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 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 11:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7deagbp0ogap2piji4rfma92bd9llhdq64@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568103 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:40:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >wrote: > >>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>>scientific method. >>>> >>>>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >>>>value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >>>>cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >>>>indicative as any positive evidence. >>>> >>>>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>>>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>>>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>>>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. That >>>>is good, hard, solid evidence. >>>> >>> Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. >>> >>> Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >>> conclusive. >>> >>> Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there is >>> no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to support >>> there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. >>> >>> It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. >>> Ever. >> >>I can prove I don't have three legs, or that there is no elephant hiding >>in my garage! > >If we really wanted to get silly about it, we could argue both those >things ad nauseam. The elephant could have taken a walk when you went >to check, for example.... You fool, grik. That means there is no elephant in the closet. 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 | 2016-04-06 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne3qhl$1u5f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568103 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:40:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> >>> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>>scientific method. >>>> >>>>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of >>>>equal value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for >>>>something and cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as >>>>important and indicative as any positive evidence. >>>> >>>>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>>>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>>>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>>>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. >>>>That is good, hard, solid evidence. >>>> >>> Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. >>> >>> Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >>> conclusive. >>> >>> Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there >>> is no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to >>> support there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. >>> >>> It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. >>> Ever. >> >>I can prove I don't have three legs, or that there is no elephant hiding >>in my garage! > > If we really wanted to get silly about it, we could argue both those > things ad nauseam. The elephant could have taken a walk when you went to > check, for example.... As I don't have a garage, that's not even a remote possibility. But logically, if it had taken a walk, it would have been in plain sight and, therefore, not hiding. I also suspect that, if it had been hiding in my supposed garage, I would have a very dented car and there would be a large pile of elephant dung there as evidence. > The whole point is how you frame the issue. You'd never say "I don't > have three legs", or "I don't have four legs". You'd say "I have two > legs." That doesn't take into account the morons we get here that may accuse me of having three legs. > Framing the non-existence of a deity is stupid when the argument is > predicated on existence in the first place. > > The logic devolves to humour at this point. > >>What you mean is that it's impossible to prove a _universal_ negative. > > Yeah, I'll go with this. Thanks for refining the semantics, Mr. Smiler. You're welcome. -- 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 | 2016-04-07 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v44dgbl8np0db0ikutfahsvrb5e5dpc7go@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568381 |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:11:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:40:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>>>scientific method. >>>>> >>>>>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of >>>>>equal value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for >>>>>something and cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as >>>>>important and indicative as any positive evidence. >>>>> >>>>>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>>>>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>>>>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>>>>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. >>>>>That is good, hard, solid evidence. >>>>> >>>> Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. >>>> >>>> Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >>>> conclusive. >>>> >>>> Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there >>>> is no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to >>>> support there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. >>>> >>>> It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. >>>> Ever. >>> >>>I can prove I don't have three legs, or that there is no elephant hiding >>>in my garage! >> >> If we really wanted to get silly about it, we could argue both those >> things ad nauseam. The elephant could have taken a walk when you went to >> check, for example.... > >As I don't have a garage, that's not even a remote possibility. >But logically, if it had taken a walk, it would have been in plain sight >and, therefore, not hiding. I also suspect that, if it had been hiding in >my supposed garage, I would have a very dented car and there would be a >large pile of elephant dung there as evidence. Bailout, bailout, bailout. >> The whole point is how you frame the issue. You'd never say "I don't >> have three legs", or "I don't have four legs". You'd say "I have two >> legs." >That doesn't take into account the morons we get here that may accuse me >of having three legs. Do you? > >> Framing the non-existence of a deity is stupid when the argument is >> predicated on existence in the first place. >> >> The logic devolves to humour at this point. >> >>>What you mean is that it's impossible to prove a _universal_ negative. >> >> Yeah, I'll go with this. Thanks for refining the semantics, Mr. Smiler. >You're welcome. Haahaahaa. The evidence of a creator is overwhelming even if you don't have a garage to house your elephant. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 15:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8s68gb1t5p0i2bv9t8p0ecpd779i634vqm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568102 |
