Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #585250 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-17 00:33 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-21 14:06 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-17 00:33 -0700
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-17 11:47 +0000
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-17 08:14 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-17 05:23 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-17 08:33 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-17 05:41 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-17 09:04 -0400
Re: FAITH bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-17 10:36 -0500
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-17 18:26 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-17 23:17 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-17 20:42 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-17 23:47 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-17 20:58 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-18 08:30 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-18 06:23 -0700
Re: FAITH Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 06:33 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-18 09:48 -0400
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 12:17 -0700
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:01 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-18 20:08 -0400
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-18 18:21 -0600
Re: FAITH James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 17:30 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-18 20:38 -0400
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-18 21:11 -0600
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 03:03 -0400
Re: FAITH James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 07:42 -0700
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-18 20:16 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 03:06 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-19 00:53 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 03:57 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-18 20:16 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 20:24 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 23:14 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-19 08:37 +0100
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 03:11 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-19 00:57 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 04:03 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-18 20:15 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 03:25 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-19 00:58 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 04:05 -0400
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 23:05 -0700
Re: FAITH Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-17 13:54 -0500
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-17 19:46 +0000
Re: FAITH bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-17 10:34 -0500
Re: FAITH Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> - 2016-06-17 23:28 -0400
Re: FAITH bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-17 10:33 -0500
Re: FAITH duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-06-17 17:41 -0500
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-18 02:03 +0000
Re: FAITH duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-06-18 11:10 -0500
Re: FAITH Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 02:54 +0000
Re: FAITH djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-06-18 03:12 +0000
Re: FAITH Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 09:34 -0700
Re: FAITH pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-06-18 12:45 -0700
Re: FAITH James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 17:13 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 12:51 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 07:14 -0700
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-20 19:51 +0000
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-20 21:59 +0100
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-21 00:55 +0000
Re: FAITH Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-20 20:26 -0500
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-21 08:08 +0100
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-21 11:01 +0000
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 17:53 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-21 08:05 +0100
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 00:51 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-22 10:56 +0100
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 23:52 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-23 14:33 +0100
Re: FAITH Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-06-23 11:22 -0600
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-24 00:19 +0000
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-24 00:24 +0000
Re: FAITH WangoTango <Asgard24@mindspring.com> - 2016-06-21 14:10 -0400
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-21 15:09 -0700
Re: FAITH Mitchell Holman <noemail@comcast.net> - 2016-06-21 20:57 -0500
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-21 19:21 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-22 08:09 +0100
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 01:07 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 23:44 -0700
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-23 11:24 -0600
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-23 22:54 -0700
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 09:07 -0600
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-24 11:14 -0700
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 12:51 -0600
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-24 13:38 -0700
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 16:45 -0600
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-24 16:44 -0700
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 18:03 -0600
Re: FAITH "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 10:28 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 11:09 -0700
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-20 19:55 +0000
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 18:16 -0700
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-21 11:04 +0000
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-21 05:10 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-21 22:00 -0400
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 00:56 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 00:54 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-22 10:58 +0100
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-22 12:29 +0000
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 23:55 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-23 14:16 +0100
