Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #560938 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-09 13:53 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-16 14:46 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 278 — 20 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: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-03-09 13:53 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-10 17:02 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-03-11 01:25 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-11 11:36 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-12 07:38 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-03-13 09:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Earle Jones27 <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 11:32 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-14 16:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-03-14 14:42 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-15 07:00 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-15 12:07 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-16 14:46 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-16 17:23 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-17 12:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-17 16:30 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-18 15:46 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-19 04:14 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-19 08:10 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-19 17:21 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-20 09:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-20 11:06 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-20 15:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-20 23:28 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-21 17:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-22 04:12 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-22 07:02 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-22 20:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-23 07:01 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-23 18:20 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-24 08:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-24 18:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-24 15:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-25 19:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-26 12:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-26 19:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-26 13:50 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-29 22:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-30 11:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-30 18:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 15:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 20:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-01 16:13 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 23:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-02 19:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 23:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 00:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 07:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-05 17:16 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 13:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 19:23 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-05 15:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-05 15:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-08 13:01 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-09 15:06 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 16:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 23:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-12 19:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-12 14:52 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 19:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-06 14:46 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 23:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:59 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:55 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:24 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 16:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 23:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-12 19:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-24 15:53 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-27 04:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-27 04:15 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 04:01 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 13:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 16:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:17 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 18:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 16:56 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-29 04:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-30 04:58 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-30 11:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 03:41 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 17:11 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-01 23:25 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 10:59 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 17:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 00:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 13:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:05 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Mitchell Holman <noemail@comcast.net> - 2016-04-08 16:28 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 19:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-03 17:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-04 15:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:07 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 19:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 16:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-11 00:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-12 19:32 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-10 22:01 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-05 15:09 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-07 04:51 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-08 04:14 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:50 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-09 04:49 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 08:29 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 05:32 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 05:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:59 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 15:01 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 05:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 18:42 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-12 07:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 15:25 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 14:33 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 09:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 16:22 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 15:26 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 18:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 17:02 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-29 04:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 18:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-30 05:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-30 11:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-30 09:50 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:11 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 03:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 15:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 20:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-01 15:55 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 23:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-02 