Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.skeptic > #109693 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mur@. |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-14 00:52 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-12-22 22:52 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 468 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.skeptic
www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love mur@. - 2015-12-14 00:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-12-15 03:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-15 10:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-12-17 00:10 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-17 10:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-17 12:22 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Seymore4Head <Seymore4Head@Hotmail.invalid> - 2016-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-15 11:47 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-17 20:24 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-17 10:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-17 11:38 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-18 11:37 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-18 11:32 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-18 11:22 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-18 12:55 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-19 11:50 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 23:12 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-19 11:01 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-20 09:24 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-20 10:43 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-19 11:35 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-19 11:11 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-20 09:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 23:30 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con> - 2016-02-23 20:58 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-24 11:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-24 22:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-25 09:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-26 04:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:26 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-28 19:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 03:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 04:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-29 21:57 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 00:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 06:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 00:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 01:54 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:02 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 20:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 14:50 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:44 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-02 23:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 22:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:50 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:29 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 15:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:34 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Leonard Leonard <l.a.radio@kfi.con> - 2016-03-01 06:56 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:48 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 18:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-03 12:55 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:43 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:54 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-03 12:56 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-05 21:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:37 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 13:39 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:46 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 03:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-29 10:53 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-29 12:19 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:21 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:28 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 14:16 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 19:16 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:06 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 14:34 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 20:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 21:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 13:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 16:47 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:14 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:45 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 20:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:34 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 12:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:27 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-29 13:34 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 01:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:58 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:46 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:44 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 01:37 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 06:13 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 18:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:25 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 12:44 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 10:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 22:37 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-02 18:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-02 12:19 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 12:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:43 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 10:56 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:15 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:40 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:12 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-27 19:15 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-27 22:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 16:03 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 01:15 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "wagner" <wagner@dont-email.me> - 2016-04-01 03:52 +0200
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2016-04-01 02:42 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-04-03 20:52 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2016-04-04 02:31 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-04-09 10:23 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-28 11:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 19:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 13:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 15:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-02-28 16:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 18:58 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:22 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 01:35 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 21:58 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 04:40 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 08:23 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 06:15 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 15:33 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 16:06 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:20 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 05:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 17:34 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-02 01:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 14:20 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 14:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 15:32 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 16:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 19:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 12:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 08:23 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 13:53 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:04 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 18:18 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 18:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 18:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:48 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-04 13:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:51 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-04 21:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:24 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-05 02:21 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:32 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 14:41 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 16:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:40 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:27 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:52 