Re: FAITH little brother <andronicus451@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 04:17 -0700
Re: FAITH WangoTango <Asgard24@mindspring.com> - 2016-06-21 14:06 -0400
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 18:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <aaa-12F1E7.18215518062016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #585577 |
In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> You're desperate. > > > >About what? > > For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no satisfactory answers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 17:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1734cc3b-cf51-4ec9-bdec-eee949e20f92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585580 |
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 5:22:06 PM UTC-7, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > >> You're desperate. > > > > > >About what? > > > > For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" > > That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no > satisfactory answers. What was the issue?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 20:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m8qbmb5n9e2jof13ic45baipt5msj319aa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585580 |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 18:21:55 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> You're desperate. >> > >> >About what? >> >> For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" > >That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no >satisfactory answers. JD was the one who said she had evidence. Ask her. Maybe she will answer you; she has run from the question every time I asked it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 21:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <aaa-AC14F5.21115018062016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #585586 |
In article <m8qbmb5n9e2jof13ic45baipt5msj319aa@4ax.com>, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 18:21:55 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > > >In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > >> >> You're desperate. > >> > > >> >About what? > >> > >> For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" > > > >That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no > >satisfactory answers. > > JD was the one who said she had evidence. Ask her. Sufficient absence of reliable evidence for something, when there ought to be such evidence be evidence, can be convincing evidence against it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 03:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7rgcmb5vcl2aqvf8l2if20i1i5frkbfu3c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585620 |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 21:11:50 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >In article <m8qbmb5n9e2jof13ic45baipt5msj319aa@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 18:21:55 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >> >> >In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> > >> >> >> You're desperate. >> >> > >> >> >About what? >> >> >> >> For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" >> > >> >That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no >> >satisfactory answers. >> >> JD was the one who said she had evidence. Ask her. > >Sufficient absence of reliable evidence for something, when there ought >to be such evidence be evidence, can be convincing evidence against it. You didn't ask her. You don't know what this subthread is about, do you? Do you know the difference between "having something to say," and "having to say something?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 07:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c00df6b9-658e-475f-810a-4dbd7a8598af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585620 |
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 8:11:58 PM UTC-7, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > In article <m8qbmb5n9e2jof13ic45baipt5msj319aa@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 18:21:55 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > > > > >In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > > >> >> You're desperate. > > >> > > > >> >About what? > > >> > > >> For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" > > > > > >That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no > > >satisfactory answers. > > > > JD was the one who said she had evidence. Ask her. > > Sufficient absence of reliable evidence for something, when there ought > to be such evidence be evidence, can be convincing evidence against it. Right. When 'everybody' says something exists and nobody can provide the evidence that it does exist one can reasonably conclude that it is a group delusion. IOW, one can reasonably conclude that the thing they all believe does exist is just one of the many things that people generally want to believe. For example, many people want to believe that the moisture in clear moist air is gaseous H2O. In reality it is impossible. Laboratory evidence indicates that gaseous H2O can only exist at temperatures above the boiling point of H2O, which is much hotter than is available in the ambient atmosphere. Belief in "cold steam" is a group delusion. It isn't an empirically determined notion. All meteorologists maintain this belief because without it their models of storm theory are revealed as the genuine nonsense they really are. Science involves facts--not group delusions. James McGinn Solving Tornadoes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 20:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-EDF1DF.20161818062016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #585586 |
In article <m8qbmb5n9e2jof13ic45baipt5msj319aa@4ax.com>, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 18:21:55 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > > >In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > >> >> You're desperate. > >> > > >> >About what? > >> > >> For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" > > > >That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no > >satisfactory answers. > > JD was the one who said she had evidence. Ask her. Evidence for what? -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 03:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <augcmb93es9btbjirmmaui2q27krp81lfe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585623 |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:16:18 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >In article <m8qbmb5n9e2jof13ic45baipt5msj319aa@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 18:21:55 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >> >> >In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> > >> >> >> You're desperate. >> >> > >> >> >About what? >> >> >> >> For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" >> > >> >That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no >> >satisfactory answers. >> >> JD was the one who said she had evidence. Ask her. > >Evidence for what? You mentioned evidence here: :On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: :>Because the evidence you already have points you in the direction you :>try. Don't you know what it was for?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 00:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-99F055.00530119062016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #585644 |
