Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #392061 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-11 12:43 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-14 03:58 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 416 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-11 12:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Normal Human <NH@....> - 2016-09-12 08:01 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-11 15:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-11 16:28 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-12 00:06 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 07:31 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-12 12:57 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 05:59 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 08:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:04 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-12 14:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 19:18 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 12:37 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 22:43 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-12 22:18 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 06:45 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 23:56 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 00:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 22:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 20:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 20:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 01:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 08:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 03:33 -0400
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-15 11:29 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 20:44 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-16 06:34 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 20:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-15 19:05 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 10:25 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 22:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:25 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 22:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-17 07:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 11:54 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 09:55 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 04:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 16:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 11:29 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 09:59 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 03:25 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-18 20:56 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:11 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 11:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 12:12 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 03:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 19:14 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 10:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 09:28 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-22 00:12 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 03:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 18:17 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 02:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 02:35 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 10:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 12:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-23 14:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 10:35 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 05:55 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 05:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 19:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 17:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 06:44 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-25 22:40 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-26 17:56 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 23:09 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-27 19:02 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 10:18 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 03:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 11:41 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 20:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 04:48 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-29 10:07 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-29 08:04 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:43 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-27 19:06 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-27 05:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-27 20:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 01:17 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 23:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 15:04 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-29 00:03 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-29 15:48 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 23:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 11:50 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-27 22:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 14:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:07 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-27 10:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:08 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 08:53 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 17:27 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-20 09:40 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 03:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 12:05 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 04:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 20:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 23:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 00:15 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 11:51 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:14 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 23:38 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 22:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-21 11:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 04:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 21:42 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 16:22 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 10:11 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 08:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-21 23:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 17:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 22:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 12:38 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 02:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 22:11 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-22 22:25 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 04:36 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 16:18 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 02:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:20 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 09:30 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:17 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-23 02:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 10:47 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-23 18:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-24 04:29 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 17:29 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-23 23:20 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-23 16:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-23 15:05 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:22 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-24 16:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 05:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 15:50 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 21:42 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-26 01:05 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-22 18:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-22 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 04:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 17:41 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 10:18 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 11:26 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 04:51 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 22:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 16:35 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:22 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 22:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 09:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-23 03:04 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 21:08 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-24 12:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-24 16:28 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 11:59 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-25 13:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-23 12:52 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 21:49 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-25 23:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 10:46 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 04:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 14:17 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 23:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-27 10:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 09:30 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-20 20:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 21:47 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-17 16:28 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 18:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 09:57 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 00:20 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 23:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 20:06 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 20:19 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 23:22 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 23:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 00:18 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 12:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 05:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-21 14:15 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 10:13 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 04:03 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-09-22 11:51 -0500
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-22 11:04 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 14:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 04:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 16:04 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 11:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 20:26 -0500
To A Atheism The Science Of Language Is Rrelativity "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-19 15:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 07:01 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 22:29 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 08:21 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 00:05 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 18:59 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 00:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-19 17:48 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 08:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 12:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-13 07:49 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 18:03 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 21:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 06:27 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 02:45 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 11:14 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 06:44 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 12:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 07:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 15:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 15:38 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 15:29 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 14:57 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-15 19:37 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-14 01:34 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 11:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 19:45 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 14:43 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 07:01 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 22:58 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 23:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 03:49 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 08:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 06:40 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-16 18:57 -0500
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:15 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:33 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:37 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:05 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 00:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 00:34 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:42 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-14 10:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-14 14:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-14 12:06 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 09:10 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-13 17:21 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 03:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-13 20:33 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:09 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 20:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 20:47 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-14 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-13 21:12 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 09:32 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-14 17:38 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:32 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-14 23:15 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 03:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 08:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 18:01 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 22:48 +0200
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-09-15 15:02 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-16 02:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-16 01:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-15 23:41 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-18 13:26 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-18 21:01 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 17:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 21:38 -0700
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-19 23:37 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 23:58 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 09:59 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 15:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 22:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 18:38 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 15:14 -0400
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-20 13:46 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 20:46 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-15 22:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 17:45 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-15 17:15 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 04:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 16:11 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 21:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 01:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 08:30 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-17 07:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 16:25 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:44 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-17 19:42 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 06:50 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 23:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 20:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 15:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-30 06:33 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-29 23:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 02:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 02:54 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-30 02:06 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-30 11:17 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-30 14:07 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 23:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-01 08:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-01 05:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 07:39 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-02 02:24 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 11:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-02 09:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 18:02 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-02 11:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 05:52 +0200
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-10-09 00:09 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Hello Thomas <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 07:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 07:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-10-08 12:36 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 22:56 +0200
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-10-08 15:33 -0600
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 05:42 +0200
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-10-09 00:14 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 12:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 17:26 +0000
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-17 11:48 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-17 12:54 -0500
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-17 12:47 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 20:50 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-18 00:41 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:36 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 12:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:25 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 00:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 22:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-18 06:35 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-18 07:49 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-18 06:35 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 03:46 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:53 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 08:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:43 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-20 01:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 08:21 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-20 20:04 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 04:56 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-22 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 05:03 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:42 +0000
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-23 23:17 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 17:25 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-24 22:06 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 00:36 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 05:18 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 13:56 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 16:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-25 11:04 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-26 09:59 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 07:35 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:27 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-27 06:10 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 12:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 21:42 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-26 01:14 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 00:39 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 14:07 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 13:09 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-18 00:50 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 20:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 17:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 02:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 03:47 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 05:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:12 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 16:22 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 19:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-14 03:58 -0400
Page 10 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 21 Next page →
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 10:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnukilm.t1v.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #393949 |
mlwozniak wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The word "democracy" was coined in Athens sometime in > > the decade or so before 510 BCE, when Solon imposed > > democracy on the City. It derives from "demos", which > > means "the people", and "kratio", which means "rule". > > The word "geometry" derives from words "Earth" and "measure", Irrelevant. ----snip---- > > Science departments in Universities where the teaching > > langyage is English use it that way. > > I don't use it that way. You don't have to. > Real people don't use it that way. Wrong. ----irrelevant babble about relativity snipped---- > > The general answer is this: if the word is a technical > > term in any subject, then when you're speaking on that > > subject, you should use the word in its technical > > sense, if for no other reason than that if you don't > > misunderstandings occur. > > Wrong. No. *You* are wrong. Languages are communications protocols: fuck up the protocol and you fuck up the coimmunication. Simple really. If you've got more than two neurons to rub together. > The general answer is this: words are not > toys for theoretician's fun. No. It's as I told you. > The theoreticians > should keep their definitions close to real, > common meaning, In the case of "democracy", you stubborn fool, that is what they did. Get yourself a good dictionary and look it up. ----snip---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 04:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <311516f1-89c7-44da-9eae-4e5e4fc80b21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393962 |
W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 12:32:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Ned Latham napisał: > mlwozniak wrote: > > The general answer is this: words are not > > toys for theoretician's fun. > > No. It's as I told you. No! Words are toys for my fun! Languages are communications protocols. You fuck up the protocol and you fuck up the communication. Because you feel wiser. Great.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 09:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4dv50F3m1sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392913 |
On 19/09/2016 16:53, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.:
>
>>> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an
>>> execution.