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 14:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:18 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:18 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:17 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:14 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 02:37 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:33 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 16:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:32 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 20:04 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 13:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 15:05 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 13:20 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 19:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 18:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 04:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 00:14 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 09:18 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 10:50 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 20:13 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Irreverend Dave <reverend_dave@ministerpants.com> - 2016-03-04 13:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 09:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:24 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:02 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:12 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 20:58 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 20:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 13:02 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 08:47 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 13:48 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 14:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 23:12 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:01 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 23:31 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 23:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 13:54 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 09:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 15:21 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 18:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 11:37 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 12:11 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-07 11:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-07 18:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 07:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 19:14 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:16 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 18:14 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 18:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:40 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:03 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:38 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:50 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 05:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-03 23:17 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 12:45 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:15 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:17 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 20:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 23:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 22:17 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:35 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 01:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:12 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 18:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 15:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-05 13:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-05 21:55 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:37 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:32 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:44 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 02:19 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 14:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:07 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 16:15 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 21:03 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:13 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 22:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 01:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:27 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-04 15:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-04 15:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 17:35 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:40 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:47 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 21:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:03 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:45 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 17:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 19:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:23 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:46 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 12:11 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 11:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 01:04 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:13 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-01 15:57 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:34 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 18:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-28 11:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 19:10 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 17:59 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 00:06 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:18 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 14:05 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 01:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-29 23:05 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:27 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 19:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 14:54 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 21:03 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-29 10:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 12:43 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:23 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:27 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 13:21 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 11:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 12:35 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:38 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 12:13 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:26 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:38 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:29 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:15 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:38 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-02 00:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 18:53 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 00:20 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 00:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 18:34 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:10 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 23:02 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 21:48 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:12 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 00:38 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 17:57 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-03-03 18:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 00:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 18:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 01:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 21:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 12:22 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 23:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 23:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:55 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 12:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:32 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 01:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 08:51 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-24 17:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-24 11:12 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-24 15:10 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-25 21:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:56 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-27 23:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-27 17:13 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:38 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:19 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-28 19:11 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:42 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 21:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 23:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-29 21:57 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 06:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:04 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 05:41 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Leonard Leonard <l.a.radio@kfi.con> - 2016-03-01 06:57 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-29 22:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 20:21 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-27 19:13 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 22:52 -0800
