Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #570143 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-13 10:23 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-04-14 05:15 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 247 — 24 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? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-13 10:23 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 14:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-13 16:25 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-13 17:15 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:09 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-14 11:42 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-14 15:58 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-21 15:30 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-14 12:41 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-04-14 13:55 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-14 15:53 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:34 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-21 15:58 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-14 15:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-15 09:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-17 12:12 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-17 17:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-21 15:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-04-21 15:51 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-21 17:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-21 22:19 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-24 12:53 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-24 13:54 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-04-24 13:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Apollyon <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 13:15 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-24 23:06 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-25 09:47 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-26 14:42 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-27 15:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-27 14:47 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-27 18:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-27 18:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 03:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-28 15:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-28 11:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 10:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-28 14:32 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:07 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-29 12:25 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-29 16:37 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-28 19:48 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-29 13:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-04-29 14:45 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-30 09:06 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 11:16 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-28 14:30 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 13:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 14:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-28 16:12 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-28 19:41 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 21:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-28 23:51 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-28 16:05 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:13 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:10 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 14:00 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-28 19:36 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-29 03:39 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-29 00:45 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-29 15:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-29 13:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-29 12:31 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-29 14:36 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-01 13:11 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-01 13:15 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-29 15:04 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-26 16:46 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? bilgat@m.nu - 2016-04-28 08:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 11:25 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-28 11:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-28 11:39 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-29 13:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Apollyon <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 11:28 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-29 14:40 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-30 09:11 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-30 17:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-01 09:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-01 16:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-03 12:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-05-03 11:55 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 15:59 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-03 23:04 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 16:00 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-05 19:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-07 07:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 16:15 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-07 14:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-08 00:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-07 17:33 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-07 17:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-11 14:02 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 00:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-12 08:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 18:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-13 17:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-14 02:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-15 16:05 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-16 22:14 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-17 06:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Mitchell Holman <noemail@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 07:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-17 23:21 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-18 03:30 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 11:26 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 12:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:03 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 17:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 21:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-20 11:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 17:59 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-21 07:41 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-21 18:44 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-22 07:55 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-22 10:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-22 10:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-22 17:12 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-23 15:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-23 22:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:01 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 17:27 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 21:35 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-20 12:00 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 18:00 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-05-18 16:01 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 17:29 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-05-18 16:08 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 18:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-19 17:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 03:45 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:13 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:05 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 00:59 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 12:49 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:06 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-20 11:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 18:01 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 01:00 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-20 12:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 18:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-21 07:42 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-21 18:45 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-22 07:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-22 10:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-22 10:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-22 17:14 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-23 15:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-23 22:45 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-18 15:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 16:08 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-18 15:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 01:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-05-18 15:57 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-17 16:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-08 00:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-30 17:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-01 09:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-01 16:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-03 12:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-03 22:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-04 16:01 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? orobos287@gmail.com - 2016-05-05 07:16 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-05 19:43 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-07 07:46 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-08 00:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-05-07 18:06 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-08 16:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-08 11:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-09 01:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-05-09 13:41 +1000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-05-09 05:02 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-05-08 17:15 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-11 14:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 00:23 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-12 08:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 18:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-13 17:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-14 02:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-15 16:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-16 22:08 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-17 06:42 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-17 16:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-19 19:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-11 14:07 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 00:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-12 08:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-12 18:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-13 17:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-14 02:23 +0000
(no, he doesnt) (yes, he does) BANG BANG The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-14 11:29 -0700
(no, he doesnt) (yes, he does) BANG BANG The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-14 11:43 -0700
Santa The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-14 11:51 -0700
Re: Santa The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-14 13:29 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-15 16:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-16 22:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-17 06:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-17 16:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-17 15:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-18 15:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 15:57 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:14 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-18 15:59 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 01:03 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-20 12:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-20 18:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-21 07:43 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-18 14:14 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-19 19:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-19 16:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-20 00:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-20 12:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-21 17:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-22 10:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-14 03:29 -0400
Atheist have fishy eyes. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-14 10:45 -0700
Re: Atheist have fishy eyes. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-14 10:58 -0700
Re: Atheists have eyes. Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-05-14 12:55 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-15 16:17 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-15 19:00 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-16 13:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-05-17 02:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-17 06:41 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? JimmyJohn <Non@Jtheist.net> - 2016-05-01 10:14 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-13 18:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 21:07 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-13 21:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-14 12:01 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 12:16 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-14 12:52 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-14 12:49 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 12:12 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-14 11:50 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-14 05:15 -0400
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 10:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? |
| Message-ID | <4jlsgb1cfvrfkkr924f31cn1nf3uo5o57t@4ax.com> |
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: >>>You're that much closer to the flames. >>> >> >>I do intend to be cremated, remember? > >That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. More superstition-based threats. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 14:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8v7tgbd0ut9n5jocf2rmp7cdga9407a5u2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #570143 |
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >alt.atheism with message-id ><9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: > >>>>You're that much closer to the flames. >>>> >>> >>>I do intend to be cremated, remember? >> >>That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. > >More superstition-based threats. Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't win. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 16:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #570227 |
On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>> alt.atheism with message-id
>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember?
