Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #380248 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-27 04:16 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-04-14 05:15 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 457 — 31 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: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-27 04:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-27 04:15 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-27 16:37 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-27 13:07 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-27 23:36 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-14 16:07 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 04:01 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 13:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 16:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:17 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 18:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 16:56 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-29 04:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-30 04:58 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-30 11:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 03:41 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 17:11 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-01 23:25 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 10:59 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 17:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 00:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 13:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:05 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Mitchell Holman <noemail@comcast.net> - 2016-04-08 16:28 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 19:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-03 17:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-04 15:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:07 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 19:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 16:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-11 00:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-12 19:32 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 08:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 16:43 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 14:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 20:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-10 22:01 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-05 15:09 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-07 04:51 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-08 04:14 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:50 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-09 04:49 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 08:29 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 05:32 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 05:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:59 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 15:01 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 05:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 18:42 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-12 07:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-14 13:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 15:25 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 14:33 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 09:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 16:22 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 15:26 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 18:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 17:02 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-29 04:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 18:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-30 05:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-30 11:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-30 09:50 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:11 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 03:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 15:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 20:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-01 15:55 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 23:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-01 17:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-01 22:44 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-02 06:48 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 12:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-02 19:32 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 17:07 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 00:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 18:20 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-05 00:07 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-05 00:23 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-09 16:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:51 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 19:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 09:26 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Ted Street <ted.smasher@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 14:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:39 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:30 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 17:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-01 23:27 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-02 04:25 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:39 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 11:03 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-02 09:48 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 16:14 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-02 23:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-02 21:43 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-04-02 22:17 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-03 00:09 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-02 23:30 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-03 00:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-04-02 23:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-04-03 03:01 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 05:07 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 17:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 11:00 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-03 17:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 11:06 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-03 17:19 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-04 15:20 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-05 15:11 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-07 04:54 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:09 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-08 04:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:51 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-09 04:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 05:35 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 09:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 15:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 05:19 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:28 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 18:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-12 07:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-13 10:23 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 14:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-13 16:25 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-13 17:15 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:09 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-14 11:42 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-14 15:58 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-21 15:30 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 12:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-14 12:41 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-04-14 13:55 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-14 15:53 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:34 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-21 15:58 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-14 15:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-15 09:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-15 11:32 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-17 12:12 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-17 17:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-21 15:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-21 22:19 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 19:49 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-24 12:53 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-24 13:54 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-24 23:06 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-25 09:47 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-26 14:42 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-27 15:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-27 14:47 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-27 18:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-27 18:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 03:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-28 15:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-28 08:48 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-04-28 10:07 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-28 10:09 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 10:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-28 14:32 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:07 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-29 12:25 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-29 16:37 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-28 19:48 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-29 13:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-04-29 14:45 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-30 09:06 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-28 11:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 11:16 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-28 14:30 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 13:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 14:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-28 16:12 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-28 19:41 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 21:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-28 23:51 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-28 16:05 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:13 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-28 15:44 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:10 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 14:00 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-28 19:36 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-29 03:39 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-29 00:45 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-29 05:56 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-29 07:02 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-29 08:24 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-29 12:07 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-29 13:26 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-29 14:58 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-29 20:11 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-29 15:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-29 13:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-29 12:31 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-29 14:36 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-01 13:11 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-01 13:15 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-29 15:04 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-26 16:46 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? bilgat@m.nu - 2016-04-28 08:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 11:25 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-28 11:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-28 11:39 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-29 13:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-29 14:40 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-30 09:11 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-30 17:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-01 09:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-01 16:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-03 12:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-05-03 11:55 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-03 11:38 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-05-03 12:48 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-03 12:47 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-05-03 16:45 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-03 19:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 15:59 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-03 23:04 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 16:00 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-05 19:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-07 07:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 16:15 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jane <Jane@....> - 2016-05-08 06:52 +1000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-07 15:44 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-07 14:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-08 00:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-07 17:33 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-07 17:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-11 14:02 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 00:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-12 08:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 18:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-13 17:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-14 02:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-15 16:05 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-16 22:14 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-17 06:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Mitchell Holman <noemail@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 07:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-17 23:21 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-18 03:30 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 11:26 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 12:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:03 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 17:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 21:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-20 11:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 17:59 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-21 07:41 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-21 18:44 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-22 07:55 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-22 10:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-22 10:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-22 17:12 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-23 15:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-23 22:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-24 14:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-24 15:15 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-25 15:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-26 04:30 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-24 18:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-24 14:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-24 15:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-25 15:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-26 04:31 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:01 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 17:27 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 21:35 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-20 12:00 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 18:00 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-05-18 16:01 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 17:29 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-05-18 16:08 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 18:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-19 17:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 03:45 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:13 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:05 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 00:59 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 12:49 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:06 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-20 11:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 18:01 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 01:00 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-20 12:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 18:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-21 07:42 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-21 18:45 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-22 07:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-22 10:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-22 10:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-22 17:14 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-23 15:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-23 22:45 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-24 14:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-24 15:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-25 15:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-26 04:29 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-18 15:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:08 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-18 15:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 01:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-05-18 15:57 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-17 16:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-08 00:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-30 17:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-01 09:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-01 16:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-03 12:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-03 22:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 16:01 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-05 19:43 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-07 07:46 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-08 00:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-05-07 18:06 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-08 16:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-08 11:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-09 01:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-05-09 13:41 +1000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-05-09 05:02 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-05-08 17:15 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-11 14:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 00:23 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-12 08:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 18:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-13 17:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-14 02:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-15 16:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-16 22:08 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-17 06:42 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-17 16:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-19 19:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-11 14:07 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 00:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-12 08:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 18:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-13 17:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-14 02:23 +0000
(no, he doesnÂ’t) (yes, he does) BANG BANG The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-14 11:43 -0700
Santa The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-14 11:51 -0700
Re: Santa The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-14 13:29 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-15 16:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-16 22:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-17 06:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-17 16:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-17 15:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-18 15:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 15:57 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:14 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 15:59 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 01:03 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-20 12:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 18:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-21 07:43 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:14 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-19 19:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-20 00:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-20 12:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-21 17:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-22 10:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-14 03:29 -0400