Page 2 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 24 Next page →
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 10:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <eopd7bhnn2rvof24hea3irtgp0c72slckr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109712 |
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 09:24:56 +1100, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >On 20-December-2015 5:01 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:55:41 -0600, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>> >>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>> A stupid lie. >>> >>> A falsifiable conclusion is not a belief - it's the only way to >>> treat ridiculous claims. >>> >>> These morons can't grasp that saying "God did it" to an atheist or any >>> other non-Christian is the same as Jesper insisting Krishna did it to >>> Christians. >>> >>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>> Another stupid lie. >>> >>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>> evidence that will create proof >>> So provide some of it, liar. >>> >>> These liars have never provided anything remotely resembling evidence. >>> >>> They claim it exists, and when cornered they offer a standard list >>> that has been debunked over and over again. >>> >>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and >>>> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no >>>> such evidence has been presented. >>> The proven serial liar knows this, because it has been pointed out >>> over and over again. >>> >>>>> http://ausnet.info/evidence >>>> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the >>>> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and >>>> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of >>>> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn >>>> something about the subject: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence >>>> >>>>>> But *you* are confusing evidence with >>>>>> anecdote. >>> It's a theist doing what theists do. >> Not all theists are like him. > >you don't know what I am I have a pretty good idea. >> I've known many who accept >> science in scientific fields while still believing in a >> deity, but they're rational enough to not usually post their >> beliefs in Usenet, at least not in groups dedicated to >> scientific investigation such as sci.skeptic. > >I replied to a post by YOU in alt.agnosticism. so one might just as well >ask why are you posting your scientific stuff in alt.agnosticism? Perhaps because agnosticism *is* a valid scientific position, since it says we can never know whether any deities exist? You *did* know that's what agnosticism means, right? Or did you think it means something like "weak atheism", as it's coming to mean among some who don't know its origin? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism : "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology." But since you object, I've eliminated the crossposts. >> They know that >> science doesn't deal with unsupported belief regarding >> things which are inherently not susceptible to scientific >> investigation. It's a self-selective process, and the losers >> (multiple meanings) post here. -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 11:35 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ddjn37F2a9vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109705 |
On 19-December-2015 5:22 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: > >> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>> >>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>> >>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>> those are all beliefs >>>> >>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>> is obvious. >>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>> No, he's not. >> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >> evidence that will create proof > Sorry, you should be... :) > but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; > everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes > available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* > evidence which explains the data at least as well, and > preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no > such evidence has been presented. but we are/were not talking about evidence constituting scientific proof, we were talking about evidence in general. there was never any mention of your so-called scientific proof. and you say there is no such thing as proof, yet cite what is tantamount to proof as being required!. but of course there is such a thing as proof. conclusive evidence amounts to proof. you're just creating a red herring to try to justify denying the existence of any evidence for those things. and we know why atheists do that. so they can deny there is any evidence for the existence of God. > >> http://ausnet.info/evidence > Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the > same way, "theory" means something completely different, and > much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of > "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn > something about the subject: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence these may help you keep on track.. evidence for ghosts: http://tinyurl.com/nm2kldx (29 million hits) evidence for UFO's: http://tinyurl.com/h9rofds (2.7 million hits) evidence for god: http://tinyurl.com/havebuk (174 million hits) but poor old psychics only get less than half a million: http://tinyurl.com/zukvv4v and while I have your attention.. might I suggest that science does not provide an explanation for everything. how would science explain the appreciation of art, or 'gut feeling' for example? -- rgds, Pete ------- Anti-Racist is a Code Word for Anti-White, Diversity, multiculturalism, inclusive society, are all code words for White Genocide! http://thereligionofpeace.com http://pamelageller.com/ http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html the picture that shocked the world!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/hypocrisy.jpg "No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?" "ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith" -Barack Obama, idiotic President and Grand Imam of the USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 11:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <8s6b7b1okqcn4fong6eo75ik3nbjduq1t1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109707 |
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:35:35 +1100, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >On 19-December-2015 5:22 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >> >>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>> >>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>> >>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>> >>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>> is obvious. >>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>> No, he's not. >>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>> evidence that will create proof >> Sorry, > >you should be... :) > >> but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and >> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no >> such evidence has been presented. > >but we are/were not talking about evidence constituting scientific >proof That's implied by the group in which I'm reading your post; it isn't sci.skeptic because it's about philosophy or semantics. Write that on your hand. >, we were talking about evidence in general. there was never any >mention of your so-called scientific proof. and you say there is no such >thing as proof, yet cite what is tantamount to proof as being required!. Nope, and your insistence that evidence and proof are synonymous simply reinforces the fact that you're scientifically illiterate (not a flame; you're far from unique in that). >but of course there is such a thing as proof. conclusive evidence >amounts to proof. you're just creating a red herring to try to justify >denying the existence of any evidence for those things. and we know why >atheists do that. so they can deny there is any evidence for the >existence of God. Post the evidence. Remember that it must be objective; no "the Bible says" anecdote. >>> http://ausnet.info/evidence >> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the >> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and >> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of >> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn >> something about the subject: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence > >these may help you keep on track.. No need; I'm still on track. Any of those provide objective evidence? You *do* know what "objective" means, right? >evidence for ghosts: http://tinyurl.com/nm2kldx (29 million hits) > >evidence for UFO's: http://tinyurl.com/h9rofds (2.7 million hits) > >evidence for god: http://tinyurl.com/havebuk (174 million hits) > >but poor old psychics only get less than half a million: >http://tinyurl.com/zukvv4v > >and while I have your attention.. might I suggest that science does not >provide an explanation for everything. how would science explain the >appreciation of art, or 'gut feeling' for example? It doesn't, except in a *very* general way. Nor does it explain anything else it can't investigate using the methods of science, including the existence of deities which use their abilities to stay hidden; they may or may not exist, but we have no way to verify either. Is that a problem for you? It shouldn't be, since you've chosen to post in a sci newsgroup. -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 09:23 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ddm3ntFko4vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109710 |