>>>
>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist.
>>
>> More superstition-based threats.
>
> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't win.
You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the
guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects
of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should
anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same
problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it).
Besides, it's not "God". It's "Zod". Kneel!
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 17:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pilgrim2-C9A524.17151613042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570248 |
In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > >> alt.atheism with message-id > >> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: > >> > >>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? > >>> > >>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. > >> > >> More superstition-based threats. > > > > Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't > > win. > > You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the > guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects > of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should > anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same > problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). > AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying? -- http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 05:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-10C78C.05093014042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570305 |
In article <pilgrim2-C9A524.17151613042016@news.giganews.com>, Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> wrote: > In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > > On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: > > > On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > > >> alt.atheism with message-id > > >> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? > > >>> > > >>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. > > >> > > >> More superstition-based threats. > > > > > > Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't > > > win. > > > > You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the > > guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects > > of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should > > anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same > > problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). > > > AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so > loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever > believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 > KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying? Nothing that means a damned thing in the real world. -- JD "If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 11:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <neodom$ll5$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #570305 |
In article <pilgrim2-C9A524.17151613042016@news.giganews.com>, Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> said: > AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so > loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever > believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 > KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying? Basically, "I'm God, and I approved this propaganda piece." -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 15:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pilgrim2-090FD6.15583714042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570416 |
In article <neodom$ll5$1@panix2.panix.com>, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: > In article <pilgrim2-C9A524.17151613042016@news.giganews.com>, > Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> said: > > > AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so > > loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever > > believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 > > KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying? > > Basically, "I'm God, and I approved this propaganda piece." > > -- wds REJECTED. I have a good sense of humor but we were being serious. The verity of the 66 books of the Bible is the most important truth on the planet. If God was joking or for any reason does not do what he says I am SOL and you are too. > "The Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb 4:12 KJV) Jimbo -- http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 15:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfb9p0$8cj$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #570559 |
In article <pilgrim2-090FD6.15583714042016@news.giganews.com>, Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> said: > REJECTED. I have a good sense of humor but we were being serious. > The verity of the 66 books of the Bible is the most important > truth on the planet. No, it might be the most important *question* on the planet (though probably not since Islam's numerical advantage should make "Are all the sections of the Koran true?" more important) but calling it a truth is just a tad arbitrary. > If God was joking or for any reason does not do what he says I am > SOL and you are too. Not as much trouble as we're in if he's telling the truth. Based on his own documentation the man's a malignant narcissist with infinite power. I can understand worshipping him out of sheer pants-wetting terror at not being on his good side, but how can anybody *love* that asshole? (Aside from Stockholm Syndrome, anyway.) -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 12:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #570305 |
On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote:
> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>> alt.atheism with message-id
>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist.
>>>>
>>>> More superstition-based threats.
>>>
>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't
>>> win.
>>
>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the
>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects
>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should
>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same
>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it).
>>
> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so
> loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever
> believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3
> KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying?
>
Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably written
in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another language
(Aramaic?). So I'm not sure that it's even coming close to the original
meaning. If *I* were reading that, my question would be "then where are
all these immortal people that should be around?", since anyone who
believed in Jesus and his God should be still alive.
Note that my personal view is that of someone raised with no awareness
of active religion until I was in my very late teens or early 20s, so
that as far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the Bible and
my D'Aulaire's Greek Myths or Grimm's Fairy Tales. They're stories
people told that had significance to them, but exactly how they
connected with anything real is often unknown, and sometimes unknowable.
