know where The Laws of Physics come from???? > > The don't come from anywhere. They describe the activity of the > reality in which we live. > > > > >If not from God, then who? > > Why anyone? Or anything? Well, it doesn't have to be a person, or a "anything" since only 5 percent of the universe is made of only 'anything'. It could be that 95 percent of what the universe 'is' that makes the laws of physics. The Laws of Physics don't from from a person or anythings...it comes from somewhere else..where you haven't bother to look. > > > > > > >You sound like you believe in The Laws of Physics, but not sure where they come from... > > > >are you an agnostic? You sound like one. > > I really am not concerned with how someone else describes me as long > as they don't lie. Well, I am not lying when I say I believe you believe in God...you're just not sure entirely. But who is? Not everybody believes Thor is a god...those would be the atheist. There are atheist among christians too. So, when the 'scientific community' says the universe comes from 'nothing', they are refering to 95 percent of the universe that contain... no things. It's where the Laws of Physics comes from....it's where GOD sleeps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 03:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fvuita5lkdc21pgj8un6f4t4lit202k133@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361551 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:23:09 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D8CC1D.533F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 00:18:24 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D82240.7A8A@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:19:37 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Can you give an example of >> >> >> >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with >> >> >> >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source >> >> >> >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that >> >> >> >> agenda. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's >> >> >> >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence >> >> >> >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more >> >> >> >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What >> >> >> >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about >> >> >> >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is >> >> >> >> highly improbable. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >How about The Laws of Physics? >> >> >> >> >> >> How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified >> >> >> where necessary. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD.. >> >> >> >> OK You just made two assertions. Now provide evidence to support >> >> them. >> > >> > >> >Are you saying The Laws of Physics are constantly tested, verified, and modified >> >where necessary, and nobody know where The Laws of Physics come from???? >> >> The don't come from anywhere. They describe the activity of the >> reality in which we live. >> >> > >> >If not from God, then who? >> >> Why anyone? Or anything? > > >Well, it doesn't have to be a person, or a "anything" since only 5 percent of the universe >is made of only 'anything'. It could be that 95 percent of what the universe 'is' that makes >the laws of physics. The Laws of Physics don't from from a person or anythings...it comes >from somewhere else..where you haven't bother to look. Why should they come from anywhere? They are simply inherent in the existence of the universe. They explain how things work. >> > >> > >> >You sound like you believe in The Laws of Physics, but not sure where they come from... >> > >> >are you an agnostic? You sound like one. >> >> I really am not concerned with how someone else describes me as long >> as they don't lie. > >Well, I am not lying when I say I believe you believe in God...you're just not sure entirely. But who is? I hold no such belief unless and until someone presents me with acceptable evidence for support. > >Not everybody believes Thor is a god...those would be the atheist. There are atheist among christians too. My requirement is not for any particular god. It covers all of them. > > >So, when the 'scientific community' says the universe comes from 'nothing', they are refering >to 95 percent of the universe that contain... no things. > >It's where the Laws of Physics comes from....it's where GOD sleeps. You are assuming they come from somewhere. Why is that? -- 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]
Page 11 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web