On 20-December-2015 5:11 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:35:35 +1100, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: > >> On 19-December-2015 5:22 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>> >>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>> >>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>> >>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>> No, he's not. >>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>> evidence that will create proof >>> Sorry, >> you should be... :) >> >>> but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and >>> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no >>> such evidence has been presented. >> but we are/were not talking about evidence constituting scientific >> proof > That's implied by the group in which I'm reading your post; > it isn't sci.skeptic because it's about philosophy or > semantics. Write that on your hand. and shove this up your arse!.. I am reading and posting in alt.agnosticism. YOU are posting here. a nice attempt at avoidance, but the fact remains that this was never about any scientific interpretations. If you don't want to see my replies to your comments then DON'T POST IN ALT.AGNOSTICISM. you can safely post in sci.septic without fear of criticism or rebuttal from me. > >> , we were talking about evidence in general. there was never any >> mention of your so-called scientific proof. and you say there is no such >> thing as proof, yet cite what is tantamount to proof as being required!. > Nope, and your insistence that evidence and proof are > synonymous simply reinforces the fact that you're > scientifically illiterate (not a flame; you're far from > unique in that). > >> but of course there is such a thing as proof. conclusive evidence >> amounts to proof. you're just creating a red herring to try to justify >> denying the existence of any evidence for those things. and we know why >> atheists do that. so they can deny there is any evidence for the >> existence of God. > Post the evidence. Remember that it must be objective; no > "the Bible says" anecdote. It's been done over an over, and I know you have seen and commented in the past, so I'm not going to indulge you just so you can say 'that's not evidence'. and haven't you just been grizzling about ppl posting stuff that isn't about science? so why are you even asking? but you can look here if you're REALLY interested.. http://tinyurl.com/havebuk > >>>> http://ausnet.info/evidence >>> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the >>> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and >>> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of >>> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn >>> something about the subject: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence >> these may help you keep on track.. > No need; I'm still on track. Any of those provide objective > evidence? You *do* know what "objective" means, right? > >> evidence for ghosts: http://tinyurl.com/nm2kldx (29 million hits) >> >> evidence for UFO's: http://tinyurl.com/h9rofds (2.7 million hits) >> >> evidence for god: http://tinyurl.com/havebuk (174 million hits) >> >> but poor old psychics only get less than half a million: >> http://tinyurl.com/zukvv4v >> >> and while I have your attention.. might I suggest that science does not >> provide an explanation for everything. how would science explain the >> appreciation of art, or 'gut feeling' for example? > It doesn't, except in a *very* general way. Nor does it > explain anything else it can't investigate using the methods > of science, including the existence of deities which use > their abilities to stay hidden; they may or may not exist, > but we have no way to verify either. right. so science doesn't have an answer for everything. keep that in mind. > Is that a problem for you? no, not at all. but it might be a problem for someone who want's to believe that science can explain everything. science is a discipline. just like mathematics, or philosophy. science does what science does, so it should stick to that. > It shouldn't be, since you've chosen to post in a sci > newsgroup. -- rgds, Pete ------- Anti-Racist is a Code Word for Anti-White, Diversity, multiculturalism, inclusive society, are all code words for White Genocide! http://thereligionofpeace.com http://pamelageller.com/ http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html the picture that shocked the world!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/hypocrisy.jpg "No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?" "ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith" -Barack Obama, idiotic President and Grand Imam of the USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | youngblood2949@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 23:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <8f75d095-92bb-462f-a8cf-df8e7019b15f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109711 |
On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:24:00 PM UTC-8, felix_unger wrote: > On 20-December-2015 5:11 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:35:35 +1100, the following appeared > > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: > > > >> On 19-December-2015 5:22 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared > >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: > >>> > >>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared > >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run > >>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that > >>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his > >>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I > >>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies > >>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you > >>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly > >>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied > >>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond > >>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take > >>>>>>>>> into consideration. > >>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a > >>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no > >>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. > >>>>>> those are all beliefs > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the > >>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion > >>>>>>> is obvious. > >>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof > >>>>> No, he's not. > >>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already > >>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. > >>>> evidence that will create proof > >>> Sorry, > >> you should be... :) > >> > >>> but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; > >>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes > >>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* > >>> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and > >>> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no > >>> such evidence has been presented. > >> but we are/were not talking about evidence constituting scientific > >> proof > > That's implied by the group in which I'm reading your post; > > it isn't sci.skeptic because it's about philosophy or > > semantics. Write that on your hand. > > and shove this up your arse!.. I am reading and posting in > alt.agnosticism. YOU are posting here. a nice attempt at avoidance, but > the fact remains that this was never about any scientific > interpretations. If you don't want to see my replies to your comments > then DON'T POST IN ALT.AGNOSTICISM. you can safely post in sci.septic > without fear of criticism or rebuttal from me. > > > > >> , we were talking about evidence in general. there was never any > >> mention of your so-called scientific proof. and you say there is no such > >> thing as proof, yet cite what is tantamount to proof as being required!. > > Nope, and your insistence that evidence and proof are > > synonymous simply reinforces the fact that you're > > scientifically illiterate (not a flame; you're far from > > unique in that). > > > >> but of course there is such a thing as proof. conclusive evidence > >> amounts to proof. you're just creating a red herring to try to justify > >> denying