If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll have
to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a way that
made just believing in them without evidence (and old books without
scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 13:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1i7s3lhajloa0.m1lk11n803j$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #570445 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:41:19 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in<news:neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me> in alt.atheism,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astronomy: > On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: >> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, >> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: >>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>>> alt.atheism with message-id >>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. >>>>> >>>>> More superstition-based threats. >>>> >>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't >>>> win. >>> >>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the >>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects >>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should >>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same >>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). >>> >> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the >> text: "God so loved the world that he gave his only >> begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not >> perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 KJV) This is >> the English of the 1600s. Actually, in the authorized edition of 1611 it reads: ¶ For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. And this was already slightly archaic compared with the early 17th century vernacular language. >> What is he saying? > Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was > probably written in what, Greek or Latin, and that was > translated from another language (Aramaic?). It was written in Greek. The best guess is that it was written around the year 100 CE, give or take a decade. It was an original composition. It drew on a variety of sources, including Greek philosophical tradition. [...] Brian -- It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss, haggisss.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 15:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pilgrim2-8ED343.15531014042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570461 |
In article <1i7s3lhajloa0.m1lk11n803j$.dlg@40tude.net>, "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:41:19 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. > Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote > in<news:neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me> in > alt.atheism,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astrono > my: > > > On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > >> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, > >> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > >>>>> alt.atheism with message-id > >>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. > >>>>> > >>>>> More superstition-based threats. > >>>> > >>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you > >>>> can't > >>>> win. > >>> > >>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the > >>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects > >>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should > >>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same > >>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). > >>> > > >> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the > >> text: "God so loved the world that he gave his only > >> begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not > >> perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 KJV) This is > >> the English of the 1600s. > > Actually, in the authorized edition of 1611 it reads: > > ś For God so loued ţe world, that he gaue his only > begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, > should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. > > And this was already slightly archaic compared with the > early 17th century vernacular language. > > >> What is he saying? > > > Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was > > probably written in what, Greek or Latin, and that was > > translated from another language (Aramaic?). > > It was written in Greek. The best guess is that it was > written around the year 100 CE, give or take a decade. It > was an original composition. It drew on a variety of > sources, including Greek philosophical tradition. > > [...] > > Brian NOT ENOUGH. AS I asked the other poster. What does the text say? How do you interpret the passage? Both of you are ignoring the message because you are pricked in your heart and convinced of the verity of the Bible. -- http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nep9dm$ct2$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #570558 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:53:10 -0700, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > In article <1i7s3lhajloa0.m1lk11n803j$.dlg@40tude.net>, > "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:41:19 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. >> Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote >> in<news:neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me> in >> alt.atheism,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astrono >> my: >> >> > On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: >> >> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, >> >> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: >> >>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >> >>>>> alt.atheism with message-id >> >>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> More superstition-based threats. >> >>>> >> >>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and >> >>>> you can't win. >> >>> >> >>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are >> >>> the >> >>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many >> >>> sects of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why >> >>> should anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The >> >>> Bible" -- same problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations >> >>> of it). >> >>> >> >>> >> >> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so >> >> loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever >> >> believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John >> >> 3 KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. >> >> Actually, in the authorized edition of 1611 it reads: >> >> ¶ For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: >> that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue >> euerlasting life. >> >> And this was already slightly archaic compared with the early 17th >> century vernacular language. >> >> >> What is he saying? >> >> > Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably >> > written in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another >> > language (Aramaic?). >> >> It was written in Greek. The best guess is that it was written around >> the year 100 CE, give or take a decade. It was an original >> composition. It drew on a variety of sources, including Greek >> philosophical tradition. >> >> [...] >> >> Brian > NOT ENOUGH. AS I asked the other poster. What does the text say? Who gives a flying fuck what a fairy tale says? > How do you interpret the passage? Why would anyone sane want to interpret a passage in a fairy tale? > Both of you are ignoring the message because It's bullshit. > you are pricked in your heart and convinced of the verity of the > Bible. Your prick is attached to your head, dickhead. -- 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 | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 15:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfbbce$jf6$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #570558 |
In article <pilgrim2-8ED343.15531014042016@news.giganews.com>, Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> said: > NOT ENOUGH. AS I asked the other poster. What does the text say? > How do you interpret the passage? Both of you are ignoring the > message because you are pricked in your heart and convinced of the > verity of the Bible. If we don't have reason to believe that the message came from some supernatural entity that we should be worried about, then figuring out what it _means_ is just an academic exercise on the same order as arguing Kirk vs. Picard. Except that Star Trek was at least occasionally *interesting*, while your holy book is mostly just a bad read. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 15:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pilgrim2-668ADA.15464314042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570445 |
In article <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > > In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, > > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > > >> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: > >>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > >>>> alt.atheism with message-id > >>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? > >>>>> > >>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. > >>>> > >>>> More superstition-based threats. > >>> > >>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't > >>> win. > >> > >> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the > >> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects > >> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should > >> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same > >> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). > >> > > AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so > > loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever > > believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 > > KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying? > > > > Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably written > in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another language > (Aramaic?). So I'm not sure that it's even coming close to the original > meaning. If *I* were reading that, my question would be "then where are > all these immortal people that should be around?", since anyone who > believed in Jesus and his God should be still alive. > > > Note that my personal view is that of someone raised with no awareness > of active religion until I was in my very late teens or early 20s, so > that as far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the Bible and > my D'Aulaire's Greek Myths or Grimm's Fairy Tales. They're stories > people told that had significance to them, but exactly how they > connected with anything real is often unknown, and sometimes unknowable. > > If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll have > to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a way that > made just believing in them without evidence (and old books without > scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible. > NOT ENOUGH You stated <sic>so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). I ask again WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION? (John 3:16 above) Jimbo -- http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 09:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <neqrdo$git$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #570557 |
On 4/14/16 6:46 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote:
> In article <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote:
>>> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>>> alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More superstition-based threats.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't
>>>>> win.