>>
>> That is a moral judgment, not a legal one.
>>
> Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements.
>
> It is necessary to allow people to act legally. This is easier to
> achieve, if their moral judgements would not contradict the legal
> principles.
Which is impossible. For practical purposes alone, the law will always
end up being out of step with morality. Our moral consensus is changing
all the time, but the law is only ever a snapshot.
A point in case: anti-nuclear activism in Germany frequently breaks the
law. Activists will trespass, hinder the lawful activities of others,
threaten or damage private property. It may be moral (at least from
their point of view), but it is also quite illegal.
>
> Usually people are capable of moral judgements, since they act in the
> way like:
> ' what you do not want to be done with you, you do not do to others'.
That is the golden rule, and if we all lived by it there would be far
fewer problems in this world.
Unfortunately, they do not.
A great many people will act to their own best interest first and
foremost, unless they suspect they may be caught.
>
> Another principle is what Kant called 'kathegorischer Imperativ'.
>
> this means roughly: an activity is justified, if you could (in
> principle) release a law, that demands doing this by everybody all the
> time.
>
> And theft - for instance - is illegal, because stealing by everybody all
> the time would create a state, where all the people have nothing.
>
> And killing is not allowed, because the equivalent law would leave no
> survivors.
Actually, it would by definition leave at least one survivor.
Moreover, there is a world of difference between making theft or killing
legal and forcing us to engage in these acts. Just because it may be
legal to kill a gypsy does not mean we have to kill them. Just because
it may be legal to take another man's bicycle does not mean we are
obliged by law to do so.
>
>>>
>>> And usual people may not take part, even if the state allows this.
>>>
>>> To demand participation makes matters worse, since it demands from
>>> innocent people to commit a crime.
>>
>> To start with, it is a fair assumption that no-one is innocent. We all
>> break the law.
>>
>> This makes "innocent" not only a term devoid of intrinsic meaning, but
>> also a direct emotional appeal rather than a factual description that is
>> part of a cogent argument.
>
> If someone has not committed a crime, the person is innocent.
>
> The state creates laws, which make clear to the people, what is allowed
> and what is not.
>
> These laws should be clear, easy to understand and universally valid.
Dream on.
Two words: tax law.
>
> And they should match the ethics and moral of the people and what they
> believe is right or wrong.
Which they do not, and effectively cannot do. Any law has to be
drafted, debated, amended, debated again, voted on and ratified. This
can easily take years ... for every single law. In the time that a
proposal has become the law of the land, the facts on the ground as well
as the moral consensus of the people may well have moved beyond that,
making the law outdated and possibly even inappropriate.
Not to mention those fast-developing situations where a law may not
exist to cover new situations, such as most problems involving the
internet or bio-ethical concerns.
>
> This is so, because then less activities are criminal, since usual
> habits are also legal.
Not automatically, by a far shot. The official speed limit on British
motorways is 70MPH, or 115KPH -- but the police do not bother to enforce
speeding below 80-85MPH, making our driving behaviour formally illegal.
The same applies to pedestrians crossing any street other than at any
official pedestrian crossings (aka "jaywalking") ... and yet, that is
what we all of us do on a habitual basis.
>
> Now the question is, what kind of crimes would require death penalty?
>
> In Germany we do not have such punishment at all.
>
> But in other nations we have crimes like murder, which are punished by
> death.
>
> Now we need to estimate, which degree of deviation from somehow accepted
> standards of behaviour would justify such a punishment.
>
> Certainly there are a lot of misconducts, we would not punish by death.
> But which would we punish this way?
>
> Most likely only those crimes, that are totally unforgivable and all
> others not.
>
> If now - besides murder - false parking is also punished by death, than
> something is wrong with the state and it's laws.
Something would be wrong with that state, yes.
But it would be a moral issue, and a political one -- but not
necessarily a legal one.
As you are German (I presume), you should be familiar with this
situation. After all, the Nazis' Machtergreifung was morally abhorrent
but formally legal and above board.
>
> That would actually be a 'state crime', since punishment and crime have
> no rational connection. In such a case, all participants are also
> criminals.
As I have pointed out to Attila: we are all criminals. In this day and
age, it is quite impossible for any citizen not to break some law in
some fashion.
>
>> Moreover, we still all participate in the punishment of wrongdoers. In
>> Western societies, the exercise of justice is delegated to the state but
>> is always undertaken in the name of the people. You can go into any
>> German court and you will never hear a criminal verdict read out that
>> does not begin with the sentence "Im Namen des Volkes ergeht folgendes
>> Urteil". The difference to communal participation is merely one of
>> direct versus indirect action.
>>
>
> Well, laws and legal procedures are necessary. And judges speak in the
> name of the people.
>
> But judges do not commit unjustified violence against innocent people.
> It is their profession to bring justice.
No, it is not. It is their remit to enact the law -- not dispense
justice. Law ("Recht") and justice ("Gerechtigkeit") are NOT the same
thing.