the existence of any evidence for those things. and we know why > >> atheists do that. so they can deny there is any evidence for the > >> existence of God. > > Post the evidence. Remember that it must be objective; no > > "the Bible says" anecdote. > > It's been done over an over, and I know you have seen and commented in > the past, so I'm not going to indulge you just so you can say 'that's > not evidence'. and haven't you just been grizzling about ppl posting > stuff that isn't about science? so why are you even asking? but you can > look here if you're REALLY interested.. http://tinyurl.com/havebuk > > > > >>>> http://ausnet.info/evidence > >>> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the > >>> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and > >>> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of > >>> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn > >>> something about the subject: > >>> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence > >> these may help you keep on track.. > > No need; I'm still on track. Any of those provide objective > > evidence? You *do* know what "objective" means, right? > > > >> evidence for ghosts: http://tinyurl.com/nm2kldx (29 million hits) > >> > >> evidence for UFO's: http://tinyurl.com/h9rofds (2.7 million hits) > >> > >> evidence for god: http://tinyurl.com/havebuk (174 million hits) > >> > >> but poor old psychics only get less than half a million: > >> http://tinyurl.com/zukvv4v > >> > >> and while I have your attention.. might I suggest that science does not > >> provide an explanation for everything. how would science explain the > >> appreciation of art, or 'gut feeling' for example? > > It doesn't, except in a *very* general way. Nor does it > > explain anything else it can't investigate using the methods > > of science, including the existence of deities which use > > their abilities to stay hidden; they may or may not exist, > > but we have no way to verify either. > > right. so science doesn't have an answer for everything. keep that in mind. > No one has said that science has an answer for everything. Certainly not yet, there is far too much to know to say we know it all, but we are much more likely to learn the answers to life, the universe and everything through science than any other method. > > Is that a problem for you? > > no, not at all. but it might be a problem for someone who want's to > believe that science can explain everything. science is a discipline. > just like mathematics, or philosophy. science does what science does, so > it should stick to that. > Science is not a discipline, it is how we learn about the nature of the universe and how we fit into it. There are many scientific disciplines but science itself and the scientific method are the tools used to determine truth about anything, at least anything testable. You can't determine truth about anything using faith. Evidence? The difference in human progress after the Dark Ages ended. Somebody said: Science makes it possible for humans to build airplanes so we can fly. Religion gets humans to fly planes into buildings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <9l5qcb9h4kvvl01c1ktviscrhm8481tdbt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109705 |
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>
>>On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>
>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>
>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>> those are all beliefs
>>>>
>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>
>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>
>>> No, he's not.
>
>>yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>>evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>>evidence that will create proof
>
>Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>evidence
One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far"
as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence it
will change things a LOT on this planet, so if he does exist and wants things to
be as they are he's....LOL....not going to provide it. That's so easy, and so
obvious, and such a BASIC starting line in regards to thinking about all this,
but none of you people can ever get that "far". The biggest question in regards
to that FACT is WHY can't you get to that starting line? What prevents you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 20:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <8Mazy.2095$KF5.952@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #109746 |
On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >> >>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>> >>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>> >>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>> >>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>> is obvious. >>>>> >>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >> >>>> No, he's not. >> >>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>> evidence that will create proof >> >> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >> evidence > > One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" > as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence Doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 11:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <hotrcb97t9mjngv0bit1kd3n69rv89688p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109750 |
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>> >>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>> >>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>> >>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>> >>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>> >>>>> No, he's not. >>> >>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>> evidence that will create proof >>> >>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>> evidence >> >> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >Doesn't. Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go away". -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 22:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <96hv1p.3ej.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109753 |
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor > <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: > >> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>> >>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>> >>>>>> No, he's not. >>>> >>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>> >>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>> evidence >>> >>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence > >> Doesn't. > > Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to > think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go > away". I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking skills and reject their personal gods? If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 09:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <oqbucb571n93sbog91fuc91lgr2l58c0c4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109754 |
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>: >Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor >> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >> >>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>> >>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>> >>>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>> >>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>>> evidence >>>> >>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >> >>> Doesn't. >> >> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to >> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go >> away". > >I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian >will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they >will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of >gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch >their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a >sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when >they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking >skills and reject their personal gods? It's not restricted to Christians. Although some religious believers tend to ignore disbelief in their deities or dogma (Buddhists, for example), I suggest you avoid using logic on a fundamentalist Islamic since the result might be a bit more drastic than "getting uptight". Heads you lose, as it were. >If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, >shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? Sure. But science doesn't address religious beliefs in general, or the existence of deities in particular. It *does* sometimes address claims made by believers, but only if they can be investigated by the methods of science. For example, science can investigate (and has) the possibility of a Noachian Flood (negative); it hasn't (and cannot) investigate whether Moses was given two stone tablets by a deity (no way to tell). -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <8djvcbdov8u7bidrqqbhc7m6fu6gs9vs5o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109754 |
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor
>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>:
>>
>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, he's not.