>>>>
>>>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the
>>>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects
>>>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should
>>>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same
>>>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it).
>>>>
>>> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so
>>> loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever
>>> believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3
>>> KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying?
>>>
>>
>> Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably written
>> in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another language
>> (Aramaic?). So I'm not sure that it's even coming close to the original
>> meaning. If *I* were reading that, my question would be "then where are
>> all these immortal people that should be around?", since anyone who
>> believed in Jesus and his God should be still alive.
>>
>>
>> Note that my personal view is that of someone raised with no awareness
>> of active religion until I was in my very late teens or early 20s, so
>> that as far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the Bible and
>> my D'Aulaire's Greek Myths or Grimm's Fairy Tales. They're stories
>> people told that had significance to them, but exactly how they
>> connected with anything real is often unknown, and sometimes unknowable.
>>
>> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll have
>> to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a way that
>> made just believing in them without evidence (and old books without
>> scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible.
>>
> NOT ENOUGH You stated <sic>so many Bible versions and interpretations of
> it). I ask again WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION? (John 3:16 above)
> Jimbo
>
I did, if you read above. My interpretation would be "Believe in this
guy and you will be immortal". Which leads me to the question of where
all those immortal people are, since surely SOME people must have
believed in the two thousand years or so since.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 12:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pilgrim2-92C078.12122117042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570696 |
In article <neqrdo$git$1@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > On 4/14/16 6:46 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > > In article <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me>, > > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > > >> On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > >>> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, > >>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > >>>>>> alt.atheism with message-id > >>>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> More superstition-based threats. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you > >>>>> can't > >>>>> win. > >>>> > >>>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the > >>>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects > >>>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should > >>>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same > >>>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). > >>>> > >>> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so > >>> loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever > >>> believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 > >>> KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying? > >>> > >> > >> Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably written > >> in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another language > >> (Aramaic?). So I'm not sure that it's even coming close to the original > >> meaning. If *I* were reading that, my question would be "then where are > >> all these immortal people that should be around?", since anyone who > >> believed in Jesus and his God should be still alive. > >> > >> > >> Note that my personal view is that of someone raised with no awareness > >> of active religion until I was in my very late teens or early 20s, so > >> that as far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the Bible and > >> my D'Aulaire's Greek Myths or Grimm's Fairy Tales. They're stories > >> people told that had significance to them, but exactly how they > >> connected with anything real is often unknown, and sometimes unknowable. > >> > >> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll have > >> to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a way that > >> made just believing in them without evidence (and old books without > >> scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible. > >> > > NOT ENOUGH You stated <sic>so many Bible versions and interpretations of > > it). I ask again WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION? (John 3:16 above) > > Jimbo > > > > > I did, if you read above. My interpretation would be "Believe in this > guy and you will be immortal". Which leads me to the question of where > all those immortal people are, since surely SOME people must have > believed in the two thousand years or so since. > AGREED (your interpretation) although it is a little rough. Jimbo -- http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 17:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57143113.2F64@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #571212 |
Kaptain Krunch wrote: > > In article <neqrdo$git$1@dont-email.me>, > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > > On 4/14/16 6:46 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > > > In article <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me>, > > > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > > >>> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, > > >>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: > > >>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > > >>>>>> alt.atheism with message-id > > >>>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> More superstition-based threats. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you > > >>>>> can't > > >>>>> win. > > >>>> > > >>>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the > > >>>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects > > >>>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should > > >>>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same > > >>>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). > > >>>> > > >>> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so > > >>> loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever > > >>> believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 > > >>> KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying? > > >>> > > >> > > >> Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably written > > >> in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another language > > >> (Aramaic?). So I'm not sure that it's even coming close to the original > > >> meaning. If *I* were reading that, my question would be "then where are > > >> all these immortal people that should be around?", since anyone who > > >> believed in Jesus and his God should be still alive. > > >> > > >> > > >> Note that my personal view is that of someone raised with no awareness > > >> of active religion until I was in my very late teens or early 20s, so > > >> that as far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the Bible and > > >> my D'Aulaire's Greek Myths or Grimm's Fairy Tales. They're stories > > >> people told that had significance to them, but exactly how they > > >> connected with anything real is often unknown, and sometimes unknowable. > > >> > > >> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll have > > >> to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a way that > > >> made just believing in them without evidence (and old books without > > >> scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible. > > >> > > > NOT ENOUGH You stated <sic>so many Bible versions and interpretations of > > > it). I ask again WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION? (John 3:16 above) > > > Jimbo > > > > > > > > > I did, if you read above. My interpretation would be "Believe in this > > guy and you will be immortal". Which leads me to the question of where > > all those immortal people are, since surely SOME people must have > > believed in the two thousand years or so since. I bet you look like your parents...why is that? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 15:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfbaos$brh$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #570445 |
In article <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me>,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll
> have to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a
> way that made just believing in them without evidence (and old
> books without scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible.