In article <augcmb93es9btbjirmmaui2q27krp81lfe@4ax.com>, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:16:18 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > >In article <m8qbmb5n9e2jof13ic45baipt5msj319aa@4ax.com>, > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 18:21:55 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > >> > >> >In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> You're desperate. > >> >> > > >> >> >About what? > >> >> > >> >> For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" > >> > > >> >That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no > >> >satisfactory answers. > >> > >> JD was the one who said she had evidence. Ask her. > > > >Evidence for what? > > You mentioned evidence here: Yes. And is there is none for any god. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 03:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nujcmbd8kah5eb9sn9a6mggejrq179tg0l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585650 |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:53:01 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >In article <augcmb93es9btbjirmmaui2q27krp81lfe@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:16:18 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >In article <m8qbmb5n9e2jof13ic45baipt5msj319aa@4ax.com>, >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 18:21:55 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> You're desperate. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >About what? >> >> >> >> >> >> For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" >> >> > >> >> >That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no >> >> >satisfactory answers. >> >> >> >> JD was the one who said she had evidence. Ask her. >> > >> >Evidence for what? >> >> You mentioned evidence here: > >Yes. You admit here you claimed the existence of evidence for the starting location when searching for keys. That was the context you snipped. >And is there is none for any god. "If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Someone has an agenda ... and an allergy to the concept of "faith."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 20:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-2BC37A.20160518062016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #585580 |
In article <aaa-12F1E7.18215518062016@news.giganews.com>, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: > In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > >> You're desperate. > > > > > >About what? > > > > For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" > > That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no > satisfactory answers. Somehow he seems to be equating finding one's keys, which actually exist, to finding his god????? Which, of course, has never been shown to exist. Or is he even crazier than that? -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 20:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5766106B.703@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #585622 |
Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > In article <aaa-12F1E7.18215518062016@news.giganews.com>, > Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: > > > In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > > >> You're desperate. > > > > > > > >About what? > > > > > > For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" > > > > That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no > > satisfactory answers. > > Somehow he seems to be equating finding one's keys, which actually > exist, to finding his god????? Which, of course, has never been shown to > exist. > > Or is he even crazier than that? Aliens from other planets have never been shown to exist...but they have.. faith they they exist. Or are they crazy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 23:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5766385C.623D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #585624 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > In article <aaa-12F1E7.18215518062016@news.giganews.com>, > > Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: > > > > > In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > > > > >> You're desperate. > > > > > > > > > >About what? > > > > > > > > For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" > > > > > > That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no > > > satisfactory answers. > > > > Somehow he seems to be equating finding one's keys, which actually > > exist, to finding his god????? Which, of course, has never been shown to > > exist. > > > > Or is he even crazier than that? > > Aliens from other planets have never been shown to exist...but they > have.. faith they they exist. > > Or are they crazy? and this business of 'the search for life on other planets', wats that all about ? Based on faith, not evidence. There is no evidence that life exist on other planets! So why search for it??? There is no evidence that life exist on other planets, but the search continues? Based on what?? If you are going to go by their evidence...then, their evidence say, 'life *could not* possibly exist on other planets'. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Based on their own evidence! But the seach for life on other planets...continue. Those 'science guys' certaintly have a lot of FAITH. It's all they have...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 08:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pohcmb9dlfo5846o402chkora5f1i5qq86@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585639 |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:14:52 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >The Starmaker wrote: >> >> Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> > >> > In article <aaa-12F1E7.18215518062016@news.giganews.com>, >> > Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: >> > >> > > In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, >> > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> You're desperate. >> > > > > >> > > > >About what? >> > > > >> > > > For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" >> > > >> > > That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no >> > > satisfactory answers. >> > >> > Somehow he seems to be equating finding one's keys, which actually >> > exist, to finding his god????? Which, of course, has never been shown to >> > exist. >> > >> > Or is he even crazier than that? >> >> Aliens from other planets have never been shown to exist...but they >> have.. faith they they exist. >> >> Or are they crazy? > > >and this business of 'the search for life on other planets', wats that all about ? Based on faith, not >evidence. There is no evidence that life exist on other planets! So why search for it??? There is no evidence >that life exist on other planets, but the search continues? Based on what?? The need for evidence. > >If you are going to go by their evidence...then, their evidence say, 'life *could not* possibly exist on other planets'. They know life is impossible on many planets but that it may be possible on some others. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11331412/Goldilocks-planet-Deep-in-space-we-may-have-found-our-twin.html > > >It's IMPOSSIBLE. Based on their own evidence! But the seach for life on other planets...continue. See link above > > >Those 'science guys' certaintly have a lot of FAITH. > > >It's all they have... Faith in what? Les Hellawell Greeting from YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County Martin Luther wrote: "Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding Which means that if Luther practised what he preached nothing he ever said made any sense
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 03:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <34hcmb5nkn28n9lju6tri61tn5ealihv3i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585622 |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:16:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >In article <aaa-12F1E7.18215518062016@news.giganews.com>, > Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: > >> In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> > >> You're desperate. >> > > >> > >About what? >> > >> > For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" >> >> That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no >> satisfactory answers. > > >Somehow he seems to be equating finding one's keys, which actually >exist, to finding his god????? Which, of course, has never been shown to >exist. Where did I mention any god? You seem to have an allergic reaction to the word "faith." >Or is he even crazier than that? Is calling your opponent "crazy" your standard reaction to being bettered in an argument?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 00:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-B4CD9A.00573119062016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #585646 |
In article <34hcmb5nkn28n9lju6tri61tn5ealihv3i@4ax.com>, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:16:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > >In article <aaa-12F1E7.18215518062016@news.giganews.com>, > > Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: > > > >> In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> > >> > >> You're desperate. > >> > > > >> > >About what? > >> > > >> > For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" > >> > >> That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no > >> satisfactory answers. > > > > > >Somehow he seems to be equating finding one's keys, which actually > >exist, to finding his god????? Which, of course, has never been shown to > >exist. > > Where did I mention any god? > > You seem to have an allergic reaction to the word "faith." Yes. Yes, I do. Because faith is a very serious character flaw. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 04:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <c6kcmb5j39dllnaevdt8lbsup01or90gue@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585651 |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:57:31 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >In article <34hcmb5nkn28n9lju6tri61tn5ealihv3i@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:16:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >In article <aaa-12F1E7.18215518062016@news.giganews.com>, >> > Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: >> > >> >> In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, >> >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> You're desperate. >> >> > > >> >> > >About what? >> >> > >> >> > For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" >> >> >> >> That is the question that we keep asking, to which you lot have no >> >> satisfactory answers. >> > >> > >> >Somehow he seems to be equating finding one's keys, which actually >> >exist, to finding his god????? Which, of course, has never been shown to >> >exist. >> >> Where did I mention any god? >> >> You seem to have an allergic reaction to the word "faith." > >Yes. Yes, I do. > >Because faith is a very serious character flaw. Well, I won't accuse you of being faithful to consistency and rationality in arguments. There is no character flaw behind declaring opponents to be crazy, is there?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 20:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-625FD3.20150218062016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #585577 |
In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > >In article <edjambls903qn3lefph0tcgg9qmnc1t6kg@4ax.com>, > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:23:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> > >> >In article <22eambddcqj1lmhrl33dj4hltj9cjef5sh@4ax.com>, > >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:58:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >In article <mvg9mblh6am7abrcqf1tf77h7p8p0p4vb2@4ax.com>, > >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:42:20 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >In article <70f9mb17ob4o2n51j7rkutlhrq4c53hkq3@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:26:17 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >In article <16t7mb1ce8o3c938ske7lchbsket5og8rl@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <77q7mb5dlj4lg60vgb84g3at41j6l863eq@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Science doesn't need faith, it has ....evidence. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would one look for evidence if they didn't have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> faith > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> evidence might be found? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Who says they have any such faith? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Who says they don't? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in > >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> basement? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Without faith that the results might be better in one place > >> >> >> >> >> >> than > >> >> >> >> >> >> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Because the evidence you already have points you in the > >> >> >> >> >> >direction > >> >> >> >> >> >you > >> >> >> >> >> >try. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> What evidence? > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> If you had evidence, you would have the keys. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> How do you know a raccoon hasn't carried the keys from your > >> >> >> >> >> basement > >> >> >> >> >> to your neighbor's roof? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Wow, you're really desperate, aren't you? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The weakness of your position > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >What "weakness"? > >> >> >> >\ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It was illustrated in the parts of the post you snipped. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why did you snip the parts you didn't like? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If you don't know where the keys are, you don't know that a raccoon > >> >> >> didn't run off with them. > >> >> > > >> >> >What is your obsession with raccoons? > >> >> > >> >> What is your obsession with trying to deflect? > >> >> > >> >> You are desperate to reset the conversation to a point where you can > >> >> take some new approach aren't you? > >> >> > >> >> You got pwnd in the argument as it unfolded and now you are trying to > >> >> run away with attempts to to make light of irrelevant minutia. > >> >> > >> >> Here is where you started running in earnest (after the warmup with at > >> >> least one previous wannabe-deflecting question): > >> >> > >> >> :On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:04:28 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > >> >> :>On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> :>>In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, > >> >> :>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> :>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> :>>> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in the > >> >> :>>> basement? > >> >> :>>> Without faith that the results might be better in one place than > >> >> :>>> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? > >> >> :>>Because the evidence you already have points you in the direction > >> >> :>>you > >> >> :>>try. > >> >> :>What evidence? > >> >> > >> >> You didn't answer that question. Why not? Maybe because it was a > >> >> bullshit claim. > >> >> > >> >> If your faith in your reconstruction of events from your fallible > >> >> memory points you to searching in the basement, what is your > >> >> "evidence" that the keys are still there? > >> > > >> >Finding them there. > >> > >> Now you're time traveling. And you called me desperate for mentioning > >> a raccoon. > >> > >> Taking things a step at a time for those among us who are the slow, > >> and in chronological order for those without a time machine: > >> > >> 1. You lost your keys (for the exceptionally slow among us, that means > >> you don't know where they are -- in the present). > >> 2. Why would you look for your keys in the basement without faith that > >> you might find them there? > > > >Because I didn't find them anywhere else I looked. > > So you looked other places first. > > What happened to your "evidence" here when I asked about where to > *start* the search? What the fuck are you talking about? You start the search where you remember being with the keys, then you move on to places you don't; remember but make sense, then on to crazy places. I really don't have a clue what evidence has to do with finding my keys (which I never lose because they go right on the doorknob when I walk in the door) or what you're trying to prove. > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in the > >> basement? > >> Without faith that the results might be better in one place than > >> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? > >Because the evidence you already have points you in the direction you > >try. > > So you acted contrary to your "evidence" and started your search > elsewhere. And you call me insane. What evidence is necessary to find one's keys? What the fuck are you talking about? > You are not acquitting yourself well. > > Maybe you should admit defeat and quit. Defeat for what? > "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." What hole? > >> Again, for the slow among those of us who experience time moving in > >> only one direction, you haven't found them yet -- they are still lost > >> as you decide where to start looking for them. > > > >You start with the most likely places and then you move to the unlikely > >places. > > So the most likely place was *not* the basement ... because? Because I don't have a basement. What the fuck are you trying to prove? > >Why have you turned this basic activity into insanity? > > Why have you turned the request for a simple answer into further > embarrassment for yourself? > > I asked "what evidence" and you have spewed irrelevancies. > > Yo0u didn't have "evidence" did you? You only had faith concerning the > most likely place to find the keys; and you denied even that faith by > starting your search somewhere else. What evidence is necessary to find one's keys? What faith is necessary to find one's keys? You make absolutely no sense. > >> >You're insane. > >> > >> You're desperate. > > > >About what? > > For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" You still haven't explained why evidence is necessary to find one's own keys. > >> The word despicable might occur to some. > > > >For what? > > Ask them. > > You do want to know, don't you? I'd like to know what the fuck you're doing and what you think you're proving. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 03:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6ehcmb9picdfgrsqssl05ptf147h3lv6nf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585621 |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:15:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >In article <edjambls903qn3lefph0tcgg9qmnc1t6kg@4ax.com>, >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:23:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <22eambddcqj1lmhrl33dj4hltj9cjef5sh@4ax.com>, >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:58:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <mvg9mblh6am7abrcqf1tf77h7p8p0p4vb2@4ax.com>, >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:42:20 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <70f9mb17ob4o2n51j7rkutlhrq4c53hkq3@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:26:17 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <16t7mb1ce8o3c938ske7lchbsket5og8rl@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <77q7mb5dlj4lg60vgb84g3at41j6l863eq@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Science doesn't need faith, it has ....evidence. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would one look for evidence if they didn't have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> faith >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> evidence might be found? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Who says they have any such faith? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Who says they don't? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> basement? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Without faith that the results might be better in one place >> >> >> >> >> >> >> than >> >> >> >> >> >> >> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Because the evidence you already have points you in the >> >> >> >> >> >> >direction >> >> >> >> >> >> >you >> >> >> >> >> >> >try. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What evidence? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you had evidence, you would have the keys. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How do you know a raccoon hasn't carried the keys from your >> >> >> >> >> >> basement >> >> >> >> >> >> to your neighbor's roof? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Wow, you're really desperate, aren't you? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The weakness of your position >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >What "weakness"? >> >> >> >> >\ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It was illustrated in the parts of the post you snipped. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why did you snip the parts you didn't like? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you don't know where the keys are, you don't know that a raccoon >> >> >> >> didn't run off with them. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >What is your obsession with raccoons? >> >> >> >> >> >> What is your obsession with trying to deflect? >> >> >> >> >> >> You are desperate to reset the conversation to a point where you can >> >> >> take some new approach aren't you? >> >> >> >> >> >> You got pwnd in the argument as it unfolded and now you are trying to >> >> >> run away with attempts to to make light of irrelevant minutia. >> >> >> >> >> >> Here is where you started running in earnest (after the warmup with at >> >> >> least one previous wannabe-deflecting question): >> >> >> >> >> >> :On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:04:28 -0400, Wally W. wrote: >> >> >> :>On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> :>>In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, >> >> >> :>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> :>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> :>>> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in the >> >> >> :>>> basement? >> >> >> :>>> Without faith that the results might be better in one place than >> >> >> :>>> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? >> >> >> :>>Because the evidence you already have points you in the direction >> >> >> :>>you >> >> >> :>>try. >> >> >> :>What evidence? >> >> >> >> >> >> You didn't answer that question. Why not? Maybe because it was a >> >> >> bullshit claim. >> >> >> >> >> >> If your faith in your reconstruction of events from your fallible >> >> >> memory points you to searching in the basement, what is your >> >> >> "evidence" that the keys are still there? >> >> > >> >> >Finding them there. >> >> >> >> Now you're time traveling. And you called me desperate for mentioning >> >> a raccoon. >> >> >> >> Taking things a step at a time for those among us who are the slow, >> >> and in chronological order for those without a time machine: >> >> >> >> 1. You lost your keys (for the exceptionally slow among us, that means >> >> you don't know where they are -- in the present). >> >> 2. Why would you look for your keys in the basement without faith that >> >> you might find them there? >> > >> >Because I didn't find them anywhere else I looked. >> >> So you looked other places first. >> >> What happened to your "evidence" here when I asked about where to >> *start* the search? > >What the fuck are you talking about? You start the search where you >remember being with the keys, then you move on to places you don't; >remember but make sense, then on to crazy places. If that isn't taking action based on **faith** in your fallible memory of where you might have left your keys, then what is it? >I really don't have a clue what evidence has to do with finding my keys >(which I never lose because they go right on the doorknob when I walk in >the door) or what you're trying to prove. Then why did you claim there was evidence here? :On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: :>Because the evidence you already have points you in the direction you :>try. Now you say evidence has nothing to do with it. How many more sides of your mouth will you be speaking from? >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in the >> >> basement? >> >> Without faith that the results might be better in one place than >> >> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? >> >Because the evidence you already have points you in the direction you >> >try. >> >> So you acted contrary to your "evidence" and started your search >> elsewhere. And you call me insane. > >What evidence is necessary to find one's keys? What the fuck are you >talking about? Again, **you** said there was evidence. Go argue that point with yourself. I claim **faith** in one's fallible memory informs the selection of a place to start looking for one's keys. Are you **so** allergic to the existence of **faith** that you want to take issue with that? >> You are not acquitting yourself well. >> >> Maybe you should admit defeat and quit. > >Defeat for what? Prepositions aren't your strong suit, are they? >> "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." > >What hole? > > > >> >> Again, for the slow among those of us who experience time moving in >> >> only one direction, you haven't found them yet -- they are still lost >> >> as you decide where to start looking for them. >> > >> >You start with the most likely places and then you move to the unlikely >> >places. >> >> So the most likely place was *not* the basement ... because? > >Because I don't have a basement. What the fuck are you trying to prove? > > >> >Why have you turned this basic activity into insanity? >> >> Why have you turned the request for a simple answer into further >> embarrassment for yourself? >> >> I asked "what evidence" and you have spewed irrelevancies. >> >> Yo0u didn't have "evidence" did you? You only had faith concerning the >> most likely place to find the keys; and you denied even that faith by >> starting your search somewhere else. > >What evidence is necessary to find one's keys? What faith is necessary >to find one's keys? You make absolutely no sense. Why would you **start** looking in one place rather than another if you didn't have **faith** that it was a very likely place to find them. Maybe I should rephrase that: Why would a rational person **start** ... ... because you seem to be spun up in some frenzy over the notion of **faith**. >> >> >You're insane. >> >> >> >> You're desperate. >> > >> >About what? >> >> For one, to deflect attention from the question, "what evidence?" > >You still haven't explained why evidence is necessary to find one's own >keys. I didn't say it was ... that was you. I said: :On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:04:28 -0400, Wally W. wrote: :>What evidence? :> :>If you had evidence, you would have the keys. >> >> The word despicable might occur to some. >> > >> >For what? >> >> Ask them. >> >> You do want to know, don't you? > >I'd like to know what the fuck you're doing and what you think you're >proving. I think your behaviour is doing the "proving." This seem to set you off: :On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:14:04 -0400, Wally W. wrote: :>On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler wrote: :>>Science doesn't need faith, it has ....evidence. :>Why would one look for evidence if they didn't have faith that :>evidence might be found?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 00:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-8A0322.00585319062016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #585648 |