19:32 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 17:07 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 00:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-05 00:07 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-05 00:23 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-09 16:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:51 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 19:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 09:26 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Ted Street <ted.smasher@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 14:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:39 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:30 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 17:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-01 23:27 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-02 04:25 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:39 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 11:03 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-02 09:48 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 16:14 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-02 23:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-02 21:43 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-04-02 22:17 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-03 00:09 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-02 23:30 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-03 00:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-04-02 23:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-04-03 03:01 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 17:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-03 17:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 11:06 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-03 17:19 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-04 15:20 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-05 15:11 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-07 04:54 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:09 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-08 04:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:51 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-09 04:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 05:35 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 09:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 15:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 05:19 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:28 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 18:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-12 07:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-03-15 10:00 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:19 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-16 14:46 -0500
Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 23:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndpjsi$15fs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567498 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, > Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of supporting >> evidence is that of non-existence. > > Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in > the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. > Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, > wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of your garden? > You leap ahead, pronouncing your truth with no evidence, completely > oblivious, even to this point, that you do exactly what Duke does. It is the falsifiable position, unlike Duke's. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 21:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567573 |
On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of supporting >>> evidence is that of non-existence. >> >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of >your garden? The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat it as false until demonstrated to be true. He also stupidly assigns "don't know" to everything that isn't an absolute certainty, however improbable it is. >> You leap ahead, pronouncing your truth with no evidence, completely >> oblivious, even to this point, that you do exactly what Duke does. What a fuckiing moron. A liar as well as an idiot. >It is the falsifiable position, unlike Duke's. The loonies are either too sttupid to understand this, or they pretend they don't because they are trolling and picking arguments with people who have more important things to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Apollo <nowhere@def.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 22:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nowhere-4F3013.22173702042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567590 |
In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > wrote: > > >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > > > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, > >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >> > >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may > >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of supporting > >>> evidence is that of non-existence. > >> > >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... > > This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. > > >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. > >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, > >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. > > > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of > >your garden? > > The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody > else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat > it as false until demonstrated to be true. The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! But unfortunately not by religions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 00:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c391gbhp8m29c1mdngmgtr8ivlmq80ojod@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567599 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 22:17:37 -0600, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: >In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >> wrote: >> >> >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: >> > >> >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, >> >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >> >> >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >> >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of supporting >> >>> evidence is that of non-existence. >> >> >> >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in >> >> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... >> >> This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. >> >> >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. >> >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, >> >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. >> > >> >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of >> >your garden? >> >> The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody >> else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat >> it as false until demonstrated to be true. > >The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as >UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported >by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! Except that this treats the highly improbable and the highly probable, equally - because they're both unproven. >This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! > >But unfortunately not by religions. Never heard of Popperian falsifiability? Which simply formalised the "no, it isnt - prove it" people who aren't gullible have been using for a long time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 23:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-F445ED.23304702042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567604 |