This is actually the root of the Anglo-Saxon jury system which you so
disparage. The judge can only speak to the law. He can only deliver a
verdict in accordance with the law. A jury, by contrast, can deliver a
verdict of justice which may or may not accord with the law. This is
the one thing that Roman/Napoleonic jurisprudence cannot do: they are
bound by law to enact the law, whatever the circumstances. A British or
American jury could have convicted Armin Melwes, the cannibal from
Rothenburg, of his crime even though there was no law against
cannibalism at the time (they had to make do with desecration of the
corpse, or "Störung der Totenruhe"). Conversely, a jury can -- and has
done so -- exercise justice and act in conformity with the moral
consensus in defiance of the law of the land in cases where the law
requires conviction and punishment from a judge, such as clear cases of
assisted suicide.
>
>>>
>>> In case the state (illegally) demands it, the participant acts against
>>> certain ethical principles and is only committing a sin.
>>
>> Where a state which enjoys the legitimacy of public approval institutes
>> such laws and procedures, they cannot be illegal. You may well regard
>> them as immoral, but that is a different matter altogether.
>
> Actually I do not agree.
>
> I'm German and we had extensive problems with 'state sponsored terror'
> in Germany.
>
> This terror was in fact legal the sense of being allowed by law.
>
> But how will you judge - for instance - the destruction of Lidice?
>
> Do you really claim, that execution of hostages was legal, because the
> laws said so?
>
> So we cannot allow the state to allow terror.
Of course it was legal. It was not moral or ethical. This is the
difference you seem unable to grasp.
And yes, this is a very serious and thorny issue with which nations and
the international community as a whole has been grappling for a long
time now. Developing mechanisms for stopping or at least addressing the
moral -- not legal -- crimes of that period were the major impetus
behind a whole raft of international treaties, agreements and
conventions on human rights, conduct in war and legitimate behaviour by
nations. We realised we could no longer allow states to act with
perfect impunity and total sovereignty when it comes to these issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 20:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-5A1311.20121020092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #393155 |
In article <e4dv50F3m1sU1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 19/09/2016 16:53, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.: > > > >>> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an > >>> execution. > >> > >> That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. > >> > > Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements. > > > > It is necessary to allow people to act legally. This is easier to > > achieve, if their moral judgements would not contradict the legal > > principles. > > Which is impossible. For practical purposes alone, the law will always > end up being out of step with morality. Our moral consensus is changing > all the time, but the law is only ever a snapshot. > > A point in case: anti-nuclear activism in Germany frequently breaks the > law. Activists will trespass, hinder the lawful activities of others, > threaten or damage private property. It may be moral (at least from > their point of view), but it is also quite illegal. > > > > > > Usually people are capable of moral judgements, since they act in the > > way like: > > ' what you do not want to be done with you, you do not do to others'. > > That is the golden rule, and if we all lived by it there would be far > fewer problems in this world. > > Unfortunately, they do not. > > A great many people will act to their own best interest first and > foremost, unless they suspect they may be caught. > > > > > > Another principle is what Kant called 'kathegorischer Imperativ'. > > > > this means roughly: an activity is justified, if you could (in > > principle) release a law, that demands doing this by everybody all the > > time. > > > > And theft - for instance - is illegal, because stealing by everybody all > > the time would create a state, where all the people have nothing. > > > > > > And killing is not allowed, because the equivalent law would leave no > > survivors. > > Actually, it would by definition leave at least one survivor. > > Moreover, there is a world of difference between making theft or killing > legal and forcing us to engage in these acts. Just because it may be > legal to kill a gypsy does not mean we have to kill them. Just because > it may be legal to take another man's bicycle does not mean we are > obliged by law to do so. > > > > > >>> > >>> And usual people may not take part, even if the state allows this. > >>> > >>> To demand participation makes matters worse, since it demands from > >>> innocent people to commit a crime. > >> > >> To start with, it is a fair assumption that no-one is innocent. We all > >> break the law. > >> > >> This makes "innocent" not only a term devoid of intrinsic meaning, but > >> also a direct emotional appeal rather than a factual description that is > >> part of a cogent argument. > > > > If someone has not committed a crime, the person is innocent. > > > > The state creates laws, which make clear to the people, what is allowed > > and what is not. > > > > These laws should be clear, easy to understand and universally valid. > > Dream on. > > Two words: tax law. > > > > > > And they should match the ethics and moral of the people and what they > > believe is right or wrong. > > Which they do not, and effectively cannot do. Any law has to be > drafted, debated, amended, debated again, voted on and ratified. This > can easily take years ... for every single law. In the time that a > proposal has become the law of the land, the facts on the ground as well > as the moral consensus of the people may well have moved beyond that, > making the law outdated and possibly even inappropriate. > > Not to mention those fast-developing situations where a law may not > exist to cover new situations, such as most problems involving the > internet or bio-ethical concerns. > > > > > > This is so, because then less activities are criminal, since usual > > habits are also legal. > > Not automatically, by a far shot. The official speed limit on British > motorways is 70MPH, or 115KPH -- but the police do not bother to enforce > speeding below 80-85MPH, making our driving behaviour formally illegal. > The same applies to pedestrians crossing any street other than at any > official pedestrian crossings (aka "jaywalking") ... and yet, that is > what we all of us do on a habitual basis. Don't do it here in Los Angeles. LAPD gives out far more jaywalking tickets than any other major city police department. I try to let people know this when I see them jaywalking (often tourists, of course). They're usually surprised and thankful. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 21:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ra+bDVAjHv4XFw0R@hotmail.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #393155 |