>>>>>
>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>>>>>> evidence that will create proof
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>>>>> evidence
>>>>
>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far"
>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence
>>
>>> Doesn't.
>>
>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to
>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go
>> away".
>
>I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian
>will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they
>will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of
>gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch
>their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a
>sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when
>they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking
>skills and reject their personal gods?
>
>If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs,
>shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all?
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
That's one basic starting line strong atheists can't get as "far" as. Putting
faith in the possibility that no beings from outside this star system ever had
or have influence on how things develop on this planet is what strong atheism
is. I'm a weak agnostic and so consider the possibility that it has happened,
may still be happening, and may continue to happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 04:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <96l939.tbb.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109759 |
<mur@.> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor >>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >>> >>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>>> >>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>>>> evidence >>>>> >>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >>> >>>> Doesn't. >>> >>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to >>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go >>> away". >> >> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian >> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they >> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of >> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch >> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a >> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when >> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking >> skills and reject their personal gods? >> >> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, >> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? > > 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all > who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what > they call him or what they think about him. Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their one and only deity. > That's one basic starting line strong atheists can't get as "far" as. Putting > faith in the possibility that no beings from outside this star system ever had Faith? That is something dogmatic in nature taken as being true without evidence or even in the face of contradictory evidence. > or have influence on how things develop on this planet is what strong atheism > is. I'm a weak agnostic and so consider the possibility that it has happened, > may still be happening, and may continue to happen. I see no evidence to support a need for any creator. Minus evidence one must use Occam's Razor. Thus else one has a need out of ignorance, there is no need for a creator. I actually believe if there is any sort of God, it is mankind which is gods creator, not visa versa. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 08:23 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djeiioFe8usU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109763 |
On 26-February-2016 3:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > <mur@.> wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor >>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >>>> >>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>>>>> evidence >>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >>>>> Doesn't. >>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to >>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go >>>> away". >>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian >>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they >>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of >>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch >>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a >>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when >>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking >>> skills and reject their personal gods? >>> >>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, >>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? >> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all >> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what >> they call him or what they think about him. > Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most > religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the > creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their > one and only deity. it's merely a view or opinion. whether religious devotees agree or not is irrelevant > > >> That's one basic starting line strong atheists can't get as "far" as. Putting >> faith in the possibility that no beings from outside this star system ever had > Faith? That is something dogmatic in nature taken as being true without > evidence or even in the face of contradictory evidence. > >> or have influence on how things develop on this planet is what strong atheism >> is. I'm a weak agnostic and so consider the possibility that it has happened, >> may still be happening, and may continue to happen. > I see no evidence to support a need for any creator. > > Minus evidence one must use Occam's Razor. Thus else one has a need out of > ignorance, there is no need for a creator. I actually believe if there is > any sort of God, it is mankind which is gods creator, not visa versa. > -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 23:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <v8u4dbtoaitveefhrecfono3kdk1p7b9ua@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109770 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:23:53 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>On 26-February-2016 3:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> <mur@.> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor
>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not.
>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof
>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far"
>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence
>>>>>> Doesn't.
>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to
>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go
>>>>> away".
>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian
>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they
>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of
>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch
>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a
>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when
>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking
>>>> skills and reject their personal gods?
>>>>
>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs,
>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all?
>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>>> they call him or what they think about him.
>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most
>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the
>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their
>> one and only deity.
>
>it's merely a view or opinion.
May be, but the same can be said as equally truthfully about the sun and
moon. Do you think it's merely a view or opinion in regards to the sun and moon
as well as a creator, or different somehow?
>whether religious devotees agree or not
>is irrelevant
>
>>
>>
>>> That's one basic starting line strong atheists can't get as "far" as. Putting
>>> faith in the possibility that no beings from outside this star system ever had
>> Faith? That is something dogmatic in nature taken as being true without
>> evidence or even in the face of contradictory evidence.
