Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #512700 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-11 09:58 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-08-12 12:35 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 264 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-11 09:58 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-11 10:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 13:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-11 23:26 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 00:24 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-08-11 13:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 07:58 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 19:23 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:48 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 04:13 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 20:57 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 12:39 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 15:26 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 07:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 12:51 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 20:03 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-12 17:49 -0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-12 18:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-13 00:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 22:25 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "W.TS." <m14m@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-12 20:55 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-12 19:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 20:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-12 19:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:53 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 23:58 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 15:56 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:25 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-13 06:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-13 14:20 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:39 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 23:59 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 16:15 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:30 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 09:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 17:30 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 10:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-14 14:11 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-15 05:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 18:25 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-16 04:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 19:46 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-16 11:45 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 10:48 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-16 22:04 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 11:15 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-16 22:04 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 15:15 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-17 00:38 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 20:22 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-17 12:30 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-17 10:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 05:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 20:28 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-17 12:32 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 18:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 18:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:00 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:24 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 06:45 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-19 04:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 20:35 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-19 17:22 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-20 12:47 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 01:08 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-20 22:36 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-20 14:10 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 04:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-16 14:29 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-16 15:04 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 05:53 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 22:30 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 10:08 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 11:40 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-19 17:23 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 04:56 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-20 14:11 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 05:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-22 14:12 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:53 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-23 10:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-16 01:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 19:53 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-16 14:58 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 10:52 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 05:56 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 19:49 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 18:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:33 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 07:26 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-19 04:35 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 20:41 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 04:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-20 22:44 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 05:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 08:10 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-22 03:42 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 16:26 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-23 21:17 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 22:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 08:48 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-18 18:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-19 04:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-17 13:21 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 19:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-17 13:40 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-17 12:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 00:51 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-17 14:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 21:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 00:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 01:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 01:23 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 22:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 22:32 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 01:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 23:38 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 05:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 20:12 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 19:25 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:45 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 07:43 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-13 15:53 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 