Atheist have fishy eyes. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-14 10:45 -0700
Re: Atheist have fishy eyes. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-14 10:58 -0700
Re: Atheists have eyes. Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-05-14 12:55 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-15 16:17 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-15 19:00 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-16 13:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-17 02:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-17 06:41 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? JimmyJohn <Non@Jtheist.net> - 2016-05-01 10:14 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 15:34 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-13 18:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 21:07 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-13 21:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-14 12:01 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 12:16 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-14 12:52 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-14 12:49 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 12:12 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-14 11:50 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-14 05:15 -0400
Page 8 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 23 Next page →
| From | je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 04:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <charlie-gordon1492-A7934F.04250002042016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #380717 |
In article <queufb970qfk8slsfshrupv29uvpqpkjda@4ax.com>, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed > they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and > should be ignored. Non sequitur. Absence of evidence means absence of evidence. It does not mean nonexistence. However due to the Dunning-Kruger effect you lack the logic to understand how your logic is lacking. You are incapable learning from your error. -- Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 07:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9bfvfblu5lanhldlkl764t0vf2ni1nlctb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380735 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 04:25:00 -0700, je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote: >In article <queufb970qfk8slsfshrupv29uvpqpkjda@4ax.com>, > Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >> Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >> they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >> should be ignored. > >Non sequitur. Absence of evidence means absence of evidence. It does not mean >nonexistence. However due to the Dunning-Kruger effect you lack the logic to >understand how your logic is lacking. You are incapable learning from your error. He started that a long time ago. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 11:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380735 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 04:25:00 -0700, je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> in alt.atheism with message-id <charlie-gordon1492-A7934F.04250002042016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> wrote: >In article <queufb970qfk8slsfshrupv29uvpqpkjda@4ax.com>, > Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >> Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >> they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >> should be ignored. > >Non sequitur. Absence of evidence means absence of evidence. It does not mean >nonexistence. However due to the Dunning-Kruger effect you lack the logic to >understand how your logic is lacking. You are incapable learning from your error. No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of supporting evidence is that of non-existence. The lack of evidence does not prove non-existence, but the claim of existence with no supporting evidence does zero as far as supporting that existence is concerned. -- 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 | je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <charlie-gordon1492-22233C.09485502042016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #380763 |
In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may > attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of > supporting evidence is that of non-existence. Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. You leap ahead, pronouncing your truth with no evidence, completely oblivious, even to this point, that you do exactly what Duke does. -- Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 16:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bl90gb1if5drs0roi9k6ifb3as73rf6nf8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380766 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> in alt.atheism with message-id <charlie-gordon1492-22233C.09485502042016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> wrote: >In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, > Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of >> supporting evidence is that of non-existence. > >Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in the >absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. Unless you are >compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, wisdom dictates defering >the decision. When there is a binary situation requiring a certain response using a lack of evidence as a basis for that response makes perfect sense. Certainly more than accepting entirely unsupported statements as having any validity. > You have no wisdom. I have never claimed any. > >You leap ahead, pronouncing your truth with no evidence, completely oblivious, >even to this point, that you do exactly what Duke does. I have never claimed any truth. I simply point out the fallacies in the claims of others and explain why I take certain positions on certain issues. I do not expect you to agree, nor do I care what you do aside from making statements that require support. If you make such statements I may well request the required support. -- 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 | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 23:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndpjsi$15fs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380766 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, > Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of supporting >> evidence is that of non-existence. > > Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in > the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. > Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, > wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of your garden? > You leap ahead, pronouncing your truth with no evidence, completely > oblivious, even to this point, that you do exactly what Duke does. It is the falsifiable position, unlike Duke's. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 21:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380783 |
On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of supporting >>> evidence is that of non-existence. >> >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of >your garden? The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat it as false until demonstrated to be true. He also stupidly assigns "don't know" to everything that isn't an absolute certainty, however improbable it is. >> You leap ahead, pronouncing your truth with no evidence, completely >> oblivious, even to this point, that you do exactly what Duke does. What a fuckiing moron. A liar as well as an idiot. >It is the falsifiable position, unlike Duke's. The loonies are either too sttupid to understand this, or they pretend they don't because they are trolling and picking arguments with people who have more important things to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Apollo <nowhere@def.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 22:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nowhere-4F3013.22173702042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380786 |
In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > wrote: > > >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > > > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, > >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >> > >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may > >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of supporting > >>> evidence is that of non-existence. > >> > >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... > > This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. > > >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. > >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, > >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. > > > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of > >your garden? > > The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody > else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat > it as false until demonstrated to be true. The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! But unfortunately not by religions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 00:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c391gbhp8m29c1mdngmgtr8ivlmq80ojod@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380789 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 22:17:37 -0600, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: >In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >> wrote: >> >> >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: >> > >> >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, >> >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >> >> >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >> >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of supporting >> >>> evidence is that of non-existence. >> >> >> >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in >> >> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... >> >> This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. >> >> >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. >> >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, >> >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. >> > >> >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of >> >your garden? >> >> The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody >> else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat >> it as false until demonstrated to be true. > >The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as >UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported >by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! Except that this treats the highly improbable and the highly probable, equally - because they're both unproven. >This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! > >But unfortunately not by religions. Never heard of Popperian falsifiability? Which simply formalised the "no, it isnt - prove it" people who aren't gullible have been using for a long time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 23:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-F445ED.23304702042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380792 |