In article <c391gbhp8m29c1mdngmgtr8ivlmq80ojod@4ax.com>, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 22:17:37 -0600, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: > > >In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, > > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > >> > > >> >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, > >> >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may > >> >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of > >> >>> supporting > >> >>> evidence is that of non-existence. > >> >> > >> >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position > >> >> in > >> > >> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... > >> > >> This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. > >> > >> >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. > >> >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, > >> >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. > >> > > >> >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom > >> >of > >> >your garden? > >> > >> The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody > >> else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat > >> it as false until demonstrated to be true. > > > >The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as > >UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported > >by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! > > Except that this treats the highly improbable and the highly probable, > equally - because they're both unproven. Each is treated by scientists, quite properly, according to the amount of evidence for it or against it. If others choose to apply different and less sensible standards, that is their loss. > > >This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! > > > >But unfortunately not by religions. > > Never heard of Popperian falsifiability? It is one, but not the only, form of disproof. A clear rule is disproved by a single clearly contrary instance! But is not proved merely by absence of such an instance, but requires also confirming evidence. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 00:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1va1gb5c0gqhovjudsn1v15lcf6d8vh8ag@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567609 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 23:30:47 -0600, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> wrote: >In article <c391gbhp8m29c1mdngmgtr8ivlmq80ojod@4ax.com>, > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 22:17:37 -0600, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, >> > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, >> >> >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >> >> >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of >> >> >>> supporting >> >> >>> evidence is that of non-existence. >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... >> >> >> >> This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. >> >> >> >> >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. >> >> >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, >> >> >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. >> >> > >> >> >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom >> >> >of >> >> >your garden? >> >> >> >> The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody >> >> else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat >> >> it as false until demonstrated to be true. >> > >> >The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as >> >UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported >> >by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! >> >> Except that this treats the highly improbable and the highly probable, >> equally - because they're both unproven. > >Each is treated by scientists, quite properly, according to the amount >of evidence for it or against it. If others choose to apply different >and less sensible standards, that is their loss. But they're the ones accusing those who take this into account, of being unreasonable - they're simplistic thinkers who see everything in terms of black and white with a single shade of grey that is a mid-point "don't know". It's the "don't know" which is the problem - because it is then taken as "we don't know anything". >> >This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! >> > >> >But unfortunately not by religions. >> >> Never heard of Popperian falsifiability? > >It is one, but not the only, form of disproof. It doesn't attempt to prove or disprove anything. The disproof comes later, and the "no it isn't" stands until then. It's the default for unsupported claims. Because while you can't (in the general case) prove a negative, you can prove the positive. So new claims are rephrased in the negative, and falsified by "proving" the positive. But the Liars For God tell you this is faith. >A clear rule is disproved by a single clearly contrary instance! >But is not proved merely by absence of such an instance, but requires >also confirming evidence. And?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 23:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-F9BC4A.23392102042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567599 |
In article <nowhere-4F3013.22173702042016@news.giganews.com>, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: > In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > > wrote: > > > > >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > > > > > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, > > >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > > >> > > >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may > > >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of supporting > > >>> evidence is that of non-existence. > > >> > > >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position in > > > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... > > > > This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. > > > > >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. > > >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, > > >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. > > > > > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of > > >your garden? > > > > The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody > > else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat > > it as false until demonstrated to be true. > > The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as > UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported > by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! > > This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! > > But unfortunately not by religions. It's exactly the position taken by most atheists. -- JD "If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Apollo <nowhere@def.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 03:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nowhere-6E5E87.03011703042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567626 |