In article <e4dv50F3m1sU1@mid.individual.net>, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> writes >On 19/09/2016 16:53, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.: >> >>>> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an >>>> execution. >>> >>> That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. >>> >> Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements. >> >> It is necessary to allow people to act legally. This is easier to >> achieve, if their moral judgements would not contradict the legal >> principles. > >Which is impossible. For practical purposes alone, the law will always >end up being out of step with morality. Our moral consensus is changing >all the time, but the law is only ever a snapshot. > >A point in case: anti-nuclear activism in Germany frequently breaks the >law. Activists will trespass, hinder the lawful activities of others, >threaten or damage private property. It may be moral (at least from >their point of view), but it is also quite illegal. > > >> >> Usually people are capable of moral judgements, since they act in the >> way like: >> ' what you do not want to be done with you, you do not do to others'. > >That is the golden rule, and if we all lived by it there would be far >fewer problems in this world. > >Unfortunately, they do not. > >A great many people will act to their own best interest first and >foremost, unless they suspect they may be caught. > > >> >> Another principle is what Kant called 'kathegorischer Imperativ'. >> >> this means roughly: an activity is justified, if you could (in >> principle) release a law, that demands doing this by everybody all the >> time. >> >> And theft - for instance - is illegal, because stealing by everybody all >> the time would create a state, where all the people have nothing. > > >> >> And killing is not allowed, because the equivalent law would leave no >> survivors. > >Actually, it would by definition leave at least one survivor. > >Moreover, there is a world of difference between making theft or killing >legal and forcing us to engage in these acts. Just because it may be >legal to kill a gypsy does not mean we have to kill them. Just because >it may be legal to take another man's bicycle does not mean we are >obliged by law to do so. > > >> >>>> >>>> And usual people may not take part, even if the state allows this. >>>> >>>> To demand participation makes matters worse, since it demands from >>>> innocent people to commit a crime. >>> >>> To start with, it is a fair assumption that no-one is innocent. We all >>> break the law. >>> >>> This makes "innocent" not only a term devoid of intrinsic meaning, but >>> also a direct emotional appeal rather than a factual description that is >>> part of a cogent argument. >> >> If someone has not committed a crime, the person is innocent. >> >> The state creates laws, which make clear to the people, what is allowed >> and what is not. >> >> These laws should be clear, easy to understand and universally valid. > >Dream on. > >Two words: tax law. > > >> >> And they should match the ethics and moral of the people and what they >> believe is right or wrong. > >Which they do not, and effectively cannot do. Any law has to be >drafted, debated, amended, debated again, voted on and ratified. This >can easily take years ... for every single law. In the time that a >proposal has become the law of the land, the facts on the ground as well >as the moral consensus of the people may well have moved beyond that, >making the law outdated and possibly even inappropriate. > >Not to mention those fast-developing situations where a law may not >exist to cover new situations, such as most problems involving the >internet or bio-ethical concerns. > > >> >> This is so, because then less activities are criminal, since usual >> habits are also legal. > >Not automatically, by a far shot. The official speed limit on British >motorways is 70MPH, or 115KPH -- but the police do not bother to enforce >speeding below 80-85MPH, making our driving behaviour formally illegal. They don't want to get tied up in arguments about the accuracy of their speed measurements if the case comes to court. > >The same applies to pedestrians crossing any street other than at any >official pedestrian crossings (aka "jaywalking") ... and yet, that is >what we all of us do on a habitual basis. There are no laws (enforced or not) against jaywalking in the UK. -- John Ritson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-186583.04181717092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392674 |
In article <e445djFmdedU1@mid.individual.net>, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 16.09.2016 07:57, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: > > >> Actually I had similar ideas earlier after reading a German version of > >> the Koran in a 19th century translation. > >> > >> I found it interesting, that the Koran apparently speaks to people which > >> are called 'Children of Israel', which Allah helped to flee from the > >> Pharao by splitting apart the Red Sea. > > > > So what you're saying is that the Koran has the same stupid myths as the > > Bible. So fucking what? > > > > > >> Common Muslims cannot read this, since the Koran is written in ancient > >> Arabic. > >> > >> Arabic has a difficult system of writing, since the vowels are not > >> written. This allows to interpret the words in up to 30 different > >> meanings. And that could allow different translations. > >> > >> Since German 19th century historians have no obvious bias towards any > >> interpretation, they are kind of 'objective' source for a valid > >> translation, while especially the Egyptians have a bias. > >> > >> So my - naive - question was, if Jews and Muslims have something in common. > >> > >> Actually there are a few things, that both religions share. > >> > >> For instance they share the bizarre habit called 'circumcision'. > > > > So what? > > > > > >> Also the set of holy scripts is somehow similar. > > > > So what? > > Well, history is a science and somehow similar to crime scene > investigation. > > If there are no written records, you need to make (educated) guesses and > try to figure out, what was going on, by analysing minuscule hints. > > The Islam and the Jews have both a set of scripts, they regard as holy. > The overall structure of this set is quite similar, only the names and > the content is different. > > > > >> They both forbid the consume of pig and both have the obscure punishment > >> called 'stoning'. > > > > How is stoning "obsure"? > > > > 'Stoning' as an extremely brutal way of execution. It has also the > disadvantage to include bystanders in the process of a killing, what > makes the members of such a crowd literally murderers. Yes, that's the whole fucking point. The whole community has to be guilty. It's basic practice with tyrannies. It's such a universal thing that it made its way in the Hostel movies, where the people who paid for the chance to do anything they want to innocent people were not allowed to leave until they had killed someone. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-61872D.04185517092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392674 |
In article <e445djFmdedU1@mid.individual.net>, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 16.09.2016 07:57, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: > > >> Actually I had similar ideas earlier after reading a German version of > >> the Koran in a 19th century translation. > >> > >> I found it interesting, that the Koran apparently speaks to people which > >> are called 'Children of Israel', which Allah helped to flee from the > >> Pharao by splitting apart the Red Sea. > > > > So what you're saying is that the Koran has the same stupid myths as the > > Bible. So fucking what? > > > > > >> Common Muslims cannot read this, since the Koran is written in ancient > >> Arabic. > >> > >> Arabic has a difficult system of writing, since the vowels are not > >> written. This allows to interpret the words in up to 30 different > >> meanings. And that could allow different translations. > >> > >> Since German 19th century historians have no obvious bias towards any > >> interpretation, they are kind of 'objective' source for a valid > >> translation, while especially the Egyptians have a bias. > >> > >> So my - naive - question was, if Jews and Muslims have something in common. > >> > >> Actually there are a few things, that both religions share. > >> > >> For instance they share the bizarre habit called 'circumcision'. > > > > So what? > > > > > >> Also the set of holy scripts is somehow similar. > > > > So what? > > Well, history is a science and somehow similar to crime scene > investigation. > > If there are no written records, you need to make (educated) guesses