In article <c391gbhp8m29c1mdngmgtr8ivlmq80ojod@4ax.com>, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 22:17:37 -0600, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: > > >In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, > > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > >> > > >> >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, > >> >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may > >> >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of > >> >>> supporting > >> >>> evidence is that of non-existence. > >> >> > >> >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position > >> >> in > >> > >> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... > >> > >> This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. > >> > >> >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. > >> >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, > >> >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. > >> > > >> >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom > >> >of > >> >your garden? > >> > >> The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody > >> else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat > >> it as false until demonstrated to be true. > > > >The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as > >UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported > >by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! > > Except that this treats the highly improbable and the highly probable, > equally - because they're both unproven. Each is treated by scientists, quite properly, according to the amount of evidence for it or against it. If others choose to apply different and less sensible standards, that is their loss. > > >This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! > > > >But unfortunately not by religions. > > Never heard of Popperian falsifiability? It is one, but not the only, form of disproof. A clear rule is disproved by a single clearly contrary instance! But is not proved merely by absence of such an instance, but requires also confirming evidence. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 00:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1va1gb5c0gqhovjudsn1v15lcf6d8vh8ag@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380793 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 23:30:47 -0600, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> wrote: >In article <c391gbhp8m29c1mdngmgtr8ivlmq80ojod@4ax.com>, > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 22:17:37 -0600, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, >> > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, >> >> >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >> >> >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of >> >> >>> supporting >> >> >>> evidence is that of non-existence. >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... >> >> >> >> This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. >> >> >> >> >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. >> >> >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, >> >> >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. >> >> > >> >> >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom >> >> >of >> >> >your garden? >> >> >> >> The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody >> >> else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat >> >> it as false until demonstrated to be true. >> > >> >The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as >> >UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported >> >by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! >> >> Except that this treats the highly improbable and the highly probable, >> equally - because they're both unproven. > >Each is treated by scientists, quite properly, according to the amount >of evidence for it or against it. If others choose to apply different >and less sensible standards, that is their loss. But they're the ones accusing those who take this into account, of being unreasonable - they're simplistic thinkers who see everything in terms of black and white with a single shade of grey that is a mid-point "don't know". It's the "don't know" which is the problem - because it is then taken as "we don't know anything". >> >This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! >> > >> >But unfortunately not by religions. >> >> Never heard of Popperian falsifiability? > >It is one, but not the only, form of disproof. It doesn't attempt to prove or disprove anything. The disproof comes later, and the "no it isn't" stands until then. It's the default for unsupported claims. Because while you can't (in the general case) prove a negative, you can prove the positive. So new claims are rephrased in the negative, and falsified by "proving" the positive. But the Liars For God tell you this is faith. >A clear rule is disproved by a single clearly contrary instance! >But is not proved merely by absence of such an instance, but requires >also confirming evidence. And?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 23:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-F9BC4A.23392102042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380789 |
In article <nowhere-4F3013.22173702042016@news.giganews.com>, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: > In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > > wrote: > > > > >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > > > > > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, > > >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > > >> > > >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may > > >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of supporting > > >>> evidence is that of non-existence. > > >> > > >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in > > > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... > > > > This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. > > > > >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. > > >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, > > >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. > > > > > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of > > >your garden? > > > > The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody > > else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat > > it as false until demonstrated to be true. > > The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as > UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported > by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! > > This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! > > But unfortunately not by religions. It's exactly the position taken by most atheists. -- JD "If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Apollo <nowhere@def.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 03:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nowhere-6E5E87.03011703042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380796 |
In article <hlwdjsd2-F9BC4A.23392102042016@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > In article <nowhere-4F3013.22173702042016@news.giganews.com>, > Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: > > > In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, > > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > > > > > > > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, > > > >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may > > > >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of > > > >>> supporting > > > >>> evidence is that of non-existence. > > > >> > > > >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position > > > >> in > > > > > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... > > > > > > This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. > > > > > > >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. > > > >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, > > > >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. > > > > > > > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom > > > >of > > > >your garden? > > > > > > The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody > > > else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat > > > it as false until demonstrated to be true. > > > > The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as > > UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported > > by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! > > > > This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! > > > > But unfortunately not by religions. > > It's exactly the position taken by most atheists. And one notes that the proportion of scientists and mathematicians who are atheistic, or at least not theistic, is much higher than the proportion in more general populations!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 05:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e87af9c-e672-4ca1-835e-05381020b399@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380798 |