In article <hlwdjsd2-F9BC4A.23392102042016@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > In article <nowhere-4F3013.22173702042016@news.giganews.com>, > Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: > > > In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, > > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: > > > > > > > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, > > > >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may > > > >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of > > > >>> supporting > > > >>> evidence is that of non-existence. > > > >> > > > >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position > > > >> in > > > > > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... > > > > > > This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. > > > > > > >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. > > > >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, > > > >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. > > > > > > > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom > > > >of > > > >your garden? > > > > > > The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody > > > else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat > > > it as false until demonstrated to be true. > > > > The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as > > UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported > > by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! > > > > This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! > > > > But unfortunately not by religions. > > It's exactly the position taken by most atheists. And one notes that the proportion of scientists and mathematicians who are atheistic, or at least not theistic, is much higher than the proportion in more general populations!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 08:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c772gb5b1jhle5bkubkeshqmruio5mkjht@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567658 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 03:01:17 -0600, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: >In article <hlwdjsd2-F9BC4A.23392102042016@news.giganews.com>, > Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <nowhere-4F3013.22173702042016@news.giganews.com>, >> Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: >> >> > In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, >> > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> > >> > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, >> > > >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >> > > >>> attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of >> > > >>> supporting >> > > >>> evidence is that of non-existence. >> > > >> >> > > >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted position >> > > >> in >> > > >> > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... >> > > >> > > This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. >> > > >> > > >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of knowledge. >> > > >> Unless you are compelled to make a decision on incomplete information, >> > > >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. >> > > > >> > > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the bottom >> > > >of >> > > >your garden? >> > > >> > > The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody >> > > else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is treat >> > > it as false until demonstrated to be true. >> > >> > The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as >> > UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is supported >> > by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! >> > >> > This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! >> > >> > But unfortunately not by religions. >> >> It's exactly the position taken by most atheists. > >And one notes that the proportion of scientists and mathematicians who >are atheistic, or at least not theistic, is much higher than the >proportion in more general populations! None of which are God. No man has ever seen or defined God. So I don't see scientists trying to address that which is not-knowing. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndri6o$1vf1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567672 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:40:11 -0500, duke wrote: > On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 03:01:17 -0600, Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: > >>In article <hlwdjsd2-F9BC4A.23392102042016@news.giganews.com>, >> Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <nowhere-4F3013.22173702042016@news.giganews.com>, >>> Apollo <nowhere@def.com> wrote: >>> >>> > In article <g401gb1305o5gvrkq24e452fk5jj1ml1n7@4ax.com>, >>> > Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:16:34 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:48:55 -0700, je suis charly wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > >> In article <ujnvfbl7q0ja07lefag5amrl1fo2p2fv5f@4ax.com>, >>> > > >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' >>> > > >>> you may attempt the fact is that the best position in the >>> > > >>> absence of supporting evidence is that of non-existence. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Actually, my sad Dunning-Kruger victim, the least convoluted >>> > > >> position in >>> > > >>> > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaha........... >>> > > >>> > > This moron lacks the skill set to understand why he is wrong. >>> > > >>> > > >> the absence of knowledge is to acknowledge the absence of >>> > > >> knowledge. Unless you are compelled to make a decision on >>> > > >> incomplete information, >>> > > >> wisdom dictates defering the decision. You have no wisdom. >>> > > > >>> > > >Do you defer the decision as to whether there are fairies at the >>> > > >bottom of your garden? >>> > > >>> > > The moron is too stupid to understand that it is merely somebody >>> > > else's baseless belief, and that the only rational position is >>> > > treat it as false until demonstrated to be true. >>> > >>> > The only rational position is treat any claim, and its negation as >>> > UNPROVEN, but not necessarily as false, until one of them is >>> > supported by enough evidence to justify its acceptance! >>> > >>> > This is the position taken by both mathematics and science! >>> > >>> > But unfortunately not by religions. >>> >>> It's exactly the position taken by most atheists. >> >>And one notes that the proportion of scientists and mathematicians who >>are atheistic, or at least not theistic, is much higher than the >>proportion in more general populations! > > None of which are God. No man has ever seen or defined God. Which are excellent grounds for denying its supposed existence. > So I don't see scientists trying to address that which is not-knowing. Scientists don't address you, Earl, because you are not knowing. > the dukester, The Not Knowing American -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 08:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c572gb9u2offsli15fn0baigcp9srq8se7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567457 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:03:58 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 04:25:00 -0700, je suis charly ><charlie-gordon1492@no.where> in alt.atheism with message-id ><charlie-gordon1492-A7934F.04250002042016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> >wrote: > >>In article <queufb970qfk8slsfshrupv29uvpqpkjda@4ax.com>, >> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >>> Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >>> they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >>> should be ignored. >> >>Non sequitur. Absence of evidence means absence of evidence. It does not mean >>nonexistence. However due to the Dunning-Kruger effect you lack the logic to >>understand how your logic is lacking. You are incapable learning from your error. > >No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of >supporting evidence is that of non-existence. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You really think you're going to escape the flames, don't you. >The lack of evidence does not prove non-existence, but the claim of >existence with no supporting evidence does zero as far as supporting >that existence is concerned. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 17:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d323gb5vmdr8o86vimbblssg7u3v0b0bp4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567671 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:38:19 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <c572gb9u2offsli15fn0baigcp9srq8se7@4ax.com> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:03:58 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 04:25:00 -0700, je suis charly >><charlie-gordon1492@no.where> in alt.atheism with message-id >><charlie-gordon1492-A7934F.04250002042016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> >>wrote: >> >>>In article <queufb970qfk8slsfshrupv29uvpqpkjda@4ax.com>, >>> Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>> >>>> Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >>>> they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >>>> should be ignored. >>> >>>Non sequitur. Absence of evidence means absence of evidence. It does not mean >>>nonexistence. However due to the Dunning-Kruger effect you lack the logic to >>>understand how your logic is lacking. You are incapable learning from your error. >> >>No error is involved. No matter how much convoluted 'logic' you may >>attempt the fact is that the best position in the absence of >>supporting evidence is that of non-existence. > >Tsk, tsk, tsk. You really think you're going to escape the flames, don't you. I have seen no evidence they exist. > >>The lack of evidence does not prove non-existence, but the claim of >>existence with no supporting evidence does zero as far as supporting >>that existence is concerned. > -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 07:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u9fvfbtpat6m9mm9gc1ve0h8cq79pmdedp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567365 |