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > ><snip> > >>>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>scientific method. >>> >>>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >>>value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >>>cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >>>indicative as any positive evidence. >>> >>>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. That >>>is good, hard, solid evidence. You left out the bit about falsifiability. The inductive conclusion stands until it is falsified - and the more it stands up without falsification the greater the confirmation, >> Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. An apocryphal story. But what it actually does, is give an example of falsifiability. >> Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >> conclusive. It's only part of it. And it's falsifiable. >> Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there is >> no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to support >> there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. >> >> It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. >> Ever. Which is why you use a different methodology. You can prove the positive by producing evidence. And you can disprove the negative by producing the evidence. Which is why unsupported claims get rephrased in the negative, and stand until the positive is proven. I'm surprised that so may people don't seem to understand this, even some of the atheist regulars - especially as it's not just part of the scientific method, even kids in the schoolyard use it... "My Dad just bought a Lamborghini" "No, he didn't - prove it" Two answers: "Prove he didn't" vs "Come round tonight and he'll show it to you. He's so proud of it he'll even give you a ride in it". The answer which shows he actually _does_ have one, is obvious. >I can prove I don't have three legs, or that there is no elephant hiding >in my garage! >What you mean is that it's impossible to prove a _universal_ negative. Which is why you use Popperian falsifiability. The problem is that those who don't understand this imagine it is some kind of equivalent but opposite counter-claim to theirs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 11:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <59eagb9s8ti6o9nqmaagacqfbb6f1d1r5e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568059 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> >wrote: > >>On 05/04/2016 14:40, duke wrote: >>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:19:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:30:04 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:38:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:35:56 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:22:58 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:16:44 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:45:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:03:19 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:11:16 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where is it, liar Earl? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already gave it to you. But you still don't get it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have given no evidence that your claimed 'verge' exists, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly right. You're the one that says there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>> verge, >>>>>>>>>>>>> so you must see the evidence to declare no verge. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I need no evidence to not believe your stupid unevidenced claims. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your damnation comes in your inability to support your own beliefs >>>>>>>>>>> with evidence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What beliefs would they be, Earl? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That there is NO God. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That isn't my belief, moron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know that there are some claimed gods. As I don't believe in any of >>>>>>>> them, I remain an atheist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, that only makes you an agnostic. You can't offer support >>>>>>> for their being NO God. Hence you are no atheist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Only in your demented excuse for a mind. >>>>> >>>>> Agnostic smiler - sounds musical. >>>> >>>> Like you, it sounds stupid and is a lie. >>> >>> Well, you're definitely no atheist. That's an impossibility as there is exactly >>> zero (0) evidence to support that there is NO God. >> >>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>scientific method. >> >>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >>value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >>cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >>indicative as any positive evidence. >> >>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. >>That is good, hard, solid evidence. >> > >Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. > >Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >conclusive. >Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there >is no god Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. You griks have trouble understanding that. 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 | 2016-04-06 20:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne3qq7$1u5f$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568309 |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: <snip> > Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. > Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, Who claims that, other than you demented believers? > is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. Nope. Merely your stupid belief. > You griks have trouble understanding that. You demented morons have trouble understanding that. > ***** > "Telling lies about evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | 2016-04-07 11:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <aa4dgbtv0earnipa47e95emtutqk8j045h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568387 |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: > > ><snip> > >> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, > >Who claims that, other than you demented believers? > >> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >Nope. Merely your stupid belief. Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. >> You griks have trouble understanding that. >You demented morons have trouble understanding that. Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO God. 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 | 2016-04-08 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne8pib$7s6$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568603 |
On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >> >>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >> >>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. > >>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. > > Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. What elephant would that be, liar? >>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. > > Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. > If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an > alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO > God. What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. > ***** > "Telling lies about having evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | 2016-04-08 13:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <itrfgbl41big8r84tfi3iajng8nsvop392@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568988 |