>>
>>> or have influence on how things develop on this planet is what strong atheism
>>> is. I'm a weak agnostic and so consider the possibility that it has happened,
>>> may still be happening, and may continue to happen.
>> I see no evidence to support a need for any creator.
>>
>> Minus evidence one must use Occam's Razor. Thus else one has a need out of
>> ignorance, there is no need for a creator. I actually believe if there is
>> any sort of God, it is mankind which is gods creator, not visa versa.
>>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 17:26 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djficuFleecU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109777 |
On 28-February-2016 3:36 PM, mur@. wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:23:53 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >> On 26-February-2016 3:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>> <mur@.> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor >>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >>>>>>> Doesn't. >>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to >>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go >>>>>> away". >>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian >>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they >>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of >>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch >>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a >>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when >>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking >>>>> skills and reject their personal gods? >>>>> >>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, >>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? >>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all >>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what >>>> they call him or what they think about him. >>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most >>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the >>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their >>> one and only deity. >> it's merely a view or opinion. > May be, but the same can be said as equally truthfully about the sun and > moon. Do you think it's merely a view or opinion in regards to the sun and moon > as well as a creator, or different somehow? I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm agreeing with your no.2 and saying it's a valid view regardless of who agrees or not -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 17:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <96s1uq.aqj.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109784 |
felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > On 28-February-2016 3:36 PM, mur@. wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:23:53 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 26-February-2016 3:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>> <mur@.> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor >>>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >>>>>>>> Doesn't. >>>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to >>>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go >>>>>>> away". >>>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian >>>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they >>>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of >>>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch >>>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a >>>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when >>>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking >>>>>> skills and reject their personal gods? >>>>>> >>>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, >>>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? >>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all >>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what >>>>> they call him or what they think about him. >>>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most >>>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the >>>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their >>>> one and only deity. >>> it's merely a view or opinion. >> May be, but the same can be said as equally truthfully about the sun and >> moon. Do you think it's merely a view or opinion in regards to the sun and moon >> as well as a creator, or different somehow? > > I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm agreeing with your no.2 and saying > it's a valid view regardless of who agrees or not I don't agree with his number two. The starting "If" is a qualifier. If one was to use that they could reasonable say: 'If this, then that' and not provide any supporting evidence. The truth is the supporting evidence is one of exclusiveness in each cultures mythical gods. The multitude of every cultures gods and the multitude of diverse and contradictory instructions from these multitude of mythical gods indicate the premise suggested in his number two is logically unsound. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 19:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <navhfg$9sf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109791 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:57:13 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: > felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: <snip> >> I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm agreeing with your no.2 and saying >> it's a valid view regardless of who agrees or not > > I don't agree with his number two. The starting "If" is a qualifier. If > one was to use that they could reasonable say: 'If this, then that' and > not provide any supporting evidence. The truth is the supporting > evidence is one of exclusiveness in each cultures mythical gods. > > The multitude of every cultures gods and the multitude of diverse and > contradictory instructions from these multitude of mythical gods > indicate the premise suggested in his number two is logically unsound. It's a load of number 2. -- 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 | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 03:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <96t4ta.lnk.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109795 |
Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:57:13 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: > >> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > > <snip> > >>> I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm agreeing with your no.2 and saying >>> it's a valid view regardless of who agrees or not >> >> I don't agree with his number two. The starting "If" is a qualifier. If >> one was to use that they could reasonable say: 'If this, then that' and >> not provide any supporting evidence. The truth is the supporting >> evidence is one of exclusiveness in each cultures mythical gods. >> >> The multitude of every cultures gods and the multitude of diverse and >> contradictory instructions from these multitude of mythical gods >> indicate the premise suggested in his number two is logically unsound. > > It's a load of number 2. > I used more words to say the same thing... -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <3jf7dbtfp8ctju5el1rn26q0s53jfr3jek@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109791 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:57:13 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>> On 28-February-2016 3:36 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:23:53 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26-February-2016 3:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>> <mur@.> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor
>>>>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not.
>>>>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>>>>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>>>>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far"
>>>>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't.
>>>>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to
>>>>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go
>>>>>>>> away".