17:24 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-14 12:08 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-14 14:17 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-14 04:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-14 12:53 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-14 06:54 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-14 14:16 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 07:51 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Mike M <mike@xenocyte.com> - 2015-08-15 06:41 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 16:11 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-15 03:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 18:48 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-15 07:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-15 12:05 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-15 18:36 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-16 00:56 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-16 01:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-16 01:09 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-16 14:06 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 06:04 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 12:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-16 03:37 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-16 21:25 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 02:54 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 22:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-18 14:23 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 05:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 18:47 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:30 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-18 10:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 16:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-19 00:44 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-19 04:43 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-19 09:45 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 05:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-21 00:25 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 04:52 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-21 13:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 17:29 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-22 00:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-22 03:39 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-22 12:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-16 04:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:28 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-16 04:08 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 20:04 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 06:07 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 20:16 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-17 19:27 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:51 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 07:55 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-19 04:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-19 20:59 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-20 05:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-20 22:30 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 04:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-21 19:58 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 17:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 07:47 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-22 03:40 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 16:19 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-23 21:20 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-17 22:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 03:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-18 00:51 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-18 16:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-15 15:17 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:31 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-15 12:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:36 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-16 03:42 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 20:11 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-16 11:48 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 10:58 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 12:58 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 12:56 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-15 12:02 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 14:34 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 19:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:33 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:47 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:34 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 09:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-08-13 13:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 13:25 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 17:49 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-16 01:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-16 20:24 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-16 10:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 11:01 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2015-08-16 16:55 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-17 11:11 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-17 13:39 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-17 12:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-18 11:55 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-18 01:10 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-17 14:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:00 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 21:41 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:08 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 20:04 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 15:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 07:29 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 21:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-11 20:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 04:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:55 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 16:00 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:51 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:49 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 09:46 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:18 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-14 03:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:25 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-15 05:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-11 12:30 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-11 12:59 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 15:03 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 19:30 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 04:19 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 12:36 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "W.TS." <m14m@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-12 20:53 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> - 2015-08-11 21:20 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> - 2015-08-12 10:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> - 2015-08-11 21:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-11 20:22 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 21:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 14:38 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:53 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:51 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-08-12 12:35 +0800