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >>> >>>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >>> >>>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >> >>>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. >> >> Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. > >What elephant would that be, liar? > >>>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. >> >> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. > >There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. > >> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO >> God. *L*I*A*R* Many times over. >What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. Exactly. There is none. Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of physics. The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. All of which the in-your-face liar knows already - so why does he lie about this to the more knowledgeable, better educated and more intelligent? >> ***** >> "Telling lies about having evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." >> Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q1vfgbpchcr4eldpsnl5uuka6hnhr3do63@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569006 |
On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>>>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >>>> >>>>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >>>> >>>>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >>> >>>>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. >>> >>> Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. >> >>What elephant would that be, liar? >> >>>>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>>>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. >>> >>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. >> >>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >> >>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO >>> God. >*L*I*A*R* >Many times over. Nope. Never. >>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >Exactly. There is none. I have it. Creation. >Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws >of physics. The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of creation, not by whom. >The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists >that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. I have ALL that evidence. You have none. 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 | 2016-04-09 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nebj0p$1dsa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569030 |
On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: > On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee > <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > >>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: <snip> >>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>> creator. >>> >>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>> >>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>> NO God. > >>*L*I*A*R* >>Many times over. > > Nope. Never. > >>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >>Exactly. There is none. > > I have it. Creation. Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of >>physics. > > The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of > creation, > not by whom. > >>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that >>any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. > > I have ALL that evidence. No you don't, liar. > ***** > "Telling lies about evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | 2016-04-09 15:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9fkigbpfb15f2h7ltk0fgj7vfrcpglf3mg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569255 |
On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: > ><snip> > >>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>> creator. >>>> >>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>> >>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>>> NO God. >> >>>*L*I*A*R* >>>Many times over. >> >> Nope. Never. >> >>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >>>Exactly. There is none. >> >> I have it. Creation. > >Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. It's argument by dishonest use of language. >>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of >>>physics. >> >> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >> creation, >> not by whom. Nothing remotely suggests it took a "whom". and the only reason to posit this is one's pre-existing religious belief. The liar has had this explained repeatedly. Also that when there are natural explanations, there is no need to pluck anything extra out of his arse, especially when there is no evidence for it. >>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that >>>any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >> >> I have ALL that evidence. He's lying. Because there is none - and in any case, he's supposed to be providing if for us. Not himself. >No you don't, liar. He can't help it - he's doing what Christians who have painted themselves into a corner, do. He can't admit he hasn't, because that would mean he's be admitting he has been lying here for years. We all know he has, but as long as he doesn't admit it, he feels he's got away with it. Rather like his church and the pedophile priests - everybody knew about it but the they never admitted it, and they longer they lied about it, the deeper the hole they had dug for themselves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 08:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1cmkgbl8htpcnlcp88629r80ik2vduc5t0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569273 |
On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 15:06:24 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >wrote: > >>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>> creator. >>>>> >>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>> >>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>>>> NO God. >>> >>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>Many times over. >>> >>> Nope. Never. >>> >>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >>>>Exactly. There is none. >>> >>> I have it. Creation. >> >>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. > >It's argument by dishonest use of language. Then tell smiler to stop it. He keeps trying to tell me that my evidence is not evidence. I guess he thinks he's the only one that can define "evidence". >>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of >>>>physics. >>> >>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >>> creation, >>> not by whom. >Nothing remotely suggests it took a "whom". and the only reason to >posit this is one's pre-existing religious belief. >The liar has had this explained repeatedly. What is your evidence that matter created itself? >Also that when there are natural explanations, there is no need to >pluck anything extra out of his arse, especially when there is no >evidence for it. Natural?? Haahaahaa. What is nature_al other than God doing it? >>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>>>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that >>>>any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>> >>> I have ALL that evidence. >He's lying. Because there is none - and in any case, he's supposed to >be providing if for us. Not himself. It's mine. You're blind to it. >>No you don't, liar. >He can't help it - he's doing what Christians who have painted >themselves into a corner, do. >He can't admit he hasn't, because that would mean he's be admitting he >has been lying here for years. >We all know he has, but as long as he doesn't admit it, he feels he's >got away with it. You and Sergeant Schultz know........NOTHING. >Rather like his church and the pedophile priests - everybody knew >about it but the they never admitted it, and they longer they lied >about it, the deeper the hole they had dug for themselves. It was a sin, not a crime. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 08:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2amkgbpiru3te6h1ktk58pk8sn7kvfavqg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569255 |