>>>>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian
>>>>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they
>>>>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of
>>>>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch
>>>>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a
>>>>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when
>>>>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking
>>>>>>> skills and reject their personal gods?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs,
>>>>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all?
>>>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>>>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>>>>>> they call him or what they think about him.
>>>>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most
>>>>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the
>>>>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their
>>>>> one and only deity.
>>>> it's merely a view or opinion.
>>> May be, but the same can be said as equally truthfully about the sun and
>>> moon. Do you think it's merely a view or opinion in regards to the sun and moon
>>> as well as a creator, or different somehow?
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm agreeing with your no.2 and saying
>> it's a valid view regardless of who agrees or not
>
>I don't agree with his number two. The starting "If" is a qualifier. If one
>was to use that they could reasonable say: 'If this, then that' and not
>provide any supporting evidence. The truth is the supporting evidence is
>one of exclusiveness in each cultures mythical gods.
>
>The multitude of every cultures gods and the multitude of diverse and
>contradictory instructions from these multitude of mythical gods indicate
>the premise suggested in his number two is logically unsound.
So the multitude of every belief about the sun and moon and the multitude of
diverse and contradictory belief about the sun and moon indicate the premise
suggested in number two is logically unsound in your opinion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 04:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <96t59k.hha.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109807 |
<mur@.> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:57:13 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> On 28-February-2016 3:36 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:23:53 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 26-February-2016 3:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>> <mur@.> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dave Taylor >>>>>>>>> <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those are all beliefs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. >>>>>>>>>>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that will create proof >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>>>>>>>>>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>>>>>>>>>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>>> One of the basic starting lines that you stupid atheists can't get as "far" >>>>>>>>>>> as is that if God does provide objective verifiable evidence of his existence >>>>>>>>>> Doesn't. >>>>>>>>> Ignore him; he can't comprehend what I wrote, and seems to >>>>>>>>> think he has to make unwarranted conjectures to make it "go >>>>>>>>> away". >>>>>>>> I find it odd, if one rejects the Greek mythology, a modern day Christian >>>>>>>> will rejoice. If one rejects the Roman, Celtic or Norse mythology, they >>>>>>>> will praise your choice. If one were to reject all the eastern pantheons of >>>>>>>> gods and deities, then you are proclaims as one with true vision. Watch >>>>>>>> their reaction if you move away from the belief in nature or the earth as a >>>>>>>> sentient being. Then can you do anything but gape with incredulity when >>>>>>>> they get so uptight when you use the very same set of critical thinking >>>>>>>> skills and reject their personal gods? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If one uses a set of criteria to judge one set of religious beliefs, >>>>>>>> shouldn't you use the same set of criteria to judge them all? >>>>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all >>>>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what >>>>>>> they call him or what they think about him. >>>>>> Sorry there is no evidence to support that claim. Matter of fact most >>>>>> religious cults will deny that statement and claim exclusive rights to the >>>>>> creator including point to write myths which claim exclusiveness of their >>>>>> one and only deity. >>>>> it's merely a view or opinion. >>>> May be, but the same can be said as equally truthfully about the sun and >>>> moon. Do you think it's merely a view or opinion in regards to the sun and moon >>>> as well as a creator, or different somehow? >>> >>> I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm agreeing with your no.2 and saying >>> it's a valid view regardless of who agrees or not >> >> I don't agree with his number two. The starting "If" is a qualifier. If one >> was to use that they could reasonable say: 'If this, then that' and not >> provide any supporting evidence. The truth is the supporting evidence is >> one of exclusiveness in each cultures mythical gods. >> >> The multitude of every cultures gods and the multitude of diverse and >> contradictory instructions from these multitude of mythical gods indicate >> the premise suggested in his number two is logically unsound. > > So the multitude of every belief about the sun and moon and the multitude of > diverse and contradictory belief about the sun and moon indicate the premise > suggested in number two is logically unsound in your opinion. > It has been a long time since modern man worshiped the sun and moon. I don't know about how you worship but a great deal is known about the sun and the moon, there is a great deal to still learn. We don't believe in a sun and moon. We may suspect a great deal about them, but few believe in them anymore. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web