and > try to figure out, what was going on, by analysing minuscule hints. > > The Islam and the Jews have both a set of scripts, they regard as holy. > The overall structure of this set is quite similar, only the names and > the content is different. > > > > >> They both forbid the consume of pig and both have the obscure punishment > >> called 'stoning'. > > > > How is stoning "obsure"? > > > > 'Stoning' as an extremely brutal way of execution. It has also the > disadvantage to include bystanders in the process of a killing, what > makes the members of such a crowd literally murderers. > > > > >> Another stream of observations was related to the question, to where the > >> 'Children of Israel' went after the passage through the Red Sea. > > > > You mean the fictional journey that took 40 years in an area about the > > same size as small state West Virginia? And that left not one shred of > > evidence of millions of alleged Jews living for 40 years. > > I mean the question, who these people are, which the Koran calls > 'Children of Israel'. People who didn't exist can't be called anything. Duh! -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 04:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-8B2161.04191417092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392674 |
In article <e445djFmdedU1@mid.individual.net>, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 16.09.2016 07:57, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: > > >> Actually I had similar ideas earlier after reading a German version of > >> the Koran in a 19th century translation. > >> > >> I found it interesting, that the Koran apparently speaks to people which > >> are called 'Children of Israel', which Allah helped to flee from the > >> Pharao by splitting apart the Red Sea. > > > > So what you're saying is that the Koran has the same stupid myths as the > > Bible. So fucking what? > > > > > >> Common Muslims cannot read this, since the Koran is written in ancient > >> Arabic. > >> > >> Arabic has a difficult system of writing, since the vowels are not > >> written. This allows to interpret the words in up to 30 different > >> meanings. And that could allow different translations. > >> > >> Since German 19th century historians have no obvious bias towards any > >> interpretation, they are kind of 'objective' source for a valid > >> translation, while especially the Egyptians have a bias. > >> > >> So my - naive - question was, if Jews and Muslims have something in common. > >> > >> Actually there are a few things, that both religions share. > >> > >> For instance they share the bizarre habit called 'circumcision'. > > > > So what? > > > > > >> Also the set of holy scripts is somehow similar. > > > > So what? > > Well, history is a science and somehow similar to crime scene > investigation. > > If there are no written records, you need to make (educated) guesses and > try to figure out, what was going on, by analysing minuscule hints. > > The Islam and the Jews have both a set of scripts, they regard as holy. > The overall structure of this set is quite similar, only the names and > the content is different. > > > > >> They both forbid the consume of pig and both have the obscure punishment > >> called 'stoning'. > > > > How is stoning "obsure"? > > > > 'Stoning' as an extremely brutal way of execution. It has also the > disadvantage to include bystanders in the process of a killing, what > makes the members of such a crowd literally murderers. > > > > >> Another stream of observations was related to the question, to where the > >> 'Children of Israel' went after the passage through the Red Sea. > > > > You mean the fictional journey that took 40 years in an area about the > > same size as small state West Virginia? And that left not one shred of > > evidence of millions of alleged Jews living for 40 years. > > I mean the question, who these people are, which the Koran calls > 'Children of Israel'. > > > > >> Actually Palestine was not an obvious target, since not located on the > >> other side of the Red Sea. > >> > >> But how about Saudi Arabia? > > > > What the fuck are you talking about? > > > > "The Real Mount Sinai Found! " No, it hasn't. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrjqun$1ddh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392674 |
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:16:16 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 16.09.2016 07:57, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: <snip> >> What the fuck are you talking about? >> > "The Real Mount Sinai Found! " > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOLnXkP5i2c > > "Forbbiden Pictures Revealed Saudi Arabia Mt. Sinai " > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSuKgz3LweE Merely unevidenced opinion. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. And, if true, it makes the bible wrong. -- 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 | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 18:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e45alqFmn1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392704 |
Am 17.09.2016 18:28, schrieb Smiler: >> "The Real Mount Sinai Found!" >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOLnXkP5i2c >> >> "Forbbiden Pictures Revealed Saudi Arabia Mt. Sinai" >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSuKgz3LweE > > Merely unevidenced opinion. > Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. > And, if true, it makes the bible wrong. > Religious scripts cannot be wrong, since they do not pretend to be true. So the bible is not a book about real history, even if it refers to historic events. E.g. Eva was not made from the rib of her husband Adam. The story has to be understood in a more symbolic way. Such YouTube videos of amateurs about own findings, on the other hand, attempt to be true, but are often not. So if someone finds something interesting somewhere remote, than the best strategy would be, to research this place independently and with more professional means. But I would doubt, that the Saudis have great interest in research of early Jewish remains in their country. Most likely they would try to divert attention from such places and would not allow access to them. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 09:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e463k5F6edaU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392709 |
On 18/09/2016 02:52, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.09.2016 18:28, schrieb Smiler: > >>> "The Real Mount Sinai Found!" >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOLnXkP5i2c >>> >>> "Forbbiden Pictures Revealed Saudi Arabia Mt. Sinai" >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSuKgz3LweE >> >> Merely unevidenced opinion. >> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. >> And, if true, it makes the bible wrong. >> > > Religious scripts cannot be wrong, since they do not pretend to be true. > > So the bible is not a book about real history, even if it refers to > historic events. > > E.g. Eva was not made from the rib of her husband Adam. > > The story has to be understood in a more symbolic way. So they shift from preaching a factual truth to a metaphorical truth. Either way, they still insist that they hold the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 00:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrkmk6$p8l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392709 |