Page 10 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 Next page →
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 03:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4qn5ta93obneff8fpi895gi21qmp484ed3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #514995 |
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:51:04 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mqujac$gfe$3@dont-email.me> wrote: >On 2015-08-18 07:27 AM, Attila < wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:16:10 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >> alt.atheism with message-id <mqsjdl$7bt$2@dont-email.me> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-08-15 10:43 PM, talishi wrote: >>>>>>>> niunian wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> niunian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God >>>>>>>>>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of >>>>>>>>>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of >>>>>>>>>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the >>>>>>>>>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same >>>>>>>>>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the >>>>>>>>>>> place of the previous creation God. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It turns out the previous creation God was manufactured as well. >>>>>>>>>> Humans have manufactured at least 5,000 of them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up >>>>>>>>> your mind. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and >>>>>>>> even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as >>>>>>>> war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and >>>>>>>> went out trying to kill "Harkonnens". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Bible is a spiritual teaching that explains the philosophy of life. >>>>>>> If you are not interested in that, there is no point to talk about the >>>>>>> Bible at all. Go back to your science class and stay away from >>>>>>> philosophy, then you will not be bothered by what's in the Bible. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is not what is in that book of myth, it is the way so many >>>>>> people not only insist it is true but demand everyone else must accept >>>>>> it as true also. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no reason to fear any god but many reasons to fear your >>>>>> god-fearing neighbors. >>>>> >>>>> Then, it's the people you have a problem with, so why blame a book? >>>> >>>> A book is nothing more than a repository of words. It isn't to blame >>>> for anything. >>>> >>>> Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether >>>> it contains any truth or not, and it's age does the same. >>> >>> That's wonderful. So why do you have to show your total ignorance about >>> an ancient book which you claim you are not really interested? >>> >> >> What ancient book would that be? There are a lot of mythologies from >> the distant past. > >Yea. There are so many ancient books teaching the philosophy of life and >the nature of human being, why picking on a single book alone? Because those books are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits while there are one or two that have people pushing them as being true and factual with no supporting evidence for those claims. Plus the content of the particular book under discussion is so improbable as to require a very high standard of support and verification. Yet it has none at all. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 07:55 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mr0hqq$2h7$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #515002 |
On 2015-08-18 03:34 PM, Attila < wrote: > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:51:04 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > alt.atheism with message-id <mqujac$gfe$3@dont-email.me> wrote: > >> On 2015-08-18 07:27 AM, Attila < wrote: >>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:16:10 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >>> alt.atheism with message-id <mqsjdl$7bt$2@dont-email.me> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015-08-15 10:43 PM, talishi wrote: >>>>>>>>> niunian wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> niunian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God >>>>>>>>>>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of >>>>>>>>>>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of >>>>>>>>>>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the >>>>>>>>>>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same >>>>>>>>>>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the >>>>>>>>>>>> place of the previous creation God. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It turns out the previous creation God was manufactured as well. >>>>>>>>>>> Humans have manufactured at least 5,000 of them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up >>>>>>>>>> your mind. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and >>>>>>>>> even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as >>>>>>>>> war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and >>>>>>>>> went out trying to kill "Harkonnens". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Bible is a spiritual teaching that explains the philosophy of life. >>>>>>>> If you are not interested in that, there is no point to talk about the >>>>>>>> Bible at all. Go back to your science class and stay away from >>>>>>>> philosophy, then you will not be bothered by what's in the Bible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem is not what is in that book of myth, it is the way so many >>>>>>> people not only insist it is true but demand everyone else must accept >>>>>>> it as true also. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no reason to fear any god but many reasons to fear your >>>>>>> god-fearing neighbors. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, it's the people you have a problem with, so why blame a book? >>>>> >>>>> A book is nothing more than a repository of words. It isn't to blame >>>>> for anything. >>>>> >>>>> Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether >>>>> it contains any truth or not, and it's age does the same. >>>> >>>> That's wonderful. So why do you have to show your total ignorance about >>>> an ancient book which you claim you are not really interested? >>>> >>> >>> What ancient book would that be? There are a lot of mythologies from >>> the distant past. >> >> Yea. There are so many ancient books teaching the philosophy of life and >> the nature of human being, why picking on a single book alone? > > Because those books are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits > while there are one or two that have people pushing them as being true > and factual with no supporting evidence for those claims. > > Plus the content of the particular book under discussion is so > improbable as to require a very high standard of support and > verification. Yet it has none at all. Yet, you don't even bother try to understand the book before you launch your attack. Why is that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 04:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <seg8ta14m935pb1mttt5gca5c56cnsgdl5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515145 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:55:29 