On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 23:27:27 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:32:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >alt.atheism with message-id ><s6qtfb1pueel5llf85k8292kv5b43ggvsr@4ax.com> wrote: > >>>>You actually have the most damning of them all - that you won't be judged by God >>>>for your support of murdering the human unborn. >>>> >>> >>>As I haves said many times, threats based upon your superstitions mean >>>nothing to me. No matter how many times you repeat them. >> >>They are not threats. They are promises from God. > >Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >should be ignored. I have. And you sure can't show me I'm wrong. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 11:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qrnvfbd9pd7cd3fenovdl1eq8j39dutjur@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567421 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:38:42 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <u9fvfbtpat6m9mm9gc1ve0h8cq79pmdedp@4ax.com> wrote: >On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 23:27:27 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:32:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>alt.atheism with message-id >><s6qtfb1pueel5llf85k8292kv5b43ggvsr@4ax.com> wrote: >> >>>>>You actually have the most damning of them all - that you won't be judged by God >>>>>for your support of murdering the human unborn. >>>>> >>>> >>>>As I haves said many times, threats based upon your superstitions mean >>>>nothing to me. No matter how many times you repeat them. >>> >>>They are not threats. They are promises from God. >> >>Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >>they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >>should be ignored. > >I have. And you sure can't show me I'm wrong. > I have no interest in showing you right or wrong. However, I have shown that you have never ever provided any actual evidence to support your position that is not so arbitrary and non-specific as to be useless. I expect to continue doing this. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 08:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2a72gbpltm6pgs1v71a3phv7q9ckf4ok7r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567458 |
On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:06:50 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:38:42 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >alt.atheism with message-id ><u9fvfbtpat6m9mm9gc1ve0h8cq79pmdedp@4ax.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 23:27:27 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:32:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>alt.atheism with message-id >>><s6qtfb1pueel5llf85k8292kv5b43ggvsr@4ax.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>You actually have the most damning of them all - that you won't be judged by God >>>>>>for your support of murdering the human unborn. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>As I haves said many times, threats based upon your superstitions mean >>>>>nothing to me. No matter how many times you repeat them. >>>> >>>>They are not threats. They are promises from God. >>> >>>Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >>>they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >>>should be ignored. >> >>I have. And you sure can't show me I'm wrong. >> > >I have no interest in showing you right or wrong. But I am interested in trying to help you avoid the hellfires. >However, I have >shown that you have never ever provided any actual evidence to support >your position that is not so arbitrary and non-specific as to be >useless. I expect to continue doing this. Me too. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 17:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v423gblatjrffpoh9he03p9teeiubgbpta@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567673 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:40:57 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <2a72gbpltm6pgs1v71a3phv7q9ckf4ok7r@4ax.com> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:06:50 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:38:42 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>alt.atheism with message-id >><u9fvfbtpat6m9mm9gc1ve0h8cq79pmdedp@4ax.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 23:27:27 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:32:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>>alt.atheism with message-id >>>><s6qtfb1pueel5llf85k8292kv5b43ggvsr@4ax.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>You actually have the most damning of them all - that you won't be judged by God >>>>>>>for your support of murdering the human unborn. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>As I haves said many times, threats based upon your superstitions mean >>>>>>nothing to me. No matter how many times you repeat them. >>>>> >>>>>They are not threats. They are promises from God. >>>> >>>>Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >>>>they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >>>>should be ignored. >>> >>>I have. And you sure can't show me I'm wrong. >>> >> >>I have no interest in showing you right or wrong. > >But I am interested in trying to help you avoid the hellfires. I still have seen no evidence they even exist. > >>However, I have >>shown that you have never ever provided any actual evidence to support >>your position that is not so arbitrary and non-specific as to be >>useless. I expect to continue doing this. > >Me too. > -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 13:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mac5gb5onur06rkkcgdok9qesal55pmfud@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567730 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:19:17 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:40:57 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >alt.atheism with message-id ><2a72gbpltm6pgs1v71a3phv7q9ckf4ok7r@4ax.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:06:50 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:38:42 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>alt.atheism with message-id >>><u9fvfbtpat6m9mm9gc1ve0h8cq79pmdedp@4ax.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 23:27:27 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:32:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>>>alt.atheism with message-id >>>>><s6qtfb1pueel5llf85k8292kv5b43ggvsr@4ax.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>You actually have the most damning of them all - that you won't be judged by God >>>>>>>>for your support of murdering the human unborn. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As I haves said many times, threats based upon your superstitions mean >>>>>>>nothing to me. No matter how many times you repeat them. >>>>>> >>>>>>They are not threats. They are promises from God. >>>>> >>>>>Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >>>>>they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >>>>>should be ignored. >>>> >>>>I have. And you sure can't show me I'm wrong. >>>> >>> >>>I have no interest in showing you right or wrong. >> >>But I am interested in trying to help you avoid the hellfires. > >I still have seen no evidence they even exist. Light a match and put it under your wrist. Then you'll know. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 15:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7ef5gbhng3q5vqekr33u42isn3vauiqivh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567881 |