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 18:52:07 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.09.2016 18:28, schrieb Smiler: > >>> "The Real Mount Sinai Found!" >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOLnXkP5i2c >>> >>> "Forbbiden Pictures Revealed Saudi Arabia Mt. Sinai" >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSuKgz3LweE >> >> Merely unevidenced opinion. >> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. >> And, if true, it makes the bible wrong. >> >> > Religious scripts cannot be wrong, since they do not pretend to be true. That's not what most other believers claim, but thanks for confirming that the bible is false. > So the bible is not a book about real history, even if it refers to > historic events. > > E.g. Eva was not made from the rib of her husband Adam. Then either the bible isn't the word of your supposed god or your supposed god is a liar. Which is it? > The story has to be understood in a more symbolic way. You mean 'reading between the lines to see what isn't there.' > Such YouTube videos of amateurs about own findings, on the other hand, > attempt to be true, but are often not. Why does your supposed god always chose idiots and liars to be its spokespeople? > So if someone finds something interesting somewhere remote, than the > best strategy would be, to research this place independently and with > more professional means. > > But I would doubt, that the Saudis have great interest in research of > early Jewish remains in their country. > > Most likely they would try to divert attention from such places and > would not allow access to them. > > TH -- 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 | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 06:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e46ivpFa0kjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392775 |
Am 18.09.2016 02:20, schrieb Smiler: >>>> "The Real Mount Sinai Found!" >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOLnXkP5i2c >>>> >>>> "Forbbiden Pictures Revealed Saudi Arabia Mt. Sinai" >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSuKgz3LweE >>> >>> Merely unevidenced opinion. >>> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. >>> And, if true, it makes the bible wrong. >>> >>> >> Religious scripts cannot be wrong, since they do not pretend to be true. > > That's not what most other believers claim, but thanks for confirming that > the bible is false. The bible is made from two books (old and new testament), from which the older one is the same as the Thora of the Jews. But the Newer book was also written and someone has done it. Christians do not pretend, their book was handed down by God in one piece and that it dropped from heaven, but the book was written by people. What they have written is believed to be true. Only 'truth' must be interpreted in the meaning, that the authors have intended and not as being a literal description of historic events. The bible use metaphors and symbolic pictures, to transport, what the authors regard as valid truth. So you cannot take the picture itself and compare it with real events. You must first identify the ideas behind the metaphors and try to understand their meaning, before you can estimate, how valid this descriptions are. >> So the bible is not a book about real history, even if it refers to >> historic events. >> >> E.g. Eva was not made from the rib of her husband Adam. > > Then either the bible isn't the word of your supposed god or your supposed > god is a liar. Which is it? Christianity is a religion and belongs to the set of monotheistic believes (like Judaism and Islam). Their understanding of the term 'God' is slightly different. But if you want to have a coherent picture and I can give you this: think about an old and lonely gardener, who takes care of his plantation. It is really huge and he would take care as much as he can. This is why this garden as grown so much. The garden is called 'universe' and among his creations is you and me. >> The story has to be understood in a more symbolic way. > > You mean 'reading between the lines to see what isn't there.' Symbols are pictures, which have some kind of meaning. So philosophical concepts - for instance - could be encoded in symbols. Modern science use a different method and carefully describe, what they try to express. But in ancient time, they had a different system and they used pictures, which people could eventually understand. >> Such YouTube videos of amateurs about own findings, on the other hand, >> attempt to be true, but are often not. > > Why does your supposed god always chose idiots and liars to be its > spokespeople? Prophets are rare exceptions from a rule, that generally would not include direct contact or interference. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 23:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-549EAA.23361217092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392792 |
In article <e46ivpFa0kjU1@mid.individual.net>, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 18.09.2016 02:20, schrieb Smiler: > > >>>> "The Real Mount Sinai Found!" > >>>> > >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOLnXkP5i2c > >>>> > >>>> "Forbbiden Pictures Revealed Saudi Arabia Mt. Sinai" > >>>> > >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSuKgz3LweE > >>> > >>> Merely unevidenced opinion. > >>> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. > >>> And, if true, it makes the bible wrong. > >>> > >>> > >> Religious scripts cannot be wrong, since they do not pretend to be true. > > > > That's not what most other believers claim, but thanks for confirming that > > the bible is false. > > > The bible is made from two books (old and new testament), from which the > older one is the same as the Thora of the Jews. > > But the Newer book was also written and someone has done it. > > Christians do not pretend, their book was handed down by God in one > piece and that it dropped from heaven, but the book was written by people. > > What they have written is believed to be true. Only by those who already believe. > Only 'truth' must be interpreted in the meaning, that the authors have > intended and not as being a literal description of historic events. > > The bible use metaphors and symbolic pictures, to transport, what the > authors regard as valid truth. > > So you cannot take the picture itself and compare it with real events. > You must first identify the ideas behind the metaphors and try to > understand their meaning, before you can estimate, how valid this > descriptions are. In other words, every person makes their own personal religion out of the bible. > >> So the bible is not a book about real history, even if it refers to > >> historic events. > >> > >> E.g. Eva was not made from the rib of her husband Adam. > > > > Then either the bible isn't the word of your supposed god or your supposed > > god is a liar. Which is it? > > Christianity is a religion and belongs to the set of monotheistic > believes (like Judaism and Islam). > > Their understanding of the term 'God' is slightly different. > > But if you want to have a coherent picture and I can give you this: > > think about an old and lonely gardener, who takes care of his > plantation. It is really huge and he would take care as much as he can. > This is why this garden as grown so much. > > The garden is called 'universe' and among his creations is you and me. That would only be a valid analogy is this lonely old gardener habitually murders healthy plants for no particular reason beyond a temper tantrum. > >> The story has to be understood in a more symbolic way. > > > > You mean 'reading between the lines to see what isn't there.' > > > Symbols are pictures, which have some kind of meaning. > > So philosophical concepts - for instance - could be encoded in symbols. > > Modern science use a different method and carefully describe, what they > try to express. > > But in ancient time, they had a different system and they used pictures, > which people could eventually understand. > > >> Such YouTube videos of amateurs about own findings, on the other hand, > >> attempt to be true, but are often not. > > > > Why does your supposed god always chose idiots and liars to be its > > spokespeople? > > Prophets are rare exceptions from a rule, that generally would not > include direct contact or interference. Prophets are either frauds or insane. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrmbnh$11t1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392792 |