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mr0hqq$2h7$4@dont-email.me> wrote: >>>>> That's wonderful. So why do you have to show your total ignorance about >>>>> an ancient book which you claim you are not really interested? >>>>> >>>> >>>> What ancient book would that be? There are a lot of mythologies from >>>> the distant past. >>> >>> Yea. There are so many ancient books teaching the philosophy of life and >>> the nature of human being, why picking on a single book alone? >> >> Because those books are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits >> while there are one or two that have people pushing them as being true >> and factual with no supporting evidence for those claims. >> >> Plus the content of the particular book under discussion is so >> improbable as to require a very high standard of support and >> verification. Yet it has none at all. > >Yet, you don't even bother try to understand the book before you launch >your attack. Why is that? I have better things to do with my time than bother becoming an expert in a book that has no support or validation. Anything it could possibly say would be useless beyond it's entertainment value, which I rate as being zero. There are many books I ignore for the same reason - it is not possible to read and study everything. I limit myself to what I find useful and/or entertaining. I did not attack anything. I am simply pointing out how useless that particular book is. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 20:59 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mr202o$ikl$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #515183 |
On 2015-08-19 04:48 PM, Attila < wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:55:29 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > alt.atheism with message-id <mr0hqq$2h7$4@dont-email.me> wrote: > >>>>>> That's wonderful. So why do you have to show your total ignorance about >>>>>> an ancient book which you claim you are not really interested? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What ancient book would that be? There are a lot of mythologies from >>>>> the distant past. >>>> >>>> Yea. There are so many ancient books teaching the philosophy of life and >>>> the nature of human being, why picking on a single book alone? >>> >>> Because those books are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits >>> while there are one or two that have people pushing them as being true >>> and factual with no supporting evidence for those claims. >>> >>> Plus the content of the particular book under discussion is so >>> improbable as to require a very high standard of support and >>> verification. Yet it has none at all. >> >> Yet, you don't even bother try to understand the book before you launch >> your attack. Why is that? > > I have better things to do with my time than bother becoming an expert > in a book that has no support or validation. Anything it could > possibly say would be useless beyond it's entertainment value, which I > rate as being zero. > > There are many books I ignore for the same reason - it is not possible > to read and study everything. I limit myself to what I find useful > and/or entertaining. > > I did not attack anything. I am simply pointing out how useless that > particular book is. How disappointing. As far as I know, many atheists in here are very well learned Bible scholars and experts. They can point me to the most important key Bible verses every time. Because of them, I don't even bother reading the Bible anymore. Whenever there is a problem, they will show me the verses, and I will explain it to pass their test. It works for me perfectly. Save me both time and effort. Perhaps you should try it my way. Make yourself a devoted God believer and be baptized by the truth of the Bible verses through the usenet debates in alt.atheism. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 05:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v56btah9le39gj8cf7b6hfjn033km2vv28@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515206 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:59:36 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mr202o$ikl$5@dont-email.me> wrote: >On 2015-08-19 04:48 PM, Attila < wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:55:29 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >> alt.atheism with message-id <mr0hqq$2h7$4@dont-email.me> wrote: >> >>>>>>> That's wonderful. So why do you have to show your total ignorance about >>>>>>> an ancient book which you claim you are not really interested? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What ancient book would that be? There are a lot of mythologies from >>>>>> the distant past. >>>>> >>>>> Yea. There are so many ancient books teaching the philosophy of life and >>>>> the nature of human being, why picking on a single book alone? >>>> >>>> Because those books are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits >>>> while there are one or two that have people pushing them as being true >>>> and factual with no supporting evidence for those claims. >>>> >>>> Plus the content of the particular book under discussion is so >>>> improbable as to require a very high standard of support and >>>> verification. Yet it has none at all. >>> >>> Yet, you don't even bother try to understand the book before you launch >>> your attack. Why is that? >> >> I have better things to do with my time than bother becoming an expert >> in a book that has no support or validation. Anything it could >> possibly say would be useless beyond it's entertainment value, which I >> rate as being zero. >> >> There are many books I ignore for the same reason - it is not possible >> to read and study everything. I limit myself to what I find useful >> and/or entertaining. >> >> I did not attack anything. I am simply pointing out how useless that >> particular book is. > >How disappointing. As far as I know, many atheists in here are very well >learned Bible scholars and experts. They can point me to the most >important key Bible verses every time. Because of them, I don't even >bother reading the Bible anymore. Whenever there is a problem, they will >show me the verses, and I will explain it to pass their test. It works >for me perfectly. Save me both time and effort. Perhaps you should try >it my way. Make yourself a devoted God believer and be baptized by the >truth of the Bible verses through the usenet debates in alt.atheism. > >:-) Frankly I have better ways to spend my time than to waste it on something that I know is useless. If someone could prove it is not trash I might give it a try but until then I put it in the same category as the so-called 'holy books' of the other thousands of superstitions that have such books. I read nothing about any of them because I am just not interested in such myths. Such proof would necessarily come from sources other than the books themselves and be unrelated to and not derived from, directly or indirectly, the items in question. I consider it as big a waste of time as becoming an expert on the history of the Tooth Fairy. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 22:30 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mr4o84$v6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #515384 |