But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? I think
that logically it's impossible[1] -- all any being could *prove* is
that can do some things that we can't (yet). Any alleged proof that
he is some *specific* person, e.g., the Yahoo-Wahoo of biblical
fame, *must* fail because we possess the meta-knowledge that a
sufficiently powerful being can produce perfect forgeries --
'perfect' in the sense that it's far beyond our ability to detect it
as counterfeit -- of any evidence we might ask for, up to and
including a library card that says "God".
(And that's leaving out entirely the additional meta-knowledge we
possess that any sufficiently powerful being could simply rewrite
our minds so that we *think* he's presented us with perfect evidence
of his identity, or of anything else he might want us to believe.)
-----------
*1: Bringing us to the *delightful* paradox that if God really is
as all-powerful as his documentation claims then by definition
the one thing he *can't* do is prove that he's God... :-)
-- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 15:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <naednfFfsNvRoITKnZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #572183 |
On 2016-04-21, William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said: >> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll >> have to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a >> way that made just believing in them without evidence (and old >> books without scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible. > > But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? I think > that logically it's impossible[1] -- all any being could *prove* is > that can do some things that we can't (yet). Any alleged proof that > he is some *specific* person, e.g., the Yahoo-Wahoo of biblical > fame, *must* fail because we possess the meta-knowledge that a > sufficiently powerful being can produce perfect forgeries -- > 'perfect' in the sense that it's far beyond our ability to detect it > as counterfeit -- of any evidence we might ask for, up to and > including a library card that says "God". > > (And that's leaving out entirely the additional meta-knowledge we > possess that any sufficiently powerful being could simply rewrite > our minds so that we *think* he's presented us with perfect evidence > of his identity, or of anything else he might want us to believe.) > > ----------- > *1: Bringing us to the *delightful* paradox that if God really is > as all-powerful as his documentation claims then by definition > the one thing he *can't* do is prove that he's God... :-) Which brings in the theological version of set theory's Reflection Principle, by St. Gregory (though Rudy Rucker is where I found it, not in his SF either) - "No matter how far our mind may have progressed in the contemplation of God, it does not attain to what He is, but to what is beneath him.". The principle here being that we can't actually fully imagine Him, it's too big a concept; anything we imagine - and thus any test one could imagine to disprove God-ness - could also be fitted by (or gotten around by) entities on a lesser scale. (I'd sorta like to hear Dorothy's thoughts on this also; not only because I don't think we've heard from her for a few days, but cuz this touches on some of her areas, AND cuz I wanna know how the Interior Life Webhome Insertion Project is going.) Dave, very hard to get to from below -- \/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 17:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfbfv9$73c$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #572203 |
In article <naednfFfsNvRoITKnZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@earthlink.com>, David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> said: > Which brings in the theological version of set theory's Reflection > Principle, by St. Gregory (though Rudy Rucker is where I found it, > not in his SF either) - "No matter how far our mind may have > progressed in the contemplation of God, it does not attain to what > He is, but to what is beneath him.". The principle here being that > we can't actually fully imagine Him, it's too big a concept; > anything we imagine - and thus any test one could imagine to > disprove God-ness - could also be fitted by (or gotten around by) > entities on a lesser scale. Interesting that St. Gregory saw the effect as a limitation in Man, where I see it as a limitation of God... -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web