In article <6ehcmb9picdfgrsqssl05ptf147h3lv6nf@4ax.com>, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:15:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > >In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> > >> >In article <edjambls903qn3lefph0tcgg9qmnc1t6kg@4ax.com>, > >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:23:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >In article <22eambddcqj1lmhrl33dj4hltj9cjef5sh@4ax.com>, > >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:58:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >In article <mvg9mblh6am7abrcqf1tf77h7p8p0p4vb2@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:42:20 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >In article <70f9mb17ob4o2n51j7rkutlhrq4c53hkq3@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:26:17 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >In article <16t7mb1ce8o3c938ske7lchbsket5og8rl@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><77q7mb5dlj4lg60vgb84g3at41j6l863eq@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Science doesn't need faith, it has ....evidence. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would one look for evidence if they didn't have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> faith > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> evidence might be found? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Who says they have any such faith? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Who says they don't? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> basement? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Without faith that the results might be better in one > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> place > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> than > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> search? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Because the evidence you already have points you in the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >direction > >> >> >> >> >> >> >you > >> >> >> >> >> >> >try. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> What evidence? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> If you had evidence, you would have the keys. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> How do you know a raccoon hasn't carried the keys from your > >> >> >> >> >> >> basement > >> >> >> >> >> >> to your neighbor's roof? > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Wow, you're really desperate, aren't you? > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> The weakness of your position > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >What "weakness"? > >> >> >> >> >\ > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It was illustrated in the parts of the post you snipped. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Why did you snip the parts you didn't like? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> If you don't know where the keys are, you don't know that a > >> >> >> >> raccoon > >> >> >> >> didn't run off with them. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >What is your obsession with raccoons? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What is your obsession with trying to deflect? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You are desperate to reset the conversation to a point where you can > >> >> >> take some new approach aren't you? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You got pwnd in the argument as it unfolded and now you are trying > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> run away with attempts to to make light of irrelevant minutia. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Here is where you started running in earnest (after the warmup with > >> >> >> at > >> >> >> least one previous wannabe-deflecting question): > >> >> >> > >> >> >> :On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:04:28 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > >> >> >> :>On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> >> :>>In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> :>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> >> >> :>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >> >> >> :>>> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in the > >> >> >> :>>> basement? > >> >> >> :>>> Without faith that the results might be better in one place > >> >> >> :>>> than > >> >> >> :>>> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? > >> >> >> :>>Because the evidence you already have points you in the direction > >> >> >> :>>you > >> >> >> :>>try. > >> >> >> :>What evidence? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You didn't answer that question. Why not? Maybe because it was a > >> >> >> bullshit claim. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If your faith in your reconstruction of events from your fallible > >> >> >> memory points you to searching in the basement, what is your > >> >> >> "evidence" that the keys are still there? > >> >> > > >> >> >Finding them there. > >> >> > >> >> Now you're time traveling. And you called me desperate for mentioning > >> >> a raccoon. > >> >> > >> >> Taking things a step at a time for those among us who are the slow, > >> >> and in chronological order for those without a time machine: > >> >> > >> >> 1. You lost your keys (for the exceptionally slow among us, that means > >> >> you don't know where they are -- in the present). > >> >> 2. Why would you look for your keys in the basement without faith that > >> >> you might find them there? > >> > > >> >Because I didn't find them anywhere else I looked. > >> > >> So you looked other places first. > >> > >> What happened to your "evidence" here when I asked about where to > >> *start* the search? > > > >What the fuck are you talking about? You start the search where you > >remember being with the keys, then you move on to places you don't; > >remember but make sense, then on to crazy places. > > If that isn't taking action based on **faith** in your fallible memory > of where you might have left your keys, then what is it? What faith? You're playing stupid word games. Bored. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web