On 2015-08-20 05:13 PM, Attila < wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:59:36 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > alt.atheism with message-id <mr202o$ikl$5@dont-email.me> wrote: > >> On 2015-08-19 04:48 PM, Attila < wrote: >>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:55:29 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >>> alt.atheism with message-id <mr0hqq$2h7$4@dont-email.me> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> That's wonderful. So why do you have to show your total ignorance about >>>>>>>> an ancient book which you claim you are not really interested? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What ancient book would that be? There are a lot of mythologies from >>>>>>> the distant past. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yea. There are so many ancient books teaching the philosophy of life and >>>>>> the nature of human being, why picking on a single book alone? >>>>> >>>>> Because those books are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits >>>>> while there are one or two that have people pushing them as being true >>>>> and factual with no supporting evidence for those claims. >>>>> >>>>> Plus the content of the particular book under discussion is so >>>>> improbable as to require a very high standard of support and >>>>> verification. Yet it has none at all. >>>> >>>> Yet, you don't even bother try to understand the book before you launch >>>> your attack. Why is that? >>> >>> I have better things to do with my time than bother becoming an expert >>> in a book that has no support or validation. Anything it could >>> possibly say would be useless beyond it's entertainment value, which I >>> rate as being zero. >>> >>> There are many books I ignore for the same reason - it is not possible >>> to read and study everything. I limit myself to what I find useful >>> and/or entertaining. >>> >>> I did not attack anything. I am simply pointing out how useless that >>> particular book is. >> >> How disappointing. As far as I know, many atheists in here are very well >> learned Bible scholars and experts. They can point me to the most >> important key Bible verses every time. Because of them, I don't even >> bother reading the Bible anymore. Whenever there is a problem, they will >> show me the verses, and I will explain it to pass their test. It works >> for me perfectly. Save me both time and effort. Perhaps you should try >> it my way. Make yourself a devoted God believer and be baptized by the >> truth of the Bible verses through the usenet debates in alt.atheism. >> >> :-) > Frankly I have better ways to spend my time than to waste it on > something that I know is useless. If someone could prove it is not > trash I might give it a try but until then I put it in the same > category as the so-called 'holy books' of the other thousands of > superstitions that have such books. I read nothing about any of them > because I am just not interested in such myths. In other words, you have no interest in the philosophy of life in general. You don't care about things like reality, truth, existence, happiness, love, and human nature, that sort of things. > > Such proof would necessarily come from sources other than the books > themselves and be unrelated to and not derived from, directly or > indirectly, the items in question. Philosophy isn't anything like your science project. It doesn't need to be validated by other sources. It's based on the knowledge of truth which is universal. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will understand it. Anyone who doesn't yet know such knowledge needs to learn from it. A philosophical book doesn't need to be scientifically accurate. It only needs to reveal the truth it's trying to teach in its own way. It can talk about bullshit, or make up a story, as long as it helps to explain the truth. > > > I consider it as big a waste of time as becoming an expert on the > history of the Tooth Fairy. Philosophy has nothing to do with history or Tooth Fairy. It's all about the truth which will improve people's lives and probably saving them as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 04:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <anpdtad54bmbhrputuc5qdvm4931enhh77@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515400 |
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:30:26 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mr4o84$v6b$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >On 2015-08-20 05:13 PM, Attila < wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:59:36 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >> alt.atheism with message-id <mr202o$ikl$5@dont-email.me> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-08-19 04:48 PM, Attila < wrote: >>>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:55:29 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mr0hqq$2h7$4@dont-email.me> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> That's wonderful. So why do you have to show your total ignorance about >>>>>>>>> an ancient book which you claim you are not really interested? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What ancient book would that be? There are a lot of mythologies from >>>>>>>> the distant past. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yea. There are so many ancient books teaching the philosophy of life and >>>>>>> the nature of human being, why picking on a single book alone? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because those books are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits >>>>>> while there are one or two that have people pushing them as being true >>>>>> and factual with no supporting evidence for those claims. >>>>>> >>>>>> Plus the content of the particular book under discussion is so >>>>>> improbable as to require a very high standard of support and >>>>>> verification. Yet it has none at all. >>>>> >>>>> Yet, you don't even bother try to understand the book before you launch >>>>> your attack. Why is that? >>>> >>>> I have better things to do with my time than bother becoming an expert >>>> in a book that has no support or validation. Anything it could >>>> possibly say would be useless beyond it's entertainment value, which I >>>> rate as being zero. >>>> >>>> There are many books I ignore for the same reason - it is not possible >>>> to read and study everything. I limit myself to what I find useful >>>> and/or entertaining. >>>> >>>> I did not attack anything. I am simply pointing out how useless that >>>> particular book is. >>> >>> How disappointing. As far as I know, many atheists in here are very well >>> learned Bible scholars and experts. They can point me to the most >>> important key Bible verses every time. Because of them, I don't even >>> bother reading the Bible anymore. Whenever there is a problem, they will >>> show me the verses, and I will explain it to pass their test. It works >>> for me perfectly. Save me both time and effort. Perhaps you should try >>> it my way. Make yourself a devoted God believer and be baptized by the >>> truth of the Bible verses through the usenet debates in alt.atheism. >>> >>> :-) >> Frankly I have better ways to spend my time than to waste it on >> something that I know is useless. If someone could prove it is not >> trash I might give it a try but until then I put it in the same >> category as the so-called 'holy books' of the other thousands of >> superstitions that have such books. I read nothing about any of them >> because I am just not interested in such myths. > >In other words, you have no interest in the philosophy of life in >general. More or less, yes. > You don't care about things like reality, truth, existence, >happiness, love, and human nature, that sort of things. I care about reality, truth, and existence. The others are esoteric and exist only in the mind of the individual. > >> >> Such proof would necessarily come from sources other than the books >> themselves and be unrelated to and not derived from, directly or >> indirectly, the items in question. > >Philosophy isn't anything like your science project. It doesn't need to >be validated by other sources. I said benchmarked against reality. Otherwise it is nothing more than a mental exercise. > It's based on the knowledge of truth >which is universal. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will understand >it. Anyone who doesn't yet know such knowledge needs to learn from it. A >philosophical book doesn't need to be scientifically accurate. It only >needs to reveal the truth it's trying to teach in its own way. It can >talk about bullshit, or make up a story, as long as it helps to explain >the truth. I suspect we have entirely different definitions of truth, because your's sounds nothing like mine. > >> >> >> I consider it as big a waste of time as becoming an expert on the >> history of the Tooth Fairy. > >Philosophy has nothing to do with history or Tooth Fairy. It's all about >the truth which will improve people's lives and probably saving them as >well. > Nonsense. You can contemplate the whichness of the why all you like and it will still mean squat. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 19:58 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mr73m0$1hr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #515519 |
On 2015-08-21 04:58 PM, Attila < wrote: >> It's based on the knowledge of truth >> which is universal. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will understand >> it. Anyone who doesn't yet know such knowledge needs to learn from it. A >> philosophical book doesn't need to be scientifically accurate. It only >> needs to reveal the truth it's trying to teach in its own way. It can >> talk about bullshit, or make up a story, as long as it helps to explain >> the truth. > > I suspect we have entirely different definitions of truth, because > your's sounds nothing like mine. Right. I'm talking about the metaphysical truth other than the empirical truth of scientific theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 17:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r16ftal32hq9a3h2jc28sre2tgs0urerbn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515527 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:58:24 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mr73m0$1hr$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >On 2015-08-21 04:58 PM, Attila < wrote: > >>> It's based on the knowledge of truth >>> which is universal. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will understand >>> it. Anyone who doesn't yet know such knowledge needs to learn from it. A >>> philosophical book doesn't need to be scientifically accurate. It only >>> needs to reveal the truth it's trying to teach in its own way. It can >>> talk about bullshit, or make up a story, as long as it helps to explain >>> the truth. >> >> I suspect we have entirely different definitions of truth, because >> your's sounds nothing like mine. > >Right. I'm talking about the metaphysical truth other than the empirical >truth of scientific theory. IOW, a 'truth' you can make up as you go along and which has no relationship to the real world. It is a 'truth' because you say it is. How convenient for you. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 07:47 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mr8d8l$88g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #515646 |
On 2015-08-22 05:31 AM, Attila < wrote: > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:58:24 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > alt.atheism with message-id <mr73m0$1hr$1@dont-email.me> wrote: > >> On 2015-08-21 04:58 PM, Attila < wrote: >> >>>> It's based on the knowledge of truth >>>> which is universal. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will understand >>>> it. Anyone who doesn't yet know such knowledge needs to learn from it. A >>>> philosophical book doesn't need to be scientifically accurate. It only >>>> needs to reveal the truth it's trying to teach in its own way. It can >>>> talk about bullshit, or make up a story, as long as it helps to explain >>>> the truth. >>> >>> I suspect we have entirely different definitions of truth, because >>> your's sounds nothing like mine. >> >> Right. I'm talking about the metaphysical truth other than the empirical >> truth of scientific theory. > > IOW, a 'truth' you can make up as you go along and which has no > relationship to the real world. It is a 'truth' because you say it > is. > > How convenient for you. Not at all. I can never describe what the truth is. No one can. I can only point you to the truth for you to find out yourself. The truth is always self-evident and self-sufficient. The description of the truth serves no purpose and is often misleading. People who find the truth will know and understand the truth all by themselves because the truth is universal to all people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 03:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5q9gtadt3s6496ccq559i1qcukfs7u544n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515687 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:47:40 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mr8d8l$88g$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >On 2015-08-22 05:31 AM, Attila < wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:58:24 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >> alt.atheism with message-id <mr73m0$1hr$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-08-21 04:58 PM, Attila < wrote: >>> >>>>> It's based on the knowledge of truth >>>>> which is universal. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will understand >>>>> it. Anyone who doesn't yet know such knowledge needs to learn from it. A >>>>> philosophical book doesn't need to be scientifically accurate. It only >>>>> needs to reveal the truth it's trying to teach in its own way. It can >>>>> talk about bullshit, or make up a story, as long as it helps to explain >>>>> the truth. >>>> >>>> I suspect we have entirely different definitions of truth, because >>>> your's sounds nothing like mine. >>> >>> Right. I'm talking about the metaphysical truth other than the empirical >>> truth of scientific theory. >> >> IOW, a 'truth' you can make up as you go along and which has no >> relationship to the real world. It is a 'truth' because you say it >> is. >> >> How convenient for you. > >Not at all. I can never describe what the truth is. No one can. I can >only point you to the truth for you to find out yourself. The truth is >always self-evident and self-sufficient. The description of the truth >serves no purpose and is often misleading. People who find the truth >will know and understand the truth all by themselves because the truth >is universal to all people. Batshit crazy and dogshit dumb. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 16:19 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mr9b7t$mcu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #515731 |