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:24:56 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <mac5gb5onur06rkkcgdok9qesal55pmfud@4ax.com> wrote: >On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:19:17 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:40:57 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>alt.atheism with message-id >><2a72gbpltm6pgs1v71a3phv7q9ckf4ok7r@4ax.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:06:50 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:38:42 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>>alt.atheism with message-id >>>><u9fvfbtpat6m9mm9gc1ve0h8cq79pmdedp@4ax.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 23:27:27 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:32:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>><s6qtfb1pueel5llf85k8292kv5b43ggvsr@4ax.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You actually have the most damning of them all - that you won't be judged by God >>>>>>>>>for your support of murdering the human unborn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>As I haves said many times, threats based upon your superstitions mean >>>>>>>>nothing to me. No matter how many times you repeat them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They are not threats. They are promises from God. >>>>>> >>>>>>Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >>>>>>they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >>>>>>should be ignored. >>>>> >>>>>I have. And you sure can't show me I'm wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>>I have no interest in showing you right or wrong. >>> >>>But I am interested in trying to help you avoid the hellfires. >> >>I still have seen no evidence they even exist. > >Light a match and put it under your wrist. Then you'll know. > I freely admit combustion occurs. It is this often mentioned but elusive hellfire I question. It apparently is another name for what is used to light a cigarette and is available in paper packets of twenty or so in many places. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 08:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jnf7gbl3b5torpaf4ja55t8ltkeabcq2e5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #567902 |
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 15:20:01 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:24:56 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >alt.atheism with message-id ><mac5gb5onur06rkkcgdok9qesal55pmfud@4ax.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:19:17 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:40:57 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>alt.atheism with message-id >>><2a72gbpltm6pgs1v71a3phv7q9ckf4ok7r@4ax.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:06:50 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:38:42 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>>>alt.atheism with message-id >>>>><u9fvfbtpat6m9mm9gc1ve0h8cq79pmdedp@4ax.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 23:27:27 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:32:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>><s6qtfb1pueel5llf85k8292kv5b43ggvsr@4ax.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You actually have the most damning of them all - that you won't be judged by God >>>>>>>>>>for your support of murdering the human unborn. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>As I haves said many times, threats based upon your superstitions mean >>>>>>>>>nothing to me. No matter how many times you repeat them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>They are not threats. They are promises from God. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >>>>>>>they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >>>>>>>should be ignored. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have. And you sure can't show me I'm wrong. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I have no interest in showing you right or wrong. >>>> >>>>But I am interested in trying to help you avoid the hellfires. >>> >>>I still have seen no evidence they even exist. >> >>Light a match and put it under your wrist. Then you'll know. >I freely admit combustion occurs. It is this often mentioned but >elusive hellfire I question. It apparently is another name for what >is used to light a cigarette and is available in paper packets of >twenty or so in many places. In hell, you don't need to bring your own matches. After all, YOU.......are the fuel. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 15:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vd38gbl2ajp8tjvt4p1kla1jqur5sfnv6i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568030 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:35:40 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <jnf7gbl3b5torpaf4ja55t8ltkeabcq2e5@4ax.com> wrote: >On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 15:20:01 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:24:56 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>alt.atheism with message-id >><mac5gb5onur06rkkcgdok9qesal55pmfud@4ax.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:19:17 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:40:57 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>>alt.atheism with message-id >>>><2a72gbpltm6pgs1v71a3phv7q9ckf4ok7r@4ax.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:06:50 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:38:42 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>><u9fvfbtpat6m9mm9gc1ve0h8cq79pmdedp@4ax.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 23:27:27 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:32:34 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>>>>>>alt.atheism with message-id >>>>>>>><s6qtfb1pueel5llf85k8292kv5b43ggvsr@4ax.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>You actually have the most damning of them all - that you won't be judged by God >>>>>>>>>>>for your support of murdering the human unborn. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>As I haves said many times, threats based upon your superstitions mean >>>>>>>>>>nothing to me. No matter how many times you repeat them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>They are not threats. They are promises from God. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Since no one has ever provided any evidence that any god ever existed >>>>>>>>they are obviously nothing more than the usual empty threats and >>>>>>>>should be ignored. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I have. And you sure can't show me I'm wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I have no interest in showing you right or wrong. >>>>> >>>>>But I am interested in trying to help you avoid the hellfires. >>>> >>>>I still have seen no evidence they even exist. >>> >>>Light a match and put it under your wrist. Then you'll know. > >>I freely admit combustion occurs. It is this often mentioned but >>elusive hellfire I question. It apparently is another name for what >>is used to light a cigarette and is available in paper packets of >>twenty or so in many places. > >In hell, you don't need to bring your own matches. After all, YOU.......are the >fuel. > More threats from your superstition. That seems to be quite common. -- 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]
Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web