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 3:01:21 AM UTC-6, Apollo wrote: > > In article <hlwdjsd2-F9BC4A.23392102042016@news.giganews.com>, > Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > > > > In article <nowhere-4F3013.22173702042016@news.giganews.com>, > > Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, > > > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > > > > > > The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as > > > UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported > > > by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! > > > > > > This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! > > > > > > But unfortunately not by religions. > > > > It's exactly the position taken by most atheists. > > And one notes that the proportion of scientists and mathematicians who > are atheistic, or at least not theistic, is much higher than the > proportion in more general populations! Argument from authority (Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit) is not a valid tool: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ Surely we can do better than that, can't we? "The word 'religion' comes from the Latin for 'binding together,' to connect that which has been sundered apart. It's a very interesting concept. And in this sense of seeking the deepest interrelations among things that superficially appear to be sundered, the objectives of religion and science, I believe, are identical or very nearly so. But the question has to do with the reliability of the truths claimed by the two fields and the methods of approach." -- Carl Sagan https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/12/20/carl-sagan-varieties-of-scientific-experience/ What we often see on this thread are straw man arguments;, i.e., caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack rather than any kind of useful discussion. "Discussion is always better than argument, because argument is to find WHO is right and discussion is to find WHAT is right." - Anon. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 08:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c772gb5b1jhle5bkubkeshqmruio5mkjht@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380798 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 03:01:17 -0600, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: >In article <hlwdjsd2-F9BC4A.23392102042016@news.giganews.com>, > Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <nowhere-4F3013.22173702042016@news.giganews.com>, >> Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: >> >> > In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, >> > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> > >> > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, >> > > >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >> > > >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of >> > > >>> supporting >> > > >>> evidence is that of non-existence. >> > > >> >> > > >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position >> > > >> in >> > > >> > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... >> > > >> > > This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. >> > > >> > > >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. >> > > >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, >> > > >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. >> > > > >> > > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom >> > > >of >> > > >your garden? >> > > >> > > The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody >> > > else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat >> > > it as false until demonstrated to be true. >> > >> > The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as >> > UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported >> > by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! >> > >> > This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! >> > >> > But unfortunately not by religions. >> >> It's exactly the position taken by most atheists. > >And one notes that the proportion of scientists and mathematicians who >are atheistic, or at least not theistic, is much higher than the >proportion in more general populations! None of which are God. No man has ever seen or defined God. So I don't see scientists trying to address that which is not-knowing. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndri6o$1vf1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380815 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:40:11 -0500, duke wrote: > On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 03:01:17 -0600, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: > >>In article <hlwdjsd2-F9BC4A.23392102042016@news.giganews.com>, >> Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <nowhere-4F3013.22173702042016@news.giganews.com>, >>> Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: >>> >>> > In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, >>> > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, >>> > > >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' >>> > > >>> you may attempt the fact is that the best position in the >>> > > >>> absence of supporting evidence is that of non-existence. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted >>> > > >> position in >>> > > >>> > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... >>> > > >>> > > This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. >>> > > >>> > > >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of >>> > > >> knowledge. Unless you are compelled to make a decision on >>> > > >> incomplete information, >>> > > >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. >>> > > > >>> > > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the >>> > > >bottom of your garden? >>> > > >>> > > The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody >>> > > else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is >>> > > treat it as false until demonstrated to be true. >>> > >>> > The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as >>> > UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is >>> > supported by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! >>> > >>> > This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! >>> > >>> > But unfortunately not by religions. >>> >>> It's exactly the position taken by most atheists. >> >>And one notes that the proportion of scientists and mathematicians who >>are atheistic, or at least not theistic, is much higher than the >>proportion in more general populations! > > None of which are God. No man has ever seen or defined God. Which are excellent grounds for denying its supposed existence. > So I don't see scientists trying to address that which is not-knowing. Scientists don't address you, Earl, because you are not knowing. > the dukester, The Not Knowing American -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 11:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f263cb0-7efe-424d-b83f-a6d516aa756a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380815 |
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 7:40:13 AM UTC-6, duke wrote: > > No man has ever seen or defined God. So I don't see > scientists trying to address that which is not-knowing. > > the dukester, American-American The scriptures refute your assertion: Exodus 24:11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink. Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 08:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c572gb9u2offsli15fn0baigcp9srq8se7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380763 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:03:58 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 04:25:00 -0700, je suis charly ><charlie-gordon1492@no.where> in alt.atheism with message-id ><charlie-gordon1492-A7934F.04250002042016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> >wrote: > >>In article <queufb970qfk8slsfshrupv29uvpqpkjda@4ax.com>, >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >>> Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >>> they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >>> should be ignored. >> >>Non sequitur. Absence of evidence means absence of evidence. It does not mean >>nonexistence. However due to the Dunning-Kruger effect you lack the logic to >>understand how your logic is lacking. You are incapable learning from your error. > >No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of >supporting evidence is that of non-existence. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You really think you're going to escape the flames, don't you. >The lack of evidence does not prove non-existence, but the claim of >existence with no supporting evidence does zero as far as supporting >that existence is concerned. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 17:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d323gb5vmdr8o86vimbblssg7u3v0b0bp4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380814 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:38:19 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <c572gb9u2offsli15fn0baigcp9srq8se7@4ax.com> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:03:58 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 04:25:00 -0700, je suis charly >><charlie-gordon1492@no.where> in alt.atheism with message-id >><charlie-gordon1492-A7934F.04250002042016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> >>wrote: >> >>>In article <queufb970qfk8slsfshrupv29uvpqpkjda@4ax.com>, >>> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>> >>>> Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >>>> they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >>>> should be ignored. >>> >>>Non sequitur. Absence of evidence means absence of evidence. It does not mean >>>nonexistence. However due to the Dunning-Kruger effect you lack the logic to >>>understand how your logic is lacking. You are incapable learning from your error. >> >>No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >>attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of >>supporting evidence is that of non-existence. > >Tsk, tsk, tsk. You really think you're going to escape the flames, don't you. I have seen no evidence they exist. > >>The lack of evidence does not prove non-existence, but the claim of >>existence with no supporting evidence does zero as far as supporting >>that existence is concerned. > -- 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 | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 07:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u9fvfbtpat6m9mm9gc1ve0h8cq79pmdedp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380717 |
On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 23:27:27 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:32:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >alt.atheism with message-id ><s6qtfb1pueel5llf85k8292kv5b43ggvsr@4ax.com> wrote: > >>>>You actually have the most damning of them all - that you won't be judged by God >>>>for your support of murdering the human unborn. >>>> >>> >>>As I haves said many times, threats based upon your superstitions mean >>>nothing to me. No matter how many times you repeat them. >> >>They are not threats. They are promises from God. > >Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >should be ignored. I have. And you sure can't show me I'm wrong. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web