On 2015-08-22 03:40 PM, Attila < wrote: > On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:47:40 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > alt.atheism with message-id <mr8d8l$88g$1@dont-email.me> wrote: > >> On 2015-08-22 05:31 AM, Attila < wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:58:24 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >>> alt.atheism with message-id <mr73m0$1hr$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-08-21 04:58 PM, Attila < wrote: >>>> >>>>>> It's based on the knowledge of truth >>>>>> which is universal. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will understand >>>>>> it. Anyone who doesn't yet know such knowledge needs to learn from it. A >>>>>> philosophical book doesn't need to be scientifically accurate. It only >>>>>> needs to reveal the truth it's trying to teach in its own way. It can >>>>>> talk about bullshit, or make up a story, as long as it helps to explain >>>>>> the truth. >>>>> >>>>> I suspect we have entirely different definitions of truth, because >>>>> your's sounds nothing like mine. >>>> >>>> Right. I'm talking about the metaphysical truth other than the empirical >>>> truth of scientific theory. >>> >>> IOW, a 'truth' you can make up as you go along and which has no >>> relationship to the real world. It is a 'truth' because you say it >>> is. >>> >>> How convenient for you. >> >> Not at all. I can never describe what the truth is. No one can. I can >> only point you to the truth for you to find out yourself. The truth is >> always self-evident and self-sufficient. The description of the truth >> serves no purpose and is often misleading. People who find the truth >> will know and understand the truth all by themselves because the truth >> is universal to all people. > > Batshit crazy and dogshit dumb. That's about the right response you should have, I'm sure. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 03:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <o7vitad59prbn4i72eriufcs2ahk0q8ctt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515735 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:19:15 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mr9b7t$mcu$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >On 2015-08-22 03:40 PM, Attila < wrote: >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:47:40 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >> alt.atheism with message-id <mr8d8l$88g$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-08-22 05:31 AM, Attila < wrote: >>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:58:24 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mr73m0$1hr$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-08-21 04:58 PM, Attila < wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> It's based on the knowledge of truth >>>>>>> which is universal. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will understand >>>>>>> it. Anyone who doesn't yet know such knowledge needs to learn from it. A >>>>>>> philosophical book doesn't need to be scientifically accurate. It only >>>>>>> needs to reveal the truth it's trying to teach in its own way. It can >>>>>>> talk about bullshit, or make up a story, as long as it helps to explain >>>>>>> the truth. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect we have entirely different definitions of truth, because >>>>>> your's sounds nothing like mine. >>>>> >>>>> Right. I'm talking about the metaphysical truth other than the empirical >>>>> truth of scientific theory. >>>> >>>> IOW, a 'truth' you can make up as you go along and which has no >>>> relationship to the real world. It is a 'truth' because you say it >>>> is. >>>> >>>> How convenient for you. >>> >>> Not at all. I can never describe what the truth is. No one can. I can >>> only point you to the truth for you to find out yourself. The truth is >>> always self-evident and self-sufficient. The description of the truth >>> serves no purpose and is often misleading. People who find the truth >>> will know and understand the truth all by themselves because the truth >>> is universal to all people. >> >> Batshit crazy and dogshit dumb. > >That's about the right response you should have, I'm sure. > It fits. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 21:20 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mrch7f$79g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #516006 |
On 2015-08-23 03:58 PM, Attila < wrote: > On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:19:15 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > alt.atheism with message-id <mr9b7t$mcu$1@dont-email.me> wrote: > >> On 2015-08-22 03:40 PM, Attila < wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 07:47:40 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >>> alt.atheism with message-id <mr8d8l$88g$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-08-22 05:31 AM, Attila < wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:58:24 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >>>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mr73m0$1hr$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-08-21 04:58 PM, Attila < wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's based on the knowledge of truth >>>>>>>> which is universal. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will understand >>>>>>>> it. Anyone who doesn't yet know such knowledge needs to learn from it. A >>>>>>>> philosophical book doesn't need to be scientifically accurate. It only >>>>>>>> needs to reveal the truth it's trying to teach in its own way. It can >>>>>>>> talk about bullshit, or make up a story, as long as it helps to explain >>>>>>>> the truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suspect we have entirely different definitions of truth, because >>>>>>> your's sounds nothing like mine. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right. I'm talking about the metaphysical truth other than the empirical >>>>>> truth of scientific theory. >>>>> >>>>> IOW, a 'truth' you can make up as you go along and which has no >>>>> relationship to the real world. It is a 'truth' because you say it >>>>> is. >>>>> >>>>> How convenient for you. >>>> >>>> Not at all. I can never describe what the truth is. No one can. I can >>>> only point you to the truth for you to find out yourself. The truth is >>>> always self-evident and self-sufficient. The description of the truth >>>> serves no purpose and is often misleading. People who find the truth >>>> will know and understand the truth all by themselves because the truth >>>> is universal to all people. >>> >>> Batshit crazy and dogshit dumb. >> >> That's about the right response you should have, I'm sure. >> > It fits. Yes. It best reflects your mental condition, but I'm not really discriminating. It's quite natural and normal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 22:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D2C157.314D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #514599 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:04:37 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > alt.atheism with message-id <mqpu6g$mgr$1@dont-email.me> wrote: > > >On 2015-08-16 04:08 PM, Attila < wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:51 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > >> alt.atheism with message-id <mqouen$fsa$1@dont-email.me> wrote: > >> > >>> On 2015-08-15 10:43 PM, talishi wrote: > >>>> niunian wrote: > >>>>> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote: > >>>>>> niunian wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God > >>>>>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of > >>>>>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of > >>>>>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the > >>>>>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same > >>>>>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the > >>>>>>> place of the previous creation God. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It turns out the previous creation God was manufactured as well. > >>>>>> Humans have manufactured at least 5,000 of them. > >>>>> > >>>>> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up > >>>>> your mind. > >>>> > >>>> We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and > >>>> even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as > >>>> war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and > >>>> went out trying to kill "Harkonnens". > >>> > >>> The Bible is a spiritual teaching that explains the philosophy of life. > >>> If you are not interested in that, there is no point to talk about the > >>> Bible at all. Go back to your science class and stay away from > >>> philosophy, then you will not be bothered by what's in the Bible. > >> > >> The problem is not what is in that book of myth, it is the way so many > >> people not only insist it is true but demand everyone else must accept > >> it as true also. > >> > >> There is no reason to fear any god but many reasons to fear your > >> god-fearing neighbors. > > > >Then, it's the people you have a problem with, so why blame a book? > > A book is nothing more than a repository of words. It isn't to blame > for anything. > > Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether > it contains any truth or not, and it's age does the same. There was no Attila the Hun, was there...he's gay.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 03:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p0o5ta1rl56e1f8qjgsre0hc9d6jaellvu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #514981 |
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:23:35 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D2C157.314D@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> The problem is not what is in that book of myth, it is the way so many >> >> people not only insist it is true but demand everyone else must accept >> >> it as true also. >> >> >> >> There is no reason to fear any god but many reasons to fear your >> >> god-fearing neighbors. >> > >> >Then, it's the people you have a problem with, so why blame a book? >> >> A book is nothing more than a repository of words. It isn't to blame >> for anything. >> >> Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether >> it contains any truth or not, and it's age does the same. > > > >There was no Attila the Hun, was there...he's gay. The existence of Attila the Hun is verified by a number of historical accounts written by different people from different points of view and with no particular agenda to present or support. I have no idea if he was gay or not - that is irrelevant. I chose the name because of his alternate nickname - The Scourge of God. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 00:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D2E3FC.478B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #515003 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:23:35 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D2C157.314D@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >> >> The problem is not what is in that book of myth, it is the way so many > >> >> people not only insist it is true but demand everyone else must accept > >> >> it as true also. > >> >> > >> >> There is no reason to fear any god but many reasons to fear your > >> >> god-fearing neighbors. > >> > > >> >Then, it's the people you have a problem with, so why blame a book? > >> > >> A book is nothing more than a repository of words. It isn't to blame > >> for anything. > >> > >> Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether > >> it contains any truth or not, and it's age does the same. > > > > > > > >There was no Attila the Hun, was there...he's gay. > > The existence of Attila the Hun is verified by a number of historical > accounts written by different people from different points of view and > with no particular agenda to present or support. But you wrote: "Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether it contains any truth or not,.." So how do you know what accounts written by different people about Attila the Hun is true or not? Or Jesus Christ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 16:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9l67ta1kibsl723sv01e4t4uojbk2tket6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515005 |
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:51:24 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D2E3FC.478B@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:23:35 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D2C157.314D@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> The problem is not what is in that book of myth, it is the way so many >> >> >> people not only insist it is true but demand everyone else must accept >> >> >> it as true also. >> >> >> >> >> >> There is no reason to fear any god but many reasons to fear your >> >> >> god-fearing neighbors. >> >> > >> >> >Then, it's the people you have a problem with, so why blame a book? >> >> >> >> A book is nothing more than a repository of words. It isn't to blame >> >> for anything. >> >> >> >> Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether >> >> it contains any truth or not, and it's age does the same. >> > >> > >> > >> >There was no Attila the Hun, was there...he's gay. >> >> The existence of Attila the Hun is verified by a number of historical >> accounts written by different people from different points of view and >> with no particular agenda to present or support. > >But you wrote: > >"Just because something is written down has nothing to do with whether >it contains any truth or not,.." Correct. It requires verification by other unrelated sources, as many as possible. > > >So how do you know what accounts written by different people about >Attila the Hun is true or not? They are numerous, agree in detail, are by a variety of people from both his supporters and his enemies, and the people involved had no agenda to support. > >Or Jesus Christ? No evidence he ever existed, one single source commonly used that is not independently verified anywhere, the exact author or authors are unknown (or at least unverified), are hardly independent, all support the statements and claims made, and definitely have an agenda to support. Not to mention being translated numerous times into various other languages and having been edited as to content to insure conformity. A total failure in every respect. There is as much support for the existence of the Tooth Fairy. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 15:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d38vvcFkv0rU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #513820 |
On 15/08/2015 09:11, niunian wrote: > The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God of > creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of Adam and > Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of living, the > giver of life who is always good. The second God is the God of sin who > is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same God. The sin has > introduced or manufactured another God in the place of the previous > creation God. Lovely family tree you cobbled together there....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 10:31 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqouen$fsa$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #513865 |
On 2015-08-15 10:17 PM, Alex W. wrote: > On 15/08/2015 09:11, niunian wrote: > >> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God of >> creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of Adam and >> Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of living, the >> giver of life who is always good. The second God is the God of sin who >> is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same God. The sin has >> introduced or manufactured another God in the place of the previous >> creation God. > > Lovely family tree you cobbled together there.... Yes, I was afraid of that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web