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:20:05 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 18.09.2016 02:20, schrieb Smiler: > >>>>> "The Real Mount Sinai Found!" >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOLnXkP5i2c >>>>> >>>>> "Forbbiden Pictures Revealed Saudi Arabia Mt. Sinai" >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSuKgz3LweE >>>> >>>> Merely unevidenced opinion. >>>> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. >>>> And, if true, it makes the bible wrong. >>>> >>>> >>> Religious scripts cannot be wrong, since they do not pretend to be >>> true. >> >> That's not what most other believers claim, but thanks for confirming >> that the bible is false. > > The bible is made from two books (old and new testament), from which the > older one is the same as the Thora of the Jews. And the newer one is made up (appropriately) from several other books. > But the Newer book was also written and someone has done it. > > Christians do not pretend, their book was handed down by God in one > piece and that it dropped from heaven, but the book was written by > people. You don't know many Christians, then. > What they have written is believed to be true. Only by believers. > Only 'truth' must be interpreted in the meaning, that the authors have > intended and not as being a literal description of historic events. So the 'historic events' in the bible never happened. Again, the bible lies. > The bible use metaphors and symbolic pictures, to transport, what the > authors regard as valid truth. What they regarded as truth isn't necessarily true. > So you cannot take the picture itself and compare it with real events. Therefore, the picture is worthless. > You must first identify the ideas behind the metaphors and try to > understand their meaning, before you can estimate, how valid this > descriptions are. AKA "reading between the lines to see what isn't there." >>> So the bible is not a book about real history, even if it refers to >>> historic events. >>> >>> E.g. Eva was not made from the rib of her husband Adam. >> >> Then either the bible isn't the word of your supposed god or your >> supposed god is a liar. Which is it? > > Christianity is a religion and belongs to the set of monotheistic > believes (like Judaism and Islam). > > Their understanding of the term 'God' is slightly different. > > But if you want to have a coherent picture and I can give you this: > > think about an old and lonely gardener, who takes care of his > plantation. It is really huge and he would take care as much as he can. > This is why this garden as grown so much. > > The garden is called 'universe' and among his creations is you and me. Who created the gardener? >>> The story has to be understood in a more symbolic way. >> >> You mean 'reading between the lines to see what isn't there.' > > Symbols are pictures, which have some kind of meaning. Only to the believers. > So philosophical concepts - for instance - could be encoded in symbols. > > Modern science use a different method and carefully describe, what they > try to express. > > But in ancient time, they had a different system and they used pictures, > which people could eventually understand. Yet every person has a different understanding of those pictures. Not a clear way to communicate such supposedly important information. >>> Such YouTube videos of amateurs about own findings, on the other >>> hand, attempt to be true, but are often not. >> >> Why does your supposed god always chose idiots and liars to be its >> spokespeople? > > Prophets are rare exceptions from a rule, that generally would not > include direct contact or interference. I can make biblical type prophesies as accurate as any in the bible. I prophesy, with 100% certainty, that it will rain within the next 24 hours. -- 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 | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 20:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e483e6FlbgoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392833 |
Am 18.09.2016 17:26, schrieb Smiler: >>>> So the bible is not a book about real history, even if it refers to >>>> historic events. >>>> >>>> E.g. Eva was not made from the rib of her husband Adam. >>> >>> Then either the bible isn't the word of your supposed god or your >>> supposed god is a liar. Which is it? >> >> Christianity is a religion and belongs to the set of monotheistic >> believes (like Judaism and Islam). >> >> Their understanding of the term 'God' is slightly different. >> >> But if you want to have a coherent picture and I can give you this: >> >> think about an old and lonely gardener, who takes care of his >> plantation. It is really huge and he would take care as much as he can. >> This is why this garden as grown so much. >> >> The garden is called 'universe' and among his creations is you and me. > > Who created the gardener? I don't know ;-) >>>> The story has to be understood in a more symbolic way. >>> >>> You mean 'reading between the lines to see what isn't there.' >> >> Symbols are pictures, which have some kind of meaning. > > Only to the believers. The author wants to transport a message to the reader. So he thinks about words, which would convince the reader of some idea or concept he had in mind. If you read it and do not believe the concept (or don't see in in the first place), the author has not reached what he wanted to achieve. But eventually he will find someone else, who actually like his scripts. >> So philosophical concepts - for instance - could be encoded in symbols. >> >> Modern science use a different method and carefully describe, what they >> try to express. >> >> But in ancient time, they had a different system and they used pictures, >> which people could eventually understand. > > Yet every person has a different understanding of those pictures. > Not a clear way to communicate such supposedly important information. Usually they have kind of 'schools', where the adepts learn to interpret scripts in the intended ways. You start with simple ones and once you manage to properly identify the intended meaning, you proceed to the next level (and so forth). If you are then able enough, you had the allowance to read the precious scripts themselves. Now there exist other means than creating pergament from calf-skin and to scribble ancient text on it with ink. Now people want to read something on their iPhone and understand it immediately, possibly with the help of Google.translator. Often this does not work, since it requires training to understand something difficult. >>>> Such YouTube videos of amateurs about own findings, on the other >>>> hand, attempt to be true, but are often not. >>> >>> Why does your supposed god always chose idiots and liars to be its >>> spokespeople? >> >> Prophets are rare exceptions from a rule, that generally would not >> include direct contact or interference. > > I can make biblical type prophesies as accurate as any in the bible. > I prophesy, with 100% certainty, that it will rain within the next 24 > hours. Well, yes. But the value of a prophecy increases with its usefulness. If you are able to correctly predict the lottery numbers, you will certainly get more for your prophecies than for your weather forecast. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrph7s$h5o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392839 |
