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 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 00:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #515115 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > >> >> > >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot > >> >> of planets out there. > >> > > >> > > >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. > >> > >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. > >> > >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? > > > > > >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' > > Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? What does "unrelated source" mean, like an atheist??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 04:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n5g8talar3q0vv24bj8682bcdo68n4mspi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515173 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot >> >> >> of planets out there. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. >> >> >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. >> >> >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? >> > >> > >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' >> >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. > > >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. Plus not open to any other interpretation, of course. Unambiguous. >What does "unrelated source" mean, like an atheist?? The same thing it means to everyone else. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #515182 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot > >> >> >> of planets out there. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. > >> >> > >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. > >> >> > >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? > >> > > >> > > >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' > >> > >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. > > > > > >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? > > By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or > derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more > unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? Can you give an example of an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 05:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <im5btaprkf2mid05cd9l9mu8st3bosu7bv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515237 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:45:55 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot >> >> >> >> of planets out there. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. >> >> >> >> >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' >> >> >> >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. >> > >> > >> >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? >> >> By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or >> derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more >> unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. > > >So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? I am saying I have seen no evidence any god ever existed, much less any relatives. > Can you give an example of >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that agenda. Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is highly improbable. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 00:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D6D24D.612A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #515383 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:45:55 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot > >> >> >> >> of planets out there. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' > >> >> > >> >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. > >> > > >> > > >> >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? > >> > >> By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or > >> derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more > >> unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. > > > > > >So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? > > I am saying I have seen no evidence any god ever existed, much less > any relatives. > > > Can you give an example of > >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. > > Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with > your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source > that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that > agenda. > > Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's > friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence > unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. > > What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more > unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What > would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about > the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is > highly improbable. How about The Laws of Physics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 04:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ckpdtapp9icukko0360debsvrmjq1dhead@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515514 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:25:01 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D6D24D.612A@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:45:55 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot >> >> >> >> >> of planets out there. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' >> >> >> >> >> >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? >> >> >> >> By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or >> >> derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more >> >> unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. >> > >> > >> >So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? >> >> I am saying I have seen no evidence any god ever existed, much less >> any relatives. >> >> > Can you give an example of >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that >> agenda. >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is >> highly improbable. > > >How about The Laws of Physics? How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified where necessary. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #515518 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:25:01 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D6D24D.612A@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:45:55 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot > >> >> >> >> >> of planets out there. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? > >> >> > >> >> By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or > >> >> derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more > >> >> unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. > >> > > >> > > >> >So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? > >> > >> I am saying I have seen no evidence any god ever existed, much less > >> any relatives. > >> > >> > Can you give an example of > >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. > >> > >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with > >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source > >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that > >> agenda. > >> > >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's > >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence > >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. > >> > >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more > >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What > >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about > >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is > >> highly improbable. > > > > > >How about The Laws of Physics? > > How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified > where necessary. The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 17:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <306ftapvt9g002njpcq1fs8u1vf9r9o65u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515612 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:19:37 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> > Can you give an example of >> >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. >> >> >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with >> >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source >> >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that >> >> agenda. >> >> >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's >> >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence >> >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. >> >> >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more >> >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What >> >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about >> >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is >> >> highly improbable. >> > >> > >> >How about The Laws of Physics? >> >> How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified >> where necessary. > > >The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD.. OK You just made two assertions. Now provide evidence to support them. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 00:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D82240.7A8A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #515643 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:19:37 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >> >> > Can you give an example of > >> >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. > >> >> > >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with > >> >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source > >> >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that > >> >> agenda. > >> >> > >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's > >> >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence > >> >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. > >> >> > >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more > >> >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What > >> >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about > >> >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is > >> >> highly improbable. > >> > > >> > > >> >How about The Laws of Physics? > >> > >> How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified > >> where necessary. > > > > > >The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD.. > > OK You just made two assertions. Now provide evidence to support > them. Are you saying The Laws of Physics are constantly tested, verified, and modified where necessary, and nobody know where The Laws of Physics come from???? If not from God, then who? You sound like you believe in The Laws of Physics, but not sure where they come from... are you an agnostic? You sound like one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 03:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0l9gtat941ch38v10qhb60cmmhc6kao719@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515728 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 00:18:24 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D82240.7A8A@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:19:37 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Can you give an example of >> >> >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. >> >> >> >> >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with >> >> >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source >> >> >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that >> >> >> agenda. >> >> >> >> >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's >> >> >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence >> >> >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. >> >> >> >> >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more >> >> >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What >> >> >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about >> >> >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is >> >> >> highly improbable. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >How about The Laws of Physics? >> >> >> >> How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified >> >> where necessary. >> > >> > >> >The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD.. >> >> OK You just made two assertions. Now provide evidence to support >> them. > > >Are you saying The Laws of Physics are constantly tested, verified, and modified >where necessary, and nobody know where The Laws of Physics come from???? The don't come from anywhere. They describe the activity of the reality in which we live. > >If not from God, then who? Why anyone? Or anything? > > >You sound like you believe in The Laws of Physics, but not sure where they come from... > >are you an agnostic? You sound like one. I really am not concerned with how someone else describes me as long as they don't lie. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55D8CC1D.533F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #515730 |
Attila < wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 00:18:24 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D82240.7A8A@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:19:37 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> >> > Can you give an example of > >> >> >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with > >> >> >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source > >> >> >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that > >> >> >> agenda. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's > >> >> >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence > >> >> >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more > >> >> >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What > >> >> >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about > >> >> >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is > >> >> >> highly improbable. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >How about The Laws of Physics? > >> >> > >> >> How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified > >> >> where necessary. > >> > > >> > > >> >The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD.. > >> > >> OK You just made two assertions. Now provide evidence to support > >> them. > > > > > >Are you saying The Laws of Physics are constantly tested, verified, and modified > >where necessary, and nobody know where The Laws of Physics come from???? > > The don't come from anywhere. They describe the activity of the > reality in which we live. > > > > >If not from God, then who? > > Why anyone? Or anything? Well, it doesn't have to be a person, or a "anything" since only 5 percent of the universe is made of only 'anything'. It could be that 95 percent of what the universe 'is' that makes the laws of physics. The Laws of Physics don't from from a person or anythings...it comes from somewhere else..where you haven't bother to look. > > > > > > >You sound like you believe in The Laws of Physics, but not sure where they come from... > > > >are you an agnostic? You sound like one. > > I really am not concerned with how someone else describes me as long > as they don't lie. Well, I am not lying when I say I believe you believe in God...you're just not sure entirely. But who is? Not everybody believes Thor is a god...those would be the atheist. There are atheist among christians too. So, when the 'scientific community' says the universe comes from 'nothing', they are refering to 95 percent of the universe that contain... no things. It's where the Laws of Physics comes from....it's where GOD sleeps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 03:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fvuita5lkdc21pgj8un6f4t4lit202k133@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #515833 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:23:09 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <55D8CC1D.533F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Attila < wrote: >> >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 00:18:24 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> <55D82240.7A8A@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >Attila < wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:19:37 -0700, The Starmaker >> >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id >> >> <55D787D9.5207@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Can you give an example of >> >> >> >> >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with >> >> >> >> your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source >> >> >> >> that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that >> >> >> >> agenda. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's >> >> >> >> friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence >> >> >> >> unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more >> >> >> >> unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What >> >> >> >> would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about >> >> >> >> the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is >> >> >> >> highly improbable. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >How about The Laws of Physics? >> >> >> >> >> >> How about them? They are constantly tested, verified, and modified >> >> >> where necessary. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >The Laws of Physics is GOD. The Law of Physics come from GOD.. >> >> >> >> OK You just made two assertions. Now provide evidence to support >> >> them. >> > >> > >> >Are you saying The Laws of Physics are constantly tested, verified, and modified >> >where necessary, and nobody know where The Laws of Physics come from???? >> >> The don't come from anywhere. They describe the activity of the >> reality in which we live. >> >> > >> >If not from God, then who? >> >> Why anyone? Or anything? > > >Well, it doesn't have to be a person, or a "anything" since only 5 percent of the universe >is made of only 'anything'. It could be that 95 percent of what the universe 'is' that makes >the laws of physics. The Laws of Physics don't from from a person or anythings...it comes >from somewhere else..where you haven't bother to look. Why should they come from anywhere? They are simply inherent in the existence of the universe. They explain how things work. >> > >> > >> >You sound like you believe in The Laws of Physics, but not sure where they come from... >> > >> >are you an agnostic? You sound like one. >> >> I really am not concerned with how someone else describes me as long >> as they don't lie. > >Well, I am not lying when I say I believe you believe in God...you're just not sure entirely. But who is? I hold no such belief unless and until someone presents me with acceptable evidence for support. > >Not everybody believes Thor is a god...those would be the atheist. There are atheist among christians too. My requirement is not for any particular god. It covers all of them. > > >So, when the 'scientific community' says the universe comes from 'nothing', they are refering >to 95 percent of the universe that contain... no things. > >It's where the Laws of Physics comes from....it's where GOD sleeps. You are assuming they come from somewhere. Why is that? -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 04:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uvg0ta13s7ekdc6ji1jdm2gfjllgta0i3s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #513917 |
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:05:31 -0500, gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mqnrhb$437$1@speranza.aioe.org> wrote: >On 8/15/2015 9:43 AM, talishi wrote: >> niunian wrote: >>> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote: >>>> niunian wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God >>>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of >>>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of >>>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the >>>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same >>>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the >>>>> place of the previous creation God. > > >>> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up >>> your mind. >> >> We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and >> even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as >> war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and >> went out trying to kill "Harkonnens". > >you don't "know" that. >Lots of people believe in "Dune" especially Atheists. I don't. In fact, while the first book was mildly entertaining the remainder are drivel. I reached that conclusion when they were first published, which is when I read the first two or three before I dropped the series. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 10:28 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqouen$fsa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #513873 |
On 2015-08-15 10:43 PM, talishi wrote: > niunian wrote: >> On 2015-08-15 06:36 PM, talishi wrote: >>> niunian wrote: >>>> >>>> The Old Testament has at least two Gods. The first God is the God >>>> of creation who is the God of Eden. The second God is the God of >>>> Adam and Eve after they have sinned. The first God is the God of >>>> living, the giver of life who is always good. The second God is the >>>> God of sin who is always vengeful and evil. They are not the same >>>> God. The sin has introduced or manufactured another God in the >>>> place of the previous creation God. >>> >>> It turns out the previous creation God was manufactured as well. >>> Humans have manufactured at least 5,000 of them. >> >> Are we talking about philosophy or are we talking about science? Make up >> your mind. > > We are talking about a unique form of literature that historically (and > even in the present day) translated to terrible physical action such as > war and beheadings. Certainly no one ever took "Dune" as scripture and > went out trying to kill "Harkonnens". The Bible is a spiritual teaching that explains the philosophy of life. If you are not interested in that, there is no point to talk about the Bible at all. Go back to your science class and stay away from philosophy, then you will not be bothered by what's in the Bible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 04:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <94h0tah6kr30rsvrbnhp90eh2imnu0642s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #514097 |
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:51 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mqouen$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. -- 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 | 2015-08-16 20:04 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqpu6g$mgr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514157 |
On 2015-08-16 04:08 PM, Attila < wrote: > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:51 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > alt.atheism with message-id <mqouen$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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 06:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8fc3tahc1cplgkor4d0ufkae9i04pb5mge@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #514204 |
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. -- 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 | 2015-08-17 20:16 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqsjdl$7bt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514599 |
On 2015-08-17 06:07 PM, Attila < wrote: > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:04:37 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > alt.atheism with message-id <mqpu6g$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. 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? > > -- > 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 | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 19:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9cr4ta1rb2f2obom4eks7fab2bt47t79tr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #514617 |
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. -- 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 | 2015-08-18 13:51 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqujac$gfe$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514925 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web