On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: > ><snip> > >>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>> creator. >>>> >>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>> >>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>>> NO God. >> >>>*L*I*A*R* >>>Many times over. >> >> Nope. Never. >> >>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >>>Exactly. There is none. >> >> I have it. Creation. > >Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. Are you now denying creation? >>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of >>>physics. >> >> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >> creation, >> not by whom. >> >>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that >>>any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >> >> I have ALL that evidence. > >No you don't, liar. Creation, but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. 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 | 2016-04-10 16:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nedtm9$1eng$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569424 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: > On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>> creator. >>>>> >>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>> >>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>>>> NO God. >>> >>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>Many times over. >>> >>> Nope. Never. >>> >>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>beliefs. >>>>Exactly. There is none. >>> >>> I have it. Creation. >> >>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. > > Are you now denying creation? What "now"? I've always denied it. >>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws >>>>of physics. >>> >>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >>> creation, >>> not by whom. >>> >>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>>>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists >>>>that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>> >>> I have ALL that evidence. >> >>No you don't, liar. > > Creation, A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. > but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. > ***** > "Telling lies is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | 2016-04-10 14:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ok9lgbpcpb08vbrtocs0tn45f5828v83vv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569456 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>> creator. >>>>>> >>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>>>>> NO God. >>>> >>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>Many times over. >>>> >>>> Nope. Never. >>>> >>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>> >>>> I have it. Creation. >>> >>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >> >> Are you now denying creation? > >What "now"? I've always denied it. Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. >>>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws >>>>>of physics. >>>> >>>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >>>> creation, >>>> not by whom. >>>> >>>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>>>>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists >>>>>that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>>> >>>> I have ALL that evidence. >>> >>>No you don't, liar. >> >> Creation, >A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. Then begone in a whisper of smoke as you don't exist. >> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. And yours. 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 | 2016-04-10 23:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neeojm$pnh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569505 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:18:08 -0500, duke wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>>> creator. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there >>>>>>>> being NO God. >>>>> >>>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>>Many times over. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. Never. >>>>> >>>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>>> >>>>> I have it. Creation. >>>> >>>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>> >>> Are you now denying creation? >> >>What "now"? I've always denied it. > > Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. Yes. >>>>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known >>>>>>laws of physics. >>>>> >>>>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >>>>> creation, >>>>> not by whom. >>>>> >>>>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims >>>>>>are fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody >>>>>>insists that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all >>>>>>parsimonious, >>>>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> I have ALL that evidence. >>>> >>>>No you don't, liar. >>> >>> Creation, > >>A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. > > Then begone in a whisper of smoke as you don't exist. You talk to the the non-existent? Seek urgent medical help for your psychosis. >>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. > > And yours. What belief do I have, liar earl? > ***** > "Talking to the non-existent is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | 2016-04-11 16:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <su4ogb1jp3jgr124rfvnqi2ggglpt1ahs1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569565 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:18:08 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>>>> creator. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there >>>>>>>>> being NO God. >>>>>> >>>>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>>>Many times over. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. Never. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have it. Creation. >>>>> >>>>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>>> >>>> Are you now denying creation? >>> >>>What "now"? I've always denied it. >> >> Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. > >Yes. God's creation of you is the ONLY reason you exist. >>>>>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known >>>>>>>laws of physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >>>>>> creation, >>>>>> not by whom. >>>>>> >>>>>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims >>>>>>>are fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody >>>>>>>insists that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all >>>>>>>parsimonious, >>>>>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have ALL that evidence. >>>>> >>>>>No you don't, liar. >>>> >>>> Creation, >> >>>A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. >> >> Then begone in a whisper of smoke as you don't exist. >You talk to the the non-existent? >Seek urgent medical help for your psychosis. You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. >>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. >> >> And yours. > >What belief do I have, liar earl? That there is NO God but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. 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 | 2016-04-12 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nejhg7$ofk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569809 |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:19:03 -0500, duke wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:18:08 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>>>>> creator. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there >>>>>>>>>> being NO God. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>>>>Many times over. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. Never. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have it. Creation. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>>>> >>>>> Are you now denying creation? >>>> >>>>What "now"? I've always denied it. >>> >>> Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. >> >>Yes. > > God's creation of you is the ONLY reason you exist. My parents having sex had nothing to do with it? >>>>>>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>>>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>>>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known >>>>>>>>laws of physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism >>>>>>> of creation, >>>>>>> not by whom. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims >>>>>>>>are fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody >>>>>>>>insists that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all >>>>>>>>parsimonious, >>>>>>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have ALL that evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>>No you don't, liar. >>>>> >>>>> Creation, >>> >>>>A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. >>> >>> Then begone in a whisper of smoke as you don't exist. > >>You talk to the the non-existent? >>Seek urgent medical help for your psychosis. > > You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. No. I'm a daddy. >>>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. >>> >>> And yours. >> >>What belief do I have, liar earl? > > That there is NO God I've told you many times that that is not my belief, liar. > but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. As I've no beliefs, what evidence do I need? > ***** > "Telling lies is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | 2016-04-12 14:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l7jqgb9qt94bvecl9jnd5pmoad6ttj26dt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569956 |
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:15:20 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:19:03 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:18:08 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>>>>>> creator. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>>>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there >>>>>>>>>>> being NO God. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>>>>>Many times over. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. Never. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have it. Creation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you now denying creation? >>>>> >>>>>What "now"? I've always denied it. >>>> >>>> Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. >>> >>>Yes. >> >> God's creation of you is the ONLY reason you exist. WHAT FUCKING GOD? >My parents having sex had nothing to do with it? > >>>>>>>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>>>>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>>>>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known >>>>>>>>>laws of physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism >>>>>>>> of creation, >>>>>>>> not by whom. WHAT FUCKING CREATION AND WHAT FUCKING "WHOM"? >>>>>>>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims >>>>>>>>>are fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody >>>>>>>>>insists that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all >>>>>>>>>parsimonious, >>>>>>>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have ALL that evidence. SO EITHER PROVIDE IT OR STOP LYING, PATHOLOGICAL LIAR - BECAUSE YOU AREN'T TALKING AT (NOT WITH) YOURSELF. >>>>>>>No you don't, liar. >>>>>> >>>>>> Creation, WHAT FUCKING CREATION? >>>>>A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. >>>> >>>> Then begone in a whisper of smoke as you don't exist. What a fucking moron. >>>You talk to the the non-existent? >>>Seek urgent medical help for your psychosis. >> >> You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. Idiot. >No. I'm a daddy. A real daddy, not a priest. >>>>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. LIAR. >>>>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. >>>> >>>> And yours. And up yours, in-your-face lying moron. >>>What belief do I have, liar earl? >> >> That there is NO God LIAR. >I've told you many times that that is not my belief, liar. How many times do we have to explain our POV only for him to keep lying about us, to us? When we shouldn't even have had to, in the first place, because it is our own business - not his. >> but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. WHAT FUCKING "OUR BELIEFS" WAS THE PROVEN SERIAL LIAR LYING ABOUT, LET ALONE THOSE THAT HAVE TO BE DEFENDED. We don't waste time and effort believing that something as irrelevant to us as the hypothetical object of his religious beliefs, doesn't exist. Especially when it doesn't even reach the level of something that could or could not exist. The Encarta World Dictionary, print edition's definition of the word "God".... "the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshipped as the only god" In other words, it is only seen as "real" inside those religions - outside them, it is merely somebody else's religious belief. While the belief certainly exists, there is no reason to treat it as any more than that. Which has been explained to the pig-ignorant, lying moron over and over again. >As I've no beliefs, what evidence do I need? > >> ***** >> "Telling lies is the most perfect form of Prayer." >> Pope Paul VI ***** It's certainly almost a sacrament. In spite of the ninth commandment (or the eighth, depending which denomination) onnot bearing false witness. Even though all we see is the lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web