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:06:57 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 18.09.2016 17:26, schrieb Smiler: > >>>>> So the bible is not a book about real history, even if it refers to >>>>> historic events. >>>>> >>>>> E.g. Eva was not made from the rib of her husband Adam. >>>> >>>> Then either the bible isn't the word of your supposed god or your >>>> supposed god is a liar. Which is it? >>> >>> Christianity is a religion and belongs to the set of monotheistic >>> believes (like Judaism and Islam). >>> >>> Their understanding of the term 'God' is slightly different. >>> >>> But if you want to have a coherent picture and I can give you this: >>> >>> think about an old and lonely gardener, who takes care of his >>> plantation. It is really huge and he would take care as much as he >>> can. This is why this garden as grown so much. >>> >>> The garden is called 'universe' and among his creations is you and me. >> >> Who created the gardener? > > I don't know ;-) Then why should we accept your claim of a clear and coherent picture? >>>>> The story has to be understood in a more symbolic way. >>>> >>>> You mean 'reading between the lines to see what isn't there.' >>> >>> Symbols are pictures, which have some kind of meaning. >> >> Only to the believers. > > The author wants to transport a message to the reader. So he thinks > about words, which would convince the reader of some idea or concept he > had in mind. > > If you read it and do not believe the concept (or don't see in in the > first place), the author has not reached what he wanted to achieve. > > But eventually he will find someone else, who actually like his scripts. You refer, of course, to the gullible. >>> So philosophical concepts - for instance - could be encoded in >>> symbols. >>> >>> Modern science use a different method and carefully describe, what >>> they try to express. >>> >>> But in ancient time, they had a different system and they used >>> pictures, >>> which people could eventually understand. >> >> Yet every person has a different understanding of those pictures. Not a >> clear way to communicate such supposedly important information. > > Usually they have kind of 'schools', where the adepts learn to interpret > scripts in the intended ways. How do you know that the teachers have the correct interpretation? > You start with simple ones and once you manage to properly identify the > intended meaning, you proceed to the next level (and so forth). It's called indoctrination. > If you are then able enough, you had the allowance to read the precious > scripts themselves. > > Now there exist other means than creating pergament from calf-skin and > to scribble ancient text on it with ink. > > Now people want to read something on their iPhone and understand it > immediately, possibly with the help of Google.translator. > > Often this does not work, since it requires training to understand > something difficult. AKA indoctrination. >>>>> Such YouTube videos of amateurs about own findings, on the other >>>>> hand, attempt to be true, but are often not. >>>> >>>> Why does your supposed god always chose idiots and liars to be its >>>> spokespeople? >>> >>> Prophets are rare exceptions from a rule, that generally would not >>> include direct contact or interference. >> >> I can make biblical type prophesies as accurate as any in the bible. I >> prophesy, with 100% certainty, that it will rain within the next 24 >> hours. > > Well, yes. But the value of a prophecy increases with its usefulness. Do tell of a useful biblical prophesy, one not so vague as to be useless. > If you are able to correctly predict the lottery numbers, you will > certainly get more for your prophecies than for your weather forecast. Where did the bible make a prediction as specific as the lottery numbers? -- 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 | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 23:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4b38qFd3p5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392996 |
Am 19.09.2016 22:19, schrieb Smiler: >>>> Prophets are rare exceptions from a rule, that generally would not >>>> include direct contact or interference. >>> >>> I can make biblical type prophesies as accurate as any in the bible. I >>> prophesy, with 100% certainty, that it will rain within the next 24 >>> hours. >> >> Well, yes. But the value of a prophecy increases with its usefulness. > > Do tell of a useful biblical prophesy, one not so vague as to be useless. > >> If you are able to correctly predict the lottery numbers, you will >> certainly get more for your prophecies than for your weather forecast. > > Where did the bible make a prediction as specific as the lottery numbers? The bible does not make predictions, you did. You wrote: [Quote] "..I prophesy, with 100% certainty, that it will rain within the next 24 hours." [\Quote] You seem to confuse 'prophet' with 'fortune teller'. A typical prophet would be Mohammed or Buddha. And what they did not do, was predicting the weather. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 23:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrptul$120r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393001 |
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:22:28 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 19.09.2016 22:19, schrieb Smiler: > >>>>> Prophets are rare exceptions from a rule, that generally would not >>>>> include direct contact or interference. >>>> >>>> I can make biblical type prophesies as accurate as any in the bible. >>>> I prophesy, with 100% certainty, that it will rain within the next 24 >>>> hours. >>> >>> Well, yes. But the value of a prophecy increases with its usefulness. >> >> Do tell of a useful biblical prophesy, one not so vague as to be >> useless. >> >>> If you are able to correctly predict the lottery numbers, you will >>> certainly get more for your prophecies than for your weather forecast. >> >> Where did the bible make a prediction as specific as the lottery >> numbers? > > The bible does not make predictions, you did. So "The meek shall inherit the Earth" isn't a prediction in your world? > You wrote: > [Quote] > "..I prophesy, with 100% certainty, that it will rain within the next 24 > hours." > [\Quote] Yep. No guesswork needed. It will again rain within the next 24 hours. In fact, it will rain every day, for the remainder of this year. Prove me wrong. > You seem to confuse 'prophet' with 'fortune teller'. Specify the difference. > A typical prophet would be Mohammed or Buddha. And what they did not > do, was predicting the weather. But they probably predicted many other things. -- 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 | Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 00:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <736640376496023162.960518sam.m.tedesco-gmail.com@news.easynews.com> |
| In reply to | #393016 |
Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:22:28 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 19.09.2016 22:19, schrieb Smiler: >> >>>>>> Prophets are rare exceptions from a rule, that generally would not >>>>>> include direct contact or interference. >>>>> >>>>> I can make biblical type prophesies as accurate as any in the bible. >>>>> I prophesy, with 100% certainty, that it will rain within the next 24 >>>>> hours. >>>> >>>> Well, yes. But the value of a prophecy increases with its usefulness. >>> >>> Do tell of a useful biblical prophesy, one not so vague as to be >>> useless. >>> >>>> If you are able to correctly predict the lottery numbers, you will >>>> certainly get more for your prophecies than for your weather forecast. >>> >>> Where did the bible make a prediction as specific as the lottery >>> numbers? >> >> The bible does not make predictions, you did. > > So "The meek shall inherit the Earth" isn't a prediction in your world? > >> You wrote: >> [Quote] >> "..I prophesy, with 100% certainty, that it will rain within the next 24 >> hours." >> [\Quote] > > Yep. No guesswork needed. It will again rain within the next 24 hours. > In fact, it will rain every day, for the remainder of this year. > Prove me wrong. > >> You seem to confuse 'prophet' with 'fortune teller'. > > Specify the difference. > >> A typical prophet would be Mohammed or Buddha. And what they did not >> do, was predicting the weather. > > But they probably predicted many other things. From what I read, Buddha wasn't even into that kinda shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web