Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #554738 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-20 00:56 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-02-27 20:58 +1100 |
| Articles | 4 on this page of 24 — 13 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. "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com> - 2016-02-20 00:56 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con> - 2016-02-23 20:58 -0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:01 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-27 20:59 +1100
Re: Scientists are more humane. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-27 09:55 -0800
Re: Scientists are more humane. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:55 +1100
Re: Scientists are more humane, they breed less. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-27 17:00 -0800
Re: Scientists are more humane. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-27 16:07 -0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:39 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:18 +1100
Re: Christianity is neither scientific nor logical. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 02:20 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-28 03:53 -0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-02-28 07:46 -0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 08:34 -0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 02:45 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 03:43 -0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 07:07 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 04:58 -0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2016-03-03 20:23 -0600
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:42 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 11:30 -0600
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-27 20:58 +1100
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 20:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ibshdbt9srfbkddv4ul2gpqrmlklftp1js@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #557585 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:34:25 -0800 (PST), HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote: > >And anyone with a program to end all religion or to force their religion on >everyone else is a putrifying personality that hates freedom. >---------- > >I agree. Trying to end religion is futile. Trying to force religion on people is futile. Therefore I suggest that we kill anyone who says they believe in god Here Here!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 22:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jhf7dbpnfpiml78dhhkt73sdavqtn5co00@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #557538 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 03:53:30 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <djfhsrFlapjU1@mid.individual.net>,
> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 28-February-2016 3:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
>> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:59:27 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 24-February-2016 1:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:56:45 +0100 (CET), "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> In article <charlie-gordon1492-FFE6AD.03221624082015@88-209-239-
>> >>>> 213.giganet.hu>
>> >>>> je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>,
>> >>>>> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do. At
>> >>>>>> the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I
>> >>>>>> automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves
>> >>>>>> something must have been created. Existence only proves itself and
>> >>>>>> does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what
>> >>>>>> that origin was.
>> >>>>> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb
>> >>>>> "create".
>> >>>>> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the
>> >>>>> word, it
>> >>>>> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require
>> >>>>> an agent?
>> >>>>> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron
>> >>>>> and nickel"
>> >>>>> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to
>> >>>>> accept
>> >>>>> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic.
>> >>>> Lol! You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
>> >>>>> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
>> >>>>> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
>> >>>>> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
>> >>> Strong atheism is the most faith based of any religious belief with
>> >>> the
>> >>> possible exception of strong agnosticism, afaik. Neither has nor ever
>> >>> could have
>> >>> a shred of evidence to support it in any way, so those who believe in
>> >>> either are
>> >>> doing no more than putting thair faith in their own particular guess
>> >>> being
>> >>> correct with no evidence at all to back it up.
>> >> that's exactly right
>> > So why are they ashamed of it? And since they clearly ARE ashamed of
>> > it,
>> > what prevents them from trying to change that position they're so clearly
>> > ashamed to be in?
>>
>> atheists are simply ppl who want to deny the possibility that a God may
>> exist,
>
>Nope, that's not it at all.
>
>Why don't you pay attention when we tell you what it actually is?
Try doing it now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 11:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <oba6dbdnk7r5rpu3dsjqrskhnvsmb4n94p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #557507 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:18:19 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >On 28-February-2016 3:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:59:27 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 24-February-2016 1:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:56:45 +0100 (CET), "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <charlie-gordon1492-FFE6AD.03221624082015@88-209-239- >>>>> 213.giganet.hu> >>>>> je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote: >>>>>> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>, >>>>>> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do. At >>>>>>> the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I >>>>>>> automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves >>>>>>> something must have been created. Existence only proves itself and >>>>>>> does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what >>>>>>> that origin was. >>>>>> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb "create". As usual, some lying theist nastily amateur-psychologises the natural human reaction to in-your-face rudeness and stupidity into something it isn't, >>>>>> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the word, it Liar. >>>>>> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion. Liar. It's rejected because it's baseless, worthless bullshit. >>>>>> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require an agent? >>>>>> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron and nickel" >>>>>> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to accept >>>>>> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic. Deliberate dishonesty, noted. Even this poster knows that "created" is used by religious fundamentalists to mead "my particular god did it" >>>>> Lol! You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails. Another pathologically lying theist supporting the original liar. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments >>>>>> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from >>>>>> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true >>>>>> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye. Idiot. >>>> Strong atheism is the most faith based of any religious belief with the Liar. It's the falsifiable position in response to theists who can't keep their nonsense where it belongs - pending their doing something they have never done. ie showing that their beliefs describe reality. >>>> possible exception of strong agnosticism, afaik. Neither has nor ever could have Idiot. Neither atheism nor agnosticism mean what stupid theists who can't think outside the box imagine. They start from the presumption that their beliefs are true and invent positions neither atheists nor agnostics actually have, about something they have yet to show has any importance or even relevance outside their religion. >>>> a shred of evidence to support it in any way, so those who believe in either are THERE IS NO "EITHER WAY", liar - just theists who can't live and let live, and who try to impose their religious beliefs. >>>> doing no more than putting thair faith in their own particular guess being WHAT FUCKING "THEIR OWN PARTICULAR GUESS", imbecile? Theists have a baseless memetic belief that was implanted in childhood. Atheists don't, either because they grew out of it or they never had it in the first place. It's the theist's presumption, not the atheist's - atheists don't even have it in their worldview as anything other than "what theists believe as part of their religion". How many times do we have to keep explaining it to these sociopathic, in-your-face idiots? >>>> correct with no evidence at all to back it up. Why the fuck should we back up somebody else's lies about us, liar? >>> that's exactly right Liar. >> So why are they ashamed of it? Another deliberately nasty lie. >> And since they clearly ARE ashamed of it, Hardly, pathological liar. >> what prevents them from trying to change that position they're so clearly >> ashamed to be in? Why can't you stop lying? >atheists are simply ppl who want to deny the possibility that a God may Liar. >exist, and some spiritual things may be true. if they weren't, they Liar. >would be happy to simply be non-religious like everyone who isn't >religious, or nominally christian (or whatever) , We would be, if you sociopaths could only live and let live, if you didn't push your religion where it is neither wanted nor needed, if you weren't trying to destroy science education, if you didn't impose your religious beliefs against contraception, abortion and stem-dell research, if you didn't discriminate against those who don't share your beliefs, etc, etc, etc. But psychopaths like the two of you wipe your deliberate nastiness in our faces all day and every day, in a place where atheists get together to be away from all that and to discuss our own business. > if they wish to >identify with a culture or heritage or belief system, or call themselves >agnostic Liar. Atheism and agnosticism are orthogonal - one can be either, neither or both. But if you psychos even bothered to use your allegedly god-given minds, atheists are simply people who aren't theist - so they don't have anything in their worldview to be agnostic about. After all, it's merely part of somebody else's religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 20:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djdae0F3s2tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #554738 |
On 20-February-2016 10:56 AM, Arthur wrote: > In article <charlie-gordon1492-FFE6AD.03221624082015@88-209-239- > 213.giganet.hu> > je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote: >> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>, >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >>> I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do. At >>> the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I >>> automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves >>> something must have been created. Existence only proves itself and >>> does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what >>> that origin was. >> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb "create". >> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the word, it >> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion. >> >> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require an agent? >> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron and nickel" >> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to accept >> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic. > Lol! You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails. no he didn't. made in that context simply means 'consists of' > >> -- >> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments >> